gareth thomas loves nigel owens

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Charles @ Dec 28 2009, 02:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Dec 27 2009, 06:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, I do not. Sex is sex. You can't teach base instincts. You can teach children to temper those instincts and live an honest life, and you can teach children to indulge those instincts through submission to an ideology.[/b]

So although you agree it is natural you think people should refrain from being themselves ? WHo are you to decide what is an honest life ? I guess you think left handed ppl should be forced to use their right hand as well... Is being natural a crime if it doesn't fit your middle age moral sense ?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

The state actively promotes homosexuality and feminism in order to destroy the family as a social unit. Sadly, parents can't be left alone to guide their children as they think fit.[/b]

:huh: How exactly ? GOt any proof to back this up ? By teaching history, and promoting gender equality ? Still better than backwards religion that make women second class citizens if you ask me ...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Ask any man who's been divorced his view of the practical outcome of sexual politics, and he might have some advice for you about who's the idiot. You are walking in to a world of pain, dressed up as equality.

I've done the liberal university stuff. Thankfully, life has taught me better lessons about choosing for myself. You have some growing up ahead - better to do it through forethought rather than experience.

Do not become an economic eunuch through ideology. Live free. All the best![/b]

What the f*** has divorce and economy to do with it ? You're losing it mate. And you got foam around your mouth.
Btw I'm very well with my sexuality and my wife thx very much. And I couldn't give a **** about what other ppl do in their rooms.
It's not the 18th century anymore ! Live free
[/b][/quote]
Being lectured by a French ideologue on the "terreurs" of the 18th century is ironic.

I'm very happy to have the freedom to do what I want in private. Same for everyone else - for example, you and your wife (please post pics).

We understand that life is about rights and duties, yes? That you don't just blow off without regard to others, so tempering your instincts is essential to being civilised. Having the state promote your instincts is wrong, and that's where economics is crucial. The gay movement is nothing to do with personal freedom. The only thing necessary to protect sexual freedom was the repeal of criminal sanctions against buggery - which also applied to man-on-woman. Everything after that - all the positive discrimination in the workplace and the increasingly equal treatment of "gay" relationships with family relationships - is just a means for the state to increase its control over the lives of the people.

In the past the church described the morals of society, but it was the state that invaded people's lives. The new state goes further because it now plans people's lives. In the UK single mothers on state benefits have a middle class income. Mothers who divorce their husbands expect to walk away with the entire wealth of the family. That is the reality dictated by the state, and it's done by the state borrowing at the expense of people who live conventional lives. In other words: why would any woman get married when the state can be her provider? why would any man get married when he runs the risk of financial ruin through no fault of his own? That is the perversion of ordinary hopes that statist politicians inflict on us.

Use your common sense, and do not put your trust in their grand plans.

Apart from that, I do find faggish "we're here, we're queer" behaviour irritating, although I admit that without it most of the entertainment industry would collapse. That's how I feel. No doubt you will demand the introduction of some rule against the expression of my idiotic opinion.

 

[Bullitt]

Part and parcel these days when to be described as a homophobe is considered as worse then being racist or a paedophile.

Then the *ahem* 'sharp witted' sorts who take offense to someone displaying homophobic opinions as "a closet gay". Irony is a subtle companion.

 

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Little Richardjohn @ Dec 28 2009, 12:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

So several hours a day teaching literacy and maths produces a generation hardly able to read and add up, or so we're told. Meanwhile an afternoon a month of basic sex education, most of it devoted mainly to an anti-bullying agenda, can reverse the entire sexuality of the student.
Must be some lesson plan.
I see that you react very violently to the idea that men can love men and women women. Why is it any business of yours? Most people who feel that threatened by the affections and sex lives of others are insecure about their own. Alfie probably went through a similar phase before the surrounding culture caught up with him and gave him courage in himself.
I see you are also frightened by gays and women exerting their basic human rights, which doesn't really leave you any room to move - except back to your log cabin in the woods, where your species would die out very quickly after you'd shot all the squirrels.
If you object to sexual politics, why do you engage in it? If only on the side of Atilla the Hun.
And if you are able to exert your 'choice', why aren't others?
What did you choose in the end, anyway? Anyone having gone through several failed marriages might reasonably conclude that an alternative lifestyle might be a happier 'choice' for everyone.[/b]

With all due respect, you are a total fag.

 

[gingergenius]

Shtove, I can see your point that the 'gay' movement (along with other equality movements) should, in theory, stop once they are given the same rights as everyone else.

However, it is not that simple.

Most people express their sexuality in one way or another. Straight people, gay people, whatever. The clothes they wear, body language, the way they talk, so on.

However, because being gay is unusual - in particular acting like a fairy, or being butch - it gets noticed more. And in the same way a busty woman may wear lowcut tops, so a fairy may 'play up' how camp they actually are.

Either way, differences in people create prejudice. That's human nature. So while the law back in the 60s may have changed to allow gay men complete freedom in the bedroom, it did not automatically allow them complete freedom in wider society. Prejudice from others in the workplace or anywhere else curtails this freedom.

So, the state makes equality laws to override this. Allowing people to have intercourse with whoever they choose does not stop others from persecuting them in the same way that allowing people to own property does not stop theft. A happy balance must be found - so the state puts in 'restrictions' to our activities in order to allow greater freedom.

 

[Sir Speedy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bullitt @ Dec 28 2009, 01:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

to be described as a homophobe is considered as worse then being racist.[/b]

I don't see any difference between the two labels. They're as bad as each other.

You'd think "Don't discriminate" would be an easy ideal to abide by. Good God, humans are stupid.

 

[Little Richardjohn]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RC @ Dec 27 2009, 07:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

It's nice to see as Gareth Thomas makes it to the field for the first time since announcing his news, the welsh crowd at the Blues-Dragons derby all greet him positively...and the odd few decide to blow kisses at him. :lol:[/b]

Absolutely fantastic.

 

[Little Richardjohn]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Dec 28 2009, 01:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Little Richardjohn @ Dec 28 2009, 12:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So several hours a day teaching literacy and maths produces a generation hardly able to read and add up, or so we're told. Meanwhile an afternoon a month of basic sex education, most of it devoted mainly to an anti-bullying agenda, can reverse the entire sexuality of the student.
Must be some lesson plan.
I see that you react very violently to the idea that men can love men and women women. Why is it any business of yours? Most people who feel that threatened by the affections and sex lives of others are insecure about their own. Alfie probably went through a similar phase before the surrounding culture caught up with him and gave him courage in himself.
I see you are also frightened by gays and women exerting their basic human rights, which doesn't really leave you any room to move - except back to your log cabin in the woods, where your species would die out very quickly after you'd shot all the squirrels.
If you object to sexual politics, why do you engage in it? If only on the side of Atilla the Hun.
And if you are able to exert your 'choice', why aren't others?
What did you choose in the end, anyway? Anyone having gone through several failed marriages might reasonably conclude that an alternative lifestyle might be a happier 'choice' for everyone.[/b]

With all due respect, you are a total fag.
[/b][/quote]
But then, all reactionaries and bullies are paper tigers.
Your tragedy, though, is that you still don't realise that trying to insult someone by calling them gay, or a 'fag', no longer works. even when it's true.
Homosexuality is not only no longer a crime punishabe by imprisonment, mutilation or death, as in your fantasy world, but not even reprehensible in any way.
You're on your own in your log cabin, sunshine. Sad. When you've come to terms with your own identity, come out and tell us. At the moment, you don't seem to know if you're coming or going.

 

[Bullitt]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Little Richardjohn @ Dec 28 2009, 10:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Dec 28 2009, 01:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Little Richardjohn @ Dec 28 2009, 12:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So several hours a day teaching literacy and maths produces a generation hardly able to read and add up, or so we're told. Meanwhile an afternoon a month of basic sex education, most of it devoted mainly to an anti-bullying agenda, can reverse the entire sexuality of the student.
Must be some lesson plan.
I see that you react very violently to the idea that men can love men and women women. Why is it any business of yours? Most people who feel that threatened by the affections and sex lives of others are insecure about their own. Alfie probably went through a similar phase before the surrounding culture caught up with him and gave him courage in himself.
I see you are also frightened by gays and women exerting their basic human rights, which doesn't really leave you any room to move - except back to your log cabin in the woods, where your species would die out very quickly after you'd shot all the squirrels.
If you object to sexual politics, why do you engage in it? If only on the side of Atilla the Hun.
And if you are able to exert your 'choice', why aren't others?
What did you choose in the end, anyway? Anyone having gone through several failed marriages might reasonably conclude that an alternative lifestyle might be a happier 'choice' for everyone.[/b]

With all due respect, you are a total fag.
[/b][/quote]
But then, all reactionaries and bullies are paper tigers.
Your tragedy, though, is that you still don't realise that trying to insult someone by calling them gay, or a 'fag', no longer works. even when it's true.
Homosexuality is not only no longer a crime punishabe by imprisonment, mutilation or death, as in your fantasy world, but not even reprehensible in any way.
You're on your own in your log cabin, sunshine. Sad. When you've come to terms with your own identity, come out and tell us. At the moment, you don't seem to know if you're coming or going.
[/b][/quote]

People should watch this - Season 13, Episode 12 "The F Word"

 

[Little Richardjohn]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Dec 28 2009, 01:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Shtove, I can see your point that the 'gay' movement (along with other equality movements) should, in theory, stop once they are given the same rights as everyone else.

However, it is not that simple.

Most people express their sexuality in one way or another. Straight people, gay people, whatever. The clothes they wear, body language, the way they talk, so on.

However, because being gay is unusual - in particular acting like a fairy, or being butch - it gets noticed more. And in the same way a busty woman may wear lowcut tops, so a fairy may 'play up' how camp they actually are.

Either way, differences in people create prejudice. That's human nature. So while the law back in the 60s may have changed to allow gay men complete freedom in the bedroom, it did not automatically allow them complete freedom in wider society. Prejudice from others in the workplace or anywhere else curtails this freedom.

So, the state makes equality laws to override this. Allowing people to have intercourse with whoever they choose does not stop others from persecuting them in the same way that allowing people to own property does not stop theft. A happy balance must be found - so the state puts in 'restrictions' to our activities in order to allow greater freedom.[/b]

Quite.
It's a conniving lie to assert that merely repealing an ancient law can undo its hisstoric effects overnight.
As for morons who demand the eradication of the welfare state becaue it isn't natural, they should be allowed to keep their NI payments, and try to get by on BUPA.

 

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Dec 28 2009, 01:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Shtove, I can see your point that the 'gay' movement (along with other equality movements) should, in theory, stop once they are given the same rights as everyone else.

However, it is not that simple.

Most people express their sexuality in one way or another. Straight people, gay people, whatever. The clothes they wear, body language, the way they talk, so on.

However, because being gay is unusual - in particular acting like a fairy, or being butch - it gets noticed more. And in the same way a busty woman may wear lowcut tops, so a fairy may 'play up' how camp they actually are.

Either way, differences in people create prejudice. That's human nature. So while the law back in the 60s may have changed to allow gay men complete freedom in the bedroom, it did not automatically allow them complete freedom in wider society. Prejudice from others in the workplace or anywhere else curtails this freedom.

So, the state makes equality laws to override this. Allowing people to have intercourse with whoever they choose does not stop others from persecuting them in the same way that allowing people to own property does not stop theft. A happy balance must be found - so the state puts in 'restrictions' to our activities in order to allow greater freedom.[/b]

I can debate with that.

Substitute black for gay, and I will travel a fair distance down the road because black people are people. Gays are no different from anyone else, except they call themselves "gay" and think everyone should accept this logic even as it disappears up its own arse.

Criminalising slave ownership (applies to all races, by the way) snapped the prison lock, but the people were still in terrible conditions. How do you give them a fair chance? A blanket from nanny state? Or getting the state to step aside and let them follow their own path? I don't know. It's probably as tricky as parenting, with lots of discretion used on the way and an ultimate goal of letting go. The Irish have a similar (not same) experience.

But what you call gay, I call play acting. It's not unusual or fundamental (oo err), it's about choice. Every man has a choice every minute of the day what to do with his ... errrrm ... sexuality. Let's call it his dick. And a man should not lose control. If he does lose control, he's avoiding responsibility, possibly to the extent of criminality where he crushes the consent of others. But with responsibility, he may do whatever he desires including acts that used to be prosecuted (including man on woman).

Those are clear boundaries. But here comes a political movement that says - Noooo, it's all about sexuality - a cult of the penis - and everyone is wrong if they disagree. No balance, no equality, no sense, no humanity. That is anti-political because it results in the state telling people what to think, what to do. A power grab. Or reach-around.

Loss of dick control is not the root of this nonsense - it's a camouflage for socialism, which is always and everywhere about getting decent people to pay the bills of florid self-servers.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Little Richardjohn @ Dec 28 2009, 10:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Quite.
It's a conniving lie to assert that merely repealing an ancient law can undo its hisstoric effects overnight.
As for morons who demand the eradication of the welfare state becaue it isn't natural, they should be allowed to keep their NI payments, and try to get by on BUPA.[/b]

Can I have my income tax back as well? Give me a choice - I don't want to pitch in to your kitty. Miaow!

OK. Ignore everything I say and respond with sniggerthon, neanderthal, moron blah blah blah fear, loathing etc. Reactionary? A person who reacts. Homophobe? With an irrational fear of ... the same. Labels used by students who have yet to learn to think for themselves and reckon Gordo is bit ugly but still cool.

I don't care what you do with your dick. Stuff it in your granny's old tights and pretend to be a bankrobber. "I always knew that child was queer!"

 

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Dec 29 2009, 06:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

I can debate with that.

Substitute black for gay, and I will travel a fair distance down the road because black people are people. Gays are no different from anyone else, except they call themselves "gay" and think everyone should accept this logic even as it disappears up its own arse.

Criminalising slave ownership (applies to all races, by the way) snapped the prison lock, but the people were still in terrible conditions. How do you give them a fair chance? A blanket from nanny state? Or getting the state to step aside and let them follow their own path? I don't know. It's probably as tricky as parenting, with lots of discretion used on the way and an ultimate goal of letting go. The Irish have a similar (not same) experience.

But what you call gay, I call play acting. It's not unusual or fundamental (oo err), it's about choice. Every man has a choice every minute of the day what to do with his ... errrrm ... sexuality. Let's call it his dick. And a man should not lose control. If he does lose control, he's avoiding responsibility, possibly to the extent of criminality where he crushes the consent of others. But with responsibility, he may do whatever he desires including acts that used to be prosecuted (including man on woman).

Those are clear boundaries. But here comes a political movement that says - Noooo, it's all about sexuality - a cult of the penis - and everyone is wrong if they disagree. No balance, no equality, no sense, no humanity. That is anti-political because it results in the state telling people what to think, what to do. A power grab. Or reach-around.

Loss of dick control is not the root of this nonsense - it's a camouflage for socialism, which is always and everywhere about getting decent people to pay the bills of florid self-servers.[/b]

Almost everything you say is coming from someone living on a different planet. On your planet, sex seems to be something that can be locked away in a cupboard and taken out only when it's appropriate, in other words, your dick/ pussy, kept under pants for the good of everyone. Of course, this is ********.

As I said on a previous post, we are emitting sexual signals all the time. Sexuality is so much more than what's in your pants. It is in our language, eye contact, dress sense, personality... I need not go on. So yes, every man has the choice to keep his dick in his pants. And on the whole, we do. But that doesn't stop flirting, it doesn't stop us taking an extra look at a fit woman walking past, it doesn't even stop us making jokes with our mates about sex.

Being gay is not play acting. If it was, then I'm sure Gareth Thomas would have been perfectly happy with his wife and kids. Some people are attracted to members of their own sex. Some have a dubious sex anyway (see Lady Gaga/ Caster Semenya). People are not all hotwired the same way. Our sexuality is part of who we are; part of our identity and our personality, whether we like it or not.

Also in your world shtove is a concept that discrimination is caused by those who are discriminated against, rather than those who discriminate. As you say, black people are people, so it's not cool to discriminate against them. But why is a racist discriminating against someone who is black? Because they are different. Why are gays, women, other minorities discriminated against? Because they are different. The fault CLEARLY lies with the person who sees the difference and thinks they can treat different groups of humans in different ways.

So legislation is put in place to prevent the narrow-minded from discriminating against others. There's no argument to it unless you're into social Darwinism.

And on to your criticism of socialism. Decent people paying for the selfish. It's almost too easy to point out, but where is the correlation between 'decent' and 'wealthy', or between 'selfish' and 'poor'. There is none. Only extreme liberals (aka social Darwinists) can believe this. And true meritocracy can only occur when everyone has equality of oppurtunity. Which is just as unrealistic an ideal as communism. Which are both ends of the Libertarian - Authoritarian spectrum, and both barred by human nature. Give up on these views now.

 

[Little Richardjohn]

'Also in your world shtove is a concept that discrimination is caused by those who are discriminated against, rather than those who discriminate.'

It is a bizarre bit of desperate modern psychological contortionism which claims that to act against discrimination is to discriminate against the discriminators, and therefore discriminatory. When deployed by the bullies this is the finest expression of the law of the jungle, but when used according to all prevailing accepted moral and social codes to protect the vulnerable and outnumbered, is a monstrous breach of Human Rights.
A sort of 'Justice for Bullies and Bigots Campaign.' Motto: 'I'm not saying Hitler was right but..'
In other words, they don't like it up 'em.

 

[shtove]

Give it up. You're both brainwashed.

Discrimination is perfectly fine, so long as it's based on reason derived from observable fact.

Fact: there is no such thing as homosexuality, just a series of choices as to where one puts one's dick. Don't get me started on the argument about where one ... puts one's pussy.

 

[Bullitt]

Discrimination is in human nature... Women, Blacks, Youths, Irish, Gays, Fatsos, Smokers, Honest working people*... All deemed acceptable to discriminate against at one point or another.

Once "society" decided they're no longer fair game, they move straight onto the next one.


*venting...

 

[Prestwick]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Dec 30 2009, 12:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

As I said on a previous post, we are emitting sexual signals all the time.[/b]

Then I guess right now its...

SEXY TIIIME! :lol:

Sorry, this is all I have to offer to this debate. Carry on.

 

[Charles]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Dec 31 2009, 02:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Give it up. You're both brainwashed.

Discrimination is perfectly fine, so long as it's based on reason derived from observable fact.

Fact: there is no such thing as homosexuality, just a series of choices as to where one puts one's dick. Don't get me started on the argument about where one ... puts one's pussy.[/b]

:lol:

Gee this is unbelievable.

So what you're telling me is that you decided to be a heterosexual and that Gareth Thomas decided to be gay. Or is it only gay that decide and straight people don't ?

When exactly did you decide ? When did it occur to you that you had the choice but you preferred women ?


I want to know because I never got to decide. Somehow it was like that. I never got to decide if I wanted to be left-handed either, i just was.


Fact is you've been brainwashed by priests, who btw know one thing or two about putting their willies in "bad" places. What do yo think of this whole affair btw ?

 

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Charles @ Dec 31 2009, 02:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Dec 31 2009, 02:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Give it up. You're both brainwashed.

Discrimination is perfectly fine, so long as it's based on reason derived from observable fact.

Fact: there is no such thing as homosexuality, just a series of choices as to where one puts one's dick. Don't get me started on the argument about where one ... puts one's pussy.[/b]

:lol:

Gee this is unbelievable.

So what you're telling me is that you decided to be a heterosexual and that Gareth Thomas decided to be gay. Or is it only gay that decide and straight people don't ?

When exactly did you decide ? When did it occur to you that you had the choice but you preferred women ?

I want to know because I never got to decide. Somehow it was like that. I never got to decide if I wanted to be left-handed either, i just was.
[/b][/quote]
I make decisions all the time. Not always consistently.

So, tell me what this sexuality thing is and how you can prove its existence. I reckon you're a victim of groupthink.

(The only comment I make on the priest jibe is that your thoughts exist in cartoon world - no matter how hard a beating they take, they always spring back to life.)

 

[Nickdnz]

Wow, I just rejoined ths argument from the "Good old Gareth Thomas for coming out" to the present "You are allowed to discriminate and you have a choice to be gay or not".


Sexuality is which gender you are attracted to, and I don't believe you have much say in the matter. However shtove is claiming because I am using logical thinking and coming to a conclusion that as people, we are entitled to fair treatment and equality, that I have been brain washed and conformed into socialist way of thinking?

No, I'm saying I don't have a choice being attracted to females, just as I'm sure Gareth Thomas has no choices in being attracted to males. I'm sure there are people who over emphasise their feminine side, however the pure fact that they want to have sexual intercourse with another member of the same sex, is not a choice.

 

[Charles]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nickdnz @ Dec 31 2009, 04:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Wow, I just rejoined ths argument from the "Good old Gareth Thomas for coming out" to the present "You are allowed to discriminate and you have a choice to be gay or not".


Sexuality is which gender you are attracted to, and I don't believe you have much say in the matter. However shtove is claiming because I am using logical thinking and coming to a conclusion that as people, we are entitled to fair treatment and equality, that I have been brain washed and conformed into socialist way of thinking?

No, I'm saying I don't have a choice being attracted to females, just as I'm sure Gareth Thomas has no choices in being attracted to males. I'm sure there are people who over emphasise their feminine side, however the pure fact that they want to have sexual intercourse with another member of the same sex, is not a choice.[/b]

Thank you.

That is all.

 

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Dec 31 2009, 02:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Charles @ Dec 31 2009, 02:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Dec 31 2009, 02:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Give it up. You're both brainwashed.

Discrimination is perfectly fine, so long as it's based on reason derived from observable fact.

Fact: there is no such thing as homosexuality, just a series of choices as to where one puts one's dick. Don't get me started on the argument about where one ... puts one's pussy.[/b]

:lol:

Gee this is unbelievable.

So what you're telling me is that you decided to be a heterosexual and that Gareth Thomas decided to be gay. Or is it only gay that decide and straight people don't ?

When exactly did you decide ? When did it occur to you that you had the choice but you preferred women ?

I want to know because I never got to decide. Somehow it was like that. I never got to decide if I wanted to be left-handed either, i just was.
[/b][/quote]

I reckon you're a victim of groupthink.

[/b][/quote]

Like people who accept that the holocaust, 9/11 and lunar landings happened.

Conspiracy theories are fun but on the whole pointless. Grow up.

Besides, there is plenty of psychological and other scientific study into homosexuality. Where's your evidence to say it's a 100% choice?