Pride

[Common as Mook]

So people who may not be so good as you or make the odd spelling mistake are all queer bashers?

If that is what you are saying then you are a twat.

Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying (sarcasm in case you are too thick to realise).
I'm sure there plenty of tick people who are very comfortable with the idea of homosexuality. All i am saying is that those on here who show homophobic tendencies appear to be thicker than the complete works of Shakespheare.

 

[csider]

Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying (sarcasm in case you are too thick to realise).
I'm sure there plenty of tick people who are very comfortable with the idea of homosexuality. All i am saying is that those on here who show homophobic tendencies appear to be thicker than the complete works of Shakespheare.

To be or not to be...........I am not, give me fanny all day every day. Look I can spell but hate the pride festival!!!

 

[NMH]

Why does post 178 read like NMH *wanted* that to be a proposition of a date? Believe me, it wasn't. No gay man in the world is going to want an middle aged homophobe with split personalties (anyone remember Zoo B Zoo) and some fantastical tendancies.

Majority of homophobia is internalised homophobia - just look at the preachers in the US, DUP members (1), National Front (2) members, US Republicans (3), etc, etc, etc.

1 = Paul Berry
2 = Larry Craig
3 = Nicky Crane

See? You try to even be reasonable about gays, and you just get a queer **** that reminds you why they should be reviled.

I concede, you are right that it's impossible to actually take a liberal view or attitude - you either join them, or beat them.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

I was recently working with a gay bloke, and we were talking about a concert from some artist we both agreed was worthy - and we were both interested in seeing that artist. The gay fellow said "I want to go, but I don't have anyone to go with".

Now for me, I have no problem going to gigs alone anyway. But this statement smacked of someone interested in a date, not just a mate going to a gig and "like to talk about it afterwards with a pal".

Now, you educated and free-thinking NSCers; is it bigoted of me to not encourage any further or 'closer' friendship, and not to suggest "let's go together, I'll pick up a pair of tickets"?
So, would that be 'leading-on' a gayer, if I encouraged that sort of companionship? What if I said "it'll just be friendship/company, I'm straight"?
/QUOTE]






What are you frightened of? he is hardly going to slip rohypnol in your John Smiths and bum you up.

No, it would not be leading on a Gayer because your original analogy between men and women and gays and straights is flawed, gay men are still men and are therefore capable of keeping emotion out of everything.

If your mate was rubbing his moistened finger around his nipple when he asked you to go in the mosh pit at a scissor sisters gig with him then perhaps you should discourage him, otherwise be a man and go out with your poofy pal.

 

[Cian]

See? You try to even be reasonable about gays, and you just get a queer **** that reminds you why they should be reviled.

I concede, you are right that it's impossible to actually take a liberal view or attitude - you either join them, or beat them.

You, reasonable about gays? You never have been and you never will be.

Can you show me what in my post reminds you why "they should be reviled", please? Any details at all would be appreciated.

 

[NMH]

You, reasonable about gays? You never have been and you never will be.

Can you show me what in my post reminds you why "they should be reviled", please? Any details at all would be appreciated.

When people like you are reasonable, then perhaps you'd get a reasonable response. The only hope for 'gays' (in general) is that there are some out there who have more sense and don't actively TRY to wind people up and be 'queer'.

For people like you being around to 'defend' them, there'll always be people who actually hate homosexuals.

I've posted a reasoned debate and asked for reasonable response - and you just want to rile and point a nasty finger.
It's transparent that you CAN'T debate with reason, then.

 

[Cian]

You've never debated with reason. You've in the past approved of policies of extermination. You accuse all gay men of wanting to have sex with you in this very thread. You refuse, point blank, to move from a point of claiming its "wrong" and "unnatural" despite scientific evidence piling in to the contrary.

Nothing of my "defense" as you claim it to be gives a rational person a reason to hate. You, however, have never been rational. You're a sick, vile bigot as anyone can tell by looking at every single time you feel required to chime in on an issue which, by rights, should never affect you. You chose to let it affect you, to a level where you're clearly obsessed by it.

Let everyone else here judge, I've a feeling that those with an above room temperature IQ will make a specific judgement.

As goes "point a nasty finger", surely calling someone a "queer ****" counts as that? It also counts as incitement to hatred where I live, which is a fairly serious crime.

 

[NMH]

Why does post 178 read like NMH *wanted* that to be a proposition of a date? Believe me, it wasn't. No gay man in the world is going to want an middle aged homophobe with split personalties (anyone remember Zoo B Zoo) and some fantastical tendancies.

Majority of homophobia is internalised homophobia - just look at the preachers in the US, DUP members (1), National Front (2) members, US Republicans (3), etc, etc, etc.

1 = Paul Berry
2 = Larry Craig
3 = Nicky Crane

This is just a stupid reply, all the way.
It doesn't remotely suggest I want to be "a proposition of a date", that's just a queer response. "oow, I just bet he's a squeeky wheel wanting oil, NMH really WANTED to be asked out"
Don't be so stupid.

No gay man wants a middle aged 'phobe with split personalities? Great, I'm happy if that's the case. I'll just let them know upfront, if they can't tell..... or like I said before - I'll just keep away from them and their festival of gayness.

 

[Man of Harveys]

NMH's oddly-obsessive bigotry against gays - that they're ALL out secretly to BUM us - is simply and plainly just not borne out by even the slightest comparison with reality. None of my gay mates seem to fancy me, secretly or openly, or at all (yes, it's probably because I'm fat and ugly - ah well). But if they were ever desperate/stupid enough to hit on me - something which seems as unlikely as a very unlikely thing, I'd say "come off it, no thanks, I'm not like that" etc. and that would decidedly be that.

The idea of choosing not to socialise with any of them because of that unlikely eventuality would be complete anathema to me, the true sign of a nasty strain of bigotry. Plus you'd miss out on a great time. Definite sign of massive insecurity.

 

[NMH]

You've never debated with reason. You've in the past approved of policies of extermination. You accuse all gay men of wanting to have sex with you in this very thread. You refuse, point blank, to move from a point of claiming its "wrong" and "unnatural" despite scientific evidence piling in to the contrary.

Nothing of my "defense" as you claim it to be gives a rational person a reason to hate. You, however, have never been rational. You're a sick, vile bigot as anyone can tell by looking at every single time you feel required to chime in on an issue which, by rights, should never affect you. You chose to let it affect you, to a level where you're clearly obsessed by it.

Let everyone else here judge, I've a feeling that those with an above room temperature IQ will make a specific judgement.

As goes "point a nasty finger", surely calling someone a "queer ****" counts as that? It also counts as incitement to hatred where I live, which is a fairly serious crime.

Anyone who doesn't agree with a homosexual point of view HAS to be homophobic or obsessed?
I didn't make this thread to be "obsessed", and just tried to raise a point of debate on it like anyone else who has contributed.

I think I raised points about the homosexual society, and some of your own social issues that haven't been come to terms with - that are truths that hurt your general causes.

Homosexual men DO have problems dealing with straight men in their social group, and without incitement WILL actively create a problem out of their frustration. Are you going to now say you speak for ALL homosexuals, and suggest NONE have any problems - only straights have problems with homos?

No, I'm not aiming the "queer" accusation at all homosexuals, you earned that one all for yourself.

 

[Easy 10]

Homosexual men DO have problems dealing with straight men in their social group, and without incitement WILL actively create a problem out of their frustration. Are you going to now say you speak for ALL homosexuals

Well correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that exactly what YOU are doing, with this (fairly vast) sweeping generalisation / assumption of yours ?

 

[NMH]

NMH's oddly-obsessive bigotry against gays - that they're ALL out secretly to BUM us - is simply and plainly just not borne out by even the slightest comparison with reality. None of my gay mates seem to fancy me, secretly or openly, or at all (yes, it's probably because I'm fat and ugly - ah well). But if they were ever desperate/stupid enough to hit on me - something which seems as unlikely as a very unlikely thing, I'd say "come off it, no thanks, I'm not like that" etc. and that would decidedly be that.

The idea of choosing not to socialise with any of them because of that unlikely eventuality would be complete anathema to me, the true sign of a nasty strain of bigotry. Plus you'd miss out on a great time. Definite sign of massive insecurity.

Well there, you have come back with a reasonable reply and related about a fair and decent crowd, by the sound of it.
If that's how your friends are, I'd say they are a good example for a 'sexual group'. If more homosexuals were like that, then people would gain trust for more of them and quicker.

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

One very very boozy Christmas eve a long time ago when I had an office above Food for Friends in The Lanes, I'd spent all day in our "local" - The Cricketers. It was then - and may still be - renowned as a gay pub. It also was, and may still be, one of the best pubs in Brighton.

It appears that I fell asleep on the floor/in the corner of the toilets. At the time, these were accessible from the pub and also from the street via the archway. Some gay men were known to use this toilet for making new friends and exploring old friendships. It was somewhat notorious.

Any way, I came round perhaps half an hour later. Ambled back into the pub and was asked where I'd been by my colleagues. Much merriment and laughter and comments along the lines of "you were lucky you weren't used and abused whilst out cold". At which point a very camp man leant over into our conversation and said "Sweetie - you're just not gay fodder. You'd have been safe their all night".

He was a nice chap - as so many people are in Brighton - and we got talking. Whilst I was not a minger in my time, I have always been quite heavy and rely on wit to pull women - not my chiselled jawline. This chap made the point that whilst gay men are men - and therefore pretty much on the look out for sex whenever they can get it - they are also as selective (or not) as the rest of us.

So I would say - from personal experience - that many, many hetro men will always be safe from the approaches of gay men. You're just not their type!

 

[NMH]

Well correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that exactly what YOU are doing, with this (fairly vast) sweeping generalisation / assumption of yours ?

Homosexuals (IN GENERAL) have been crying out for acceptance for a long time, but there are those who just push their 'general' cause further away from acceptance.

You are right, I should have said "some homosexual men" rather than suggesting all.

 

[Franks Wild Years]

Anyone who doesn't agree with a homosexual point of view HAS to be homophobic or obsessed?
I didn't make this thread to be "obsessed", and just tried to raise a point of debate on it like anyone else who has contributed.

I think I raised points about the homosexual society, and some of your own social issues that haven't been come to terms with - that are truths that hurt your general causes.

Homosexual men DO have problems dealing with straight men in their social group, and without incitement WILL actively create a problem out of their frustration. Are you going to now say you speak for ALL homosexuals, and suggest NONE have any problems - only straights have problems with homos?

No, I'm not aiming the "queer" accusation at all homosexuals, you earned that one all for yourself.

What ?
I've got many gay friends and I've got many straight friends. There has NEVER been an occasion when any of my gay friends or any of my gay friends friends have had a problem with my straight friends simply because of their sexuality. You Sir, are talking bollocks.

 

[Easy 10]

Well there, you have come back with a reasonable reply and related about a fair and decent crowd, by the sound of it.
If that's how your friends are, I'd say they are a good example for a 'sexual group'. If more homosexuals were like that, then people would gain trust for more of them and quicker.

A homosexual friend shouldn't have to work to gain peoples trust any quicker than anyone else though. A friend is a friend, sexuality doesn't automatically come into it just because someone is gay. The problem seems come more from your own preconceptions on what gays are (in your view) inevitably "after" - subconciously or otherwise - when they are friends with a straight person.

 

[The Large One]

NMH is abnormal.

The End.

 

[Chicken Run]

A homosexual friend shouldn't have to work to gain peoples trust any quicker than anyone else though. A friend is a friend, sexuality doesn't automatically come into it just because someone is gay. The problem seems come more from your own preconceptions on what gays are (in your view) inevitably "after" - subconciously or otherwise - when they are friends with a straight person.

Role on next week! When pride is over. Granted we will have a few post match reports of "disgusting behaviour" and yes the clear your own mess up your selves brigade, but role on as this is probably the worst thread ever and started by a bubble blower who know's life in the championship is looming!!

 

[Franks Wild Years]

NMH is gorgeous.

The End.

 

[The Large One]

He is not gorgeous.

He looks like a hedge dragged through a man backwards.