www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12084650
snip
No i don't agree nor would i to two women.
Last edited by: Pugugly on Tue 28 Dec 10 at 18:54
|
You have completely missed the point.
The point is that his father, if its Elton, is 62. When the child is 10 he will be 72, or probably dead.
Who is going to look after the kid then?
|
|
In that instance it'll be one rich orphan mind.
|
>>The point is that his father, if its Elton, is 62. When the child is 10 he will be 72, or probably dead.
>>Who is going to look after the kid then?
Not short of the odd million or twenty so it's not a real issue.
|
if you want a drugged up idle rich kid with no parental guidance your right, its not a problem.
Elton is a stupid spoiled twit.
can't remember adding 'twit' to the swear filter. Sorted now though
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 28 Dec 10 at 21:28
|
>>Elton is a stupid spoiled twit.<<
I was thinking more fairy cake.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 28 Dec 10 at 21:28
|
I used to think having no full-scale parental responsibilities might be one of the advantages of being gay.
Not so it appears, and not just from this case. I know a female gay couple who had a child by artificial insemination of the childless partner (the other already had a child from a heterosexual relationship).
This child of Elton John's, like the ghastly Madonna's adopted child and others of the sme sort, will be well cared for materially and perhaps, if lucky, emotionally too. Things like this look garish written up by the media, but there's no reason to suppose the adoptive parents won't try to be real parents, or appoint good surrogates, tutors and so on, when they are busy themselves. Could well be fine for all concerned.
|
And would you want to be called
Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John?
|
>> And would you want to be called
>> Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John?
Better than ZJL Furnish-Dwight. Which should be his real name. Maybe. Depending on who the biological father is.
But in general, anyone who calls their child "Zac" or "Josh" should be arrested by the Anti-Americanisation of Britain Police and detained until they choose a proper name for the child.
|
"But in general, anyone who calls their child "Zac" or "Josh" should be arrested by the Anti-Americanisation of Britain Police and detained until they choose a proper name for the child."
Zack and Josh are perfectly good abbreviations for good biblical names. Many friends of mine aged 0 - 101 have such names and have lived in the UK all their lives.
|
>> Zack and Josh are perfectly good abbreviations for good biblical names.
That's not why they are so popular these days. It's the slew of "cool" characters in American film and TV called Zac and Josh which has precipitated the explosion of these names in the current generation of children. The ovine classes would not have considered these names otherwise.
A name is no better than any other merely by dint of it being featured in a collection of the mistranslated myths of ancient nomadic tribes from the Middle East.
|
>>ut in general, anyone who calls their child "Zac" or "Josh" should be arrested
Aren't you being a bit snooty? As Espada says they are ancient names and whilst that might not make them better for you, the fact that they are popular will not hurt the bearers.
Better than Zowie or FiFi Trixibelle for the average recipient I should think.
I'm really hoping Posh & Beck's latest was conceived in Birmingham. I suppose they could stretch a mile or two and call it Dudley if it's a boy, or Shirley for a girl.
|
>> I'm really hoping Posh & Beck's latest was conceived in Birmingham. I suppose they could stretch a mile or two and call it Dudley if it's a boy, or Shirley
>> for a girl.
>>
My first choice of kids name was 'Back Seat Ofa Fiesta'
|
>>but there's no reason to suppose the adoptive parents ((won't try to be real parents))<<
Nail & head effendi - they are not *real* parents, in the true sense of the word.
|
How can two blokes be parents & both homoseuxual what does this tell the child.
It's only the money that did this.
|
I cant see this kid is at much of a disadvantage. Given the terrible job many hetrosexual parents manage to do, a rich gay couple cant be a bad start in life, I expect they will fare no better/worse than anyone else.
Its the modern world.
|
Nature or nurture.
What do you think the kid will turn out like?
|
>> What do you think the kid will turn out like?
give or take the effect of excess readies, like one of their biological forebears.
I know a few who I'd rather not who are the way they are despite nurture - "bad pennies" fostered by good people, and one or two bad for no immediately obvious reason.
The opposite is true too - some turn out good despite everything. Again, what's in 'em will out.
|
>> I expect they will fare no better/worse than anyone else.
Better than some, worse than others no doubt. But you have it right stu. There's more than a hint of, er, biologism you could call it, in some posts here.
|
|
I know it's not very PC, but it all seems a bit creepy.
|
>> they are not *real* parents, in the true sense of the word.
That was what I meant by 'biologism' Dog. You may think that the true sense of the word has something to do with the actual biological union of the two 'natural' parents. But it really really hasn't.
Many of us have the good fortune to have been conceived, born and raised by a heterosexual couple who have done a reasonable job. But as stunorthants observes, there is no guarantee such couples will look after a child properly, set it any sort of good example or treat it with the affection and concern it needs. Many natural parents are very poor at the job even if they stay together. Some are quite appallingly bad.
Parents are the people who come nearest to nurturing the developing child, making it feel secure, attending to its needs and representing fairly acceptable role models. Biological parenthood used to be the main reason for doing these things. But it isn't always by any means, and never was.
|
Apart from their ages, I don't have any problem with it at all.
Same sex adoption isn't new, it has been happening for some time now but with adoptive parents who are not famous.
The children seem to grow up knowing their really wanted and find the parental situation entirely normal.
I think we're far too narrow minded in our general outlook, we've become a nation if critics who see anything slightly different, as wrong.
It never ceases to amaze me how men react to discovering another man is gay....shock, horror, disgust. All of those and more.
Women on the other hand have gay men friends because they look into their minds and see a man with a soul, a man with emotions who isn't afraid to show them.
The irony of all this is that if you ask most men what their fantasy is, it involves two or more women.......explain that one to me please?
Pat
|
>> ...it involves two or more women.......explain that one to me please?
Be careful what you wish for - I'm sure BBD could produce some "artwork" :-O
|
>> The irony of all this is that if you ask most men what their fantasy
>> is, it involves two or more women.......explain that one to me please?
>>
>> Pat
>>
One to Cook and one to clean. Simples Patricia, simples.
Whack...............ouch............sorry!
|
I've sat with a crowd of blokes in a transport cafe or pub on a night out and listend to their horror at the thought of gay men. I then ask that question and have yet to get an answer other than 'that's different, innit' :)
Pat
|
It never ceases to amaze me how men react to discovering another man is gay....shock, horror, disgust. All of those and more
Theory is that men sub-consciously feel threatened especially if they're not secure in their own sexuality.
Me ? I've worked with, advocated for and been friends with gay men and women, it matters not to me.
|
>> it matters not to me.
Wholeheartedly agree PU. In my industry, you'd not get very far if you genuinely harboured any form of homophobia ! Doesn't mean you have to join in if it's not your way of course.
:-)
|
>> any form of homophobia ! Doesn't mean you have to join in if it's not
>> your way of course.
I thought it was mandatory in your game Humph? Pride of place on your CV!
|
|
Nope, not even under "hobbies and interests" on mine but you are right in so far as the industry does attract more than an average number of alternative sorts of people. You get very used to it to the point where it's actually invisible and irrelevant.
|
"It never ceases to amaze me how men react to discovering another man is gay....shock, horror, disgust. All of those and more."
Is that really true these days? Perhaps true of some social groups but seems far too sweeping a statement.
|
|
Agree it may be a sweeping generalisation CG - I suppose the test is if one of your nearest and dearest "came out" wouldn't matter to me.
|
>> "It never ceases to amaze me how men react to discovering another man is gay....shock,
>> horror, disgust. All of those and more."
>>
>> Is that really true these days? Perhaps true of some social groups but seems far
>> too sweeping a statement.
Unfortunately it does seem to be still true today. The middle classes seem to accept it and have done for many years. My current small department in the Civil Service includes one man who's entirely open about his orientation and brings his partner along to social 'do's' in the same way I might bring SWMBO.
OTOH, in the white working class, old predjudices seem to run deep.
Radio 5's breakfast show is runnung a review of the year's interviews. Either yesterday or Monday they ran one with a guy who'd come out as gay quite recently and while working in a factory; steel town near Sheffield. Came out during a night shift after being angered by coarse comments about a star who may well have been Elton.
Lost most of his friendships and had to give up his job.
|
It's very true among lorry drivers, but that may be to preserve the rufty tufty macho image.
Pat
|
>> It's very true among lorry drivers, but that may be to preserve the rufty tufty
>> macho image.
>>
What's the view of the blue lights in the cab community?
|
Even they agree about the two or more women fantasy:)
Pat
|
PDA said:
>> Apart from their ages, I don't have any problem with it at all.
>> [and so on]
I agree. What matters is whether or not the parent care for and respect the chilld/children. The main problem this child may face (age of parents excepted) is bigotry. But I think we can assume that it will get a good education, and will not want for material goods. I speak as someone raised by 'normal' parents who spent most of their time shouting insults at each other.
|
|
Thinking about it - I only came across one predatory gay man ever - he was a bad man anyway and I wouldn't trust him with my Goldfish.
|
>>That was what I meant by 'biologism' Dog<<
Some 'biological' parents shouldn't be allowed to bring up a cat, let alone a child, but do 2 wrongs make a right?
I believe that children require a male and a female influence in their upbringing to grow and develop into well rounded adults, I am also well aware of what bad biological parenting can and does produce, and although our society is far from ideal, I am a traditionalist I suppose, and I would rather society develops along traditional lines, correcting its inherent problems such as the benefit culture, alcohol abuse, and the moral ineptitude which quite often leads to bad parenting, rather than have children being reared by homosexuals and lesbians.
|
>> rather than have children being reared by homosexuals and lesbians.
It may not be everyone's ideal Dog, but everything of this sort is a gamble. Perfectly well brought up people can turn out dreadful, and slum kids from the lower depths can turn out excellent. The male and female role models will be found somewhere though.
The point is that it's better to be raised by kind, affectionate gays than your own mum and dad if they happen to be perverse toerags, as some people are.
I suppose people are afraid that someone raised by gays will be unconsciously biased in favour of gays. Why shouldn't they be? It's a change for the better.
|
I find it a bit creepy that some people assume homosexuals are somehow any less capable than a hetrosexual at raising kids.
Sexuality is just one small part of the make-up of an individual and so far as I have experienced in life, it doesnt have a great deal to do with how you raise a child.
Plenty of straight parents create gay children, so any argument that sexuality is 'passed on' is more an indicator of someone searching for a negative than actually finding one, there isnt much of a link other than the distinct possibility that the children will likely be more understanding about homosexuality.
I cant see that is a bad thing because once this current older generation has died out, there wont be many left who have any issue with it.
|
|
I agree. A person's sexuality means absolutely nothing when determining their ability to raise kids. Look how many straight couples make a complete hash of it.
|
I hesitate to reply to this thread... but hey someone has to stand up against the PC ways of anything goes.
Nature means these old (broadly speaking in parental terms) men can't have a natural child between them.... so they went out and bought one. It's that simple and quite disturbing.
Any critisism of their actions is nothing to do with being anti-gay.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Wed 29 Dec 10 at 12:19
|
I can how the age thing could class this as wrong. But David Furnish is in his late forties. So are we saying it's wrong for a man to be a father in his forties now? Or are we being totally ageist here?
A lot of famous men have fathered children at an older age than David Furnish with younger women.
Or is there still a bit of homophobia about this but people are using the age card to cover it? Playing devil's advocate a bit I suppose.
Madonna was older than David Furnish when she adopted a few children. A lot will say that was buying trophy children too mind.
|
I do agree that Fenlander and rtj have a point about the use of financial power to arrange these things. In Elton John's case it was used to get round the local adoption and surrogacy laws here by arranging everything in California. But no one poor could have afforded it.
In Madonna's case, far more distasteful if you ask me, it was treating Malawi like a baby supermarket, pick'n'mix nippers if you can afford the formal and informal financial arrangements. One of the worst things in that case was the ghastly blaze of publicity, making it quite clear that the once-talented comedy actress was rich enough to bulldoze a sovereign country, and choose a child from those on display.
One assumes that in Elton John's case they just took the child that was born, although no doubt batteries of in-utero tests were run to make sure it would have the normal range of human attributes and no avoidable genetic problems.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Wed 29 Dec 10 at 13:05
|
>>It may not be everyone's ideal Dog<<
Aye Sire - at least Mr.& Mr. Furnish-John are respectfully married, and not living in sin.
|
|
Something I find far worse was that Italian woman who had fertility treatment and had a child in her sixties. Also a British woman at 63 had a baby. That is just wrong.
|
|
If I had the choice between Elton John and Furnish or one of those lovely couples who appear on Jeremy Kyle, I think id cope with living in a florists heaven frankly. All that matters is how well the kids are cared for. Why someone wants to be a parent matters little so long as they are good at it, since quite a few dont seem to really want to be even when they do have kids naturally.
|
>> woman at 63 had a baby. That
>> is just wrong.
>>
Why is it any worse than a baby being brought up by its grandparents because the parents were killed in an accident?
That has been happening for centuries. There is someone at work in that situation, and he feels for his grandfather as if he were his real father.
|
>> >> woman at 63 had a baby. That
>> >> is just wrong.
>> >>
>>
>> Why is it any worse than a baby being brought up by its grandparents because
>> the parents were killed in an accident?
Because that is by accident rather than design and is not an ideal situation anyway. Aged parents for young children is not desirable for either.
As for gay? The choice of being gay (and it is a choice - forget this genes crap) physically precludes you from having children. ( I have no prejudice about Gays or Bisexuals - but a lifestyle choice like that means you should know there are certain things you cant achieve - Like kids)
AI, and surrogacy should be banned. If you want to adopt kids, fine there are plenty of those around, but AI or Surrogacy is children by design.
Oh And I didnt call Elton a Twit. It had a W and an A in it.
|
>>and it is a choice - forget this genes crap<<
How would you know that if you're not gay?
Pat
|
|
I have plenty as friends and even had a gay brother in law till he died of HIV related symptoms.
|
... The choice of being gay (and it is a choice - forget this genes crap)...
As a gay man myself I disagree completely with this statement; of course, it's a choice insofar as I could have chosen to live a 'straight' life, but do to so would have been to live a lie, and would not have been the 'real' me.
Now, living a 'gay' lifestyle is another matter, but funnily enough not all of us subscribe to to living our lives like the stereoptypical gay man protrayed on TV ;-)
As to the question of genes or environment, who knows? But none of my brothers are gay...
Peter
|
|
Well, apparently your parents must have been gay for you to be, which begs the question how you came along. The anti-gay logic is flawless as always :-)
|
>> As to the question of genes or environment, who knows? But none of my brothers
>> are gay...
Exactly, it really isn't Genes, you are not preprogrammed by your dna to be gay.
As someone said, the Romans were not bothered and swung three ways. I'll let you make your mind up what the third option was.
|
What cobblers Z. Only identical twin bothers would be genetically the same.
Which begs the question I suppose...are there cases of identical twins having different orientations?
Regardless, I find it less trouble to accept people as they are, or as they want to be, as long as it doesn't hurt others.
The Romans were just decadent.
Last edited by: Manatee on Wed 29 Dec 10 at 20:35
|
>> The Romans were just decadent.
And nothing wrong with that! What else did the romans do for us.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 29 Dec 10 at 21:01
|
|
Didn't they give us Ferrari (and Fiat I suppose...)
|
>> Didn't they give us Ferrari (and Fiat I suppose...)
Ok good, close, and what do they run on? (say tyres or wheels and you will get a shed load of abuse your way!)
|
|
Which I guess explains the supercar thing. If they'd not bothered with all those long straight (!?!) roads and thrown in a few corners instead, maybe they'd have come up with a better hot hatch than a Uno Turbo I.E.!!!
|
The Uno Turbo IE was a real hooligan machine, great fun..
While it held together.
|
I *really* wanted an Uno Turbo when I was looking for my first car. Unrealistic of course; I ended up with an Uno 55 Super!!
|
>>Exactly, it really isn't Genes, you are not preprogrammed by your dna to be gay.
Which is all well and good, except that the outward manifestation of genetic make-up can easily differ across generations, insofar as the 'effects' are more or less obvious. Baldness is a prime example, but so is diabetes, and any number of other character or physical traits...
I have no strong feelings either way on nature vs nuture, but I do know it was not a 'choice' in the dictionary definintion of the word for me to me gay. It would have been a choice to live a 'straight' life, but that was not a choice I felt it necessary to make. Fortunately those days are long gone for my generation (clinging on to my 30's by a matter of weeks!!)
Peter
|
>> As someone said, the Romans were not bothered and swung three ways. I'll let you
>> make your mind up what the third option was.
>>
Neigh... it could be - could it??
|
|
The third way was the Greek way, was it not?
|
|
No that was the second way.
|
>> Oh And I didnt call Elton a Twit.
I know. I was being sarcastic with my edit.
|
|
I know you knew, oh great all seeing Cyclops of the c4p Augean stables, I just wanted the other blind followers to know
|
|
It seems a bit unfair to pass on Elton's unnatural predisposition to an innocent child...
|
>> unfair to pass on Elton's unnatural predisposition to an innocent child...
Tut tut SS... since when did predispositions, natural or otherwise, simply get passed on to children? They are often drawn to contrary behaviour, doing the opposite of what is expected or required.
I wouldn't expect a responsible gay to try to make out that homosexuality was a mainstream or majority condition. I would expect them to carefully tell it as they see it, and allow the nipper to make up its own mind.
Rupert Everett, himself homosexual, was quoted in the paper today as saying he wouldn't want to wish that on any child - two dads at the school play, and being exposed to 'those awful queeny quarrels when he's trying to sleep'. But I think he was being a bit malicious about EJ. Malice is not uncommon even among rough heteros and men of toil. Indeed for sheer bloodiness a pub full of bored macho types takes a bit of beating.
:o}
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 29 Dec 10 at 17:20
|
|
And SS being brought up by two men will not make the child gay. Just as a child brought up by a mum and dad does not make them heterosexual. It's in the genes. Although the Roman's seemed to swing both ways!
|
|
I have had male colleagues through bereavement or divorce bring up their children up with no problems, I really don't see the issue - the age issue would be a bigger one for me really.
|
>> the age issue would be a bigger one for me really.
For me too but David Furnish is a lot younger. So I do not have an issue really. Anyone with a bit of cash (not rich) could do the same and probably do all the time.
I still think the biggest issue for some is homophobia.
Here's a question that some should ask themselves in private: If you have a child that is gay/lesbian, would they feel they could tell you or would they hide this from you? If they feel the latter then... well that's wrong.
|
I've never seen the logic of the 'it's unnatural therefore it's bad' argument in relation to homosexuality. Here are some things which are 'unnatural':
-sitting in chairs
-general anaethesia
-air travel
and here are some things which, it could be argued, are 'natural':
-allowing the weakest in society to fall prey to predators
-promiscuity
-arthritis
I guess some people feel distaste towards the idea of having sex with someone of the same gender - quite understandable, really: I feel distaste at the thought of eating offal. The difference is, I don't think my distaste means that offal-eaters are somehow morally wrong.
I know two same-sex couples who appear to be doing a fine job of bringing up their children.
|
What an excellent post Pete
Pat
|
All very interesting guys...but I was, of course, taking about Elton's baldness...don't know why you would jump to any other conclusion...I thought we lived in more enlightened times ;)
I managed to get flagged as offensive, but more worryingly I got a thumbs up too!
Oh, and just in case you might think I am backtracking, I took out insurance - tinyurl.com/26noc84
EDIT: And, yes, I do have too much time on my hands today.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Wed 29 Dec 10 at 16:50
|
But SS probably knew we'd pick up on this and so posted on Wikipedia first... his insurance ;-)
SS has a gay child he doesn't know about for all he knows (assuming they are not married...)
|
|
There are many gay married men... so that's no indicator.
|
Indeed there are Fenlander - hence my ellipsis ....
Statistically there will be members on here with gay/lesbian children. Possibly some gay/lesbian members too. So some comments will cause some offence.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Wed 29 Dec 10 at 17:19
|
|
Good attempt at a nifty swerve SS but whilst choices and preferences may be influenced by upbringing baldness would not be.
|
>> Good attempt at a nifty swerve SS but whilst choices and preferences may be influenced
>> by upbringing baldness would not be.
Sure, but I meant pass on in the genetic sense... if Elton is indeed the biological father, the poor nipper will be bald before he hits his teens :)
|
|
and hopefully a half decent musician as well. I really wish them well. I had the dubious pleasure of meeting Elton's brother and having a beer with him..
|
|
I always thought baldness was transferred from the mother's genes? Not that many mothers are bald you understand but their genes can be I gather. I've lost interest now anyway...I'd quite like Elton John to adopt me actually. I'd even pretend to like some of his music.
Last edited by: Humph D'Bout on Wed 29 Dec 10 at 17:31
|
Just picking up on the age thing...
I'm an older parent. We were 39 then 41 when our two girls were born. In broad terms that's plenty old enough. We find we're usually the oldest at any parents do and however much we feel young in reality we aren't... some of the parents are 20yrs younger than us.
By the time EJ and DF's child hit early teens they would be 75 and 63 respectively.
Yes I know in tragic circumstances the odd grandparent might have to bring up a child to the best of their ability... but it's not ideal. I speak from experience as there are three such families in our immediate family/contact group.
Above someone mentioned quite old guys who have children with younger women... no problem with that as the maternal parent should live a decent stretch.... and good luck to any guy that can wangle it.
Anyway in truth just how much proper parenting will EJ and DF do. Nappies, spoon feeding, wakeful nights, first day at nursery school, those horrible early years injections, visits to the dentist etc etc.
|
A lot of parents have children for the first time in their forties. And second/third/fourth child in fifties even (not common though). I feel sorry for some thinking what they might go through when the children are teenagers. No different to the age of David Furnish then really.
One of our old neighbours is expecting their second child (not planned) it mid to late forties.
|
Very funny SS, chapeau!
There's nothing unnatural about baldness though, as many here and the future King of England would assure you.
|
>> future King of England would assure you.
So imagine Charles having a surrogate son... there's the age thing kicking in for me again. Or Camilla getting pregnant.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Wed 29 Dec 10 at 17:30
|
. Or Camilla getting pregnant.
I have just been sick................................!!
|
>>>>Or Camilla getting pregnant.
>> I have just been sick................................!!
>>
But with the right fertility treatment it's possible. So why shouldn't she become a mum at 63? Okay maybe better if adopted.
|
|
I wouldn't mind if Camilla adopted me either. I'd be no trouble and I can talk posh like if I concentrate. I might suit tweed.
|
>> I wouldn't mind if Camilla adopted me either.
My Gawd, Fancy being tucked in by old horseface! Stuff of nightmares.
|
Yeah but, "Mummy dear, would you mind awfully just endorsing the guarantor part of this Amex application? Pretty please? There's a dear...."
:-))
|
Money?
How awfully common.
|
|
I can't beleive old charles "jumps on top" im feeling sick again.
|
|
I thought Charles already had a surrogate son - the ginger one, Harry, isn't he?
|
|
Schhhhh, dont spill the beans, I mean its not that you would notice is it.
|
>> Very funny SS, chapeau!
>>
>> There's nothing unnatural about baldness though, as many here and the future King of England
>> would assure you.
Only too true AC, I've dodged it so far, but many dear friends are already falling foul of this dread condition :)
Still, sometimes a bit of artistic licence is needed for a good troll...
|
Appreciate there are many older parents but the average parental age at the childs birth is around 30 for the mum and 32 for the dad.... so no surprise out of a school year of 200+ children we find ourselves well outnumbered by the younger ones.
Anyway none of it's a worry as their involvement will probably be little more than when you adopt a dolphin!
|
>> sheer bloodiness
I much preferred it with the asterisks. At least that conveyed the word I wrote.
'Bloodiness' has a somewhat different meaning that ruins the sentence, indeed ruins the joke. Typical piece of really crap subbing, of which I have seen more than my share.
Eff the anal-intercoursing swear filter! When I write female-dogginess I mean female-dogginess, capisce?
|
|
The trend is scaring me. At first in UK it was illegal, then they "came out" and we mustn't offend them and be accepting. Then - marriage. Next it'll be compulsory!
|
Your easily scared by what goes on in other peoples bedrooms then, which begs the question why you are so involved in such things.
The law is fluid over time, changing as society changes. Often the fact it was previously illegal is cited by the older generation who just dont like it and think citing previous illegality makes it sound like a sex crime. It doesnt wash these days, my generation have never known it to be illegal so we dont have these hang ups.
The 'came out' because it wasnt illegal and why would you want to offend someone anyway? Most gay people I know are both good humoured and pretty insensitive about their sexuality, as ever, a few left wing wimps make headlines on occasion.
If you know much about homosexuality, encouraging marriage, ie long term commitment and making it legally valid, is very much a positive thing. Marriage used to be a religious commitment. Now its not, religious views matter very little.
|
>> 'Bloodiness' has a somewhat different meaning that ruins the sentence, indeed ruins the joke. Typical
>> piece of really crap subbing, of which I have seen more than my share.
>>
swear filters have buttbuttinated the language.
www.boundlessline.org/2008/09/lincoln-was-but.html
|
People's sexuality is no one else's business, unless the individual makes a big song and dance about it.
People suffer from vertigo on this subject. It's as bad as nuclear weapons or the global banking system.
Some people are at a stage, or in a social group, that makes them anxious about their own sexuality. They should realise that everyone is really except psychopaths.
There's no pressure in this forum, bless its soul, to reassure everyone else that one isn't queer and that that sort of thing doesn't appeal. It goes without saying. Or doesn't, as the case may be. No problem at all if you haven't got a problem.
|
He does come out with some wonderful words of wisdom now and again!
Pat
|
There have been comments on here along the lines of "well they can't do a worse job than many heterosexual parents seem to" and references to those you see on Jeremy Kyle.
Well, sorry, but having seen various documentaries on these divas, and putting their sexuality to one side, they definitely fall into the category of Jeremy Kyle parents to me.
Drugs, alcohol abuse, previous heterosexual wedding, tantrums and tiaras, it has got all the ingredients for a Kyle Xmas special!
So what makes them more suitable as parents?
Taking this as full circle, if we had a heterosexual couple of that age, with the history mentioned above, I bet there would be very few supporters on here saying they would make good parents?
|
Most of the posts on here have the predictably fashionable 'touchy-feely we are all here for each other' attitude to homosexuality.
I'm not keen on people of the same gender having sex.
The act of intercourse is for the purpose of procreation which cannot happen between two men or two women.
It is said humans are unique in taking pleasure in sexual relations, although I don't see how we can know that.
Do dogs - as opposed to bitches - indulge in same sex relationships?
It beats me how these two men can consider themselves as parents when they fail at the first hurdle.
They are morally bankrupt, but happily for Elton he is loaded so he can buy anything he wants.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 30 Dec 10 at 13:55
|
>> Do dogs - as opposed to bitches - indulge in same sex relationships?
Actually some dogs will try and hump anything they come across, I've been the unfortunate beneficiary on more than one occasion :)
Last edited by: Webmaster on Sat 1 Jan 11 at 02:07
|
>>
>> The act of intercourse is for the purpose of procreation
>>
I must admit, I do confess a sneaking admiration for people such as yourself who, because of a sincerely held belief, eschew all forms of contraception and limit your sexual practice to the simple act of copulation for the purpose of producing offspring. I should imagine it takes a lot of willpower.
What I do find depressing is people who, lacking your strength of will and clarity of thought, condemn others for 'unnatural practices' but cheerfully use contraception and, indulge in the joys of oral pleasuring (not to mention the unspeakable beastliness of 'the solitary sin'). Their combination of woolly thinking and hypocrisy is both depressing and distasteful.
|
>> Most of the posts on here have the predictably fashionable 'touchy-feely we are all here for each other' attitude to homosexuality.
That's a fairly loose statement, and untrue I think. I imagine your daily read is Mail or Express iffy.
There's nothing touchy-feely about not being a queer-bashing bigot. And alas, it isn't all that predictable either. I suppose though it is less unfashionable than it used to be. A good thing in the eyes of any humanist surely?
Why do you think anyone is interested in your views on what sexual intercourse is 'for'? And how do you think you know Elton John is 'morally bankrupt'? Is he a personal acquaintance of yours? Because one thing is for certain: the media won't give you accurate enough information to tell you anything about that.
People have made the point that he is spoilt, extravagant and petulant. So are a lot of people's mothers and/or fathers though.
|
>> People have made the point that he is spoilt, extravagant and petulant.
Having a child to take care of might be just what he needs...
|
People have made the point that he is spoilt, extravagant and petulant. So are a lot of people's mothers and/or fathers though
Now why did certain members our much loved Royal Family pop into my mind when I read that ?
|
>> More comment here:-
>> tinyurl.com/2a3kunn
Vigorous comment, much of it from queer-bashing bigots.
|
They are morally bankrupt, but happily for Elton he is loaded so he can buy anything he wants
That is of course your opinion Iffy.....
|
>> >> They are morally bankrupt, but happily for Elton he is loaded so he can buy
>> >> anything he wants
>>
>> That is of course your opinion Iffy.....
From what I've seen of Elton on TV, including that documentary, 'diva' certainly, but seemed like a nice bloke underneath. IMO of course.
|
Iffy said:
>> I'm not keen on people of the same gender having sex.[and so on]
Ah, good old fashioned bigotry, you can't beat it. I think we'd all be better off if people stopped moralising, and got on with the real issues such as poverty, homelessness, putting a stop to Peter Mandelson, that sort of thing. I can't understand why some people have such black and white views when it comes to things that do not harm them, or anyone else. Women priests is one example that comes to mind, then again the church can sometimes be for some people a front for bigotry.
|
>> The act of intercourse is for the purpose of procreation which cannot happen between two
>> men or two women.
That may have been the original biological intention, but most normal thinking people decided it was a pleasurable thing to do, so we do it. Probably the reason why Birth Control was invented. Are you saying we shouldn't practise birth control or are you some kind of control freak catholic?
>> It is said humans are unique in taking pleasure in sexual relations, although I don't
>> see how we can know that.
>>
>> Do dogs - as opposed to bitches - indulge in same sex relationships?
Plenty of male dogs have tried to hump my leg, and being male, that means yes I guess so. We have a friend who's female dog tries to hump my female dog. Male ducks also engage in gang rape of other male ducks. So I guess the answer to that is Yes.
>> They are morally bankrupt, but happily for Elton he is loaded so he can buy
>> anything he wants.
Yes they are, most certainly but not on sexual grounds and buying babies from other sources should be illegal.
This applies to anyone really, Hetero or gay, if you cant have kids for any reason that's tough, you can always legaly adopt.
Last edited by: Webmaster on Sat 1 Jan 11 at 02:06
|
>> >> They are morally bankrupt, but happily for Elton he is loaded so he can
>> buy
>> >> anything he wants.
>>
>> Yes they are, most certainly but not on sexual grounds and buying babies from other
>> sources should be illegal.
I must admit to having concerns about surrogacy. Presumably you take one woman of low financial status, give said woman a wad of dosh, and a ready prepared basting syringe, wait 9 months, and Bob's your uncle. If said woman changes her mind, you make sure some 'friends' can 'pursuade' her. Adoption does seem preferable, and I mean a UK child. Then again I would always get a stray dog from the dog pound rather than buy a pedigree puppy, so horses for courses.
|
Of course, we've all overlooked the fact that one of them could be the biological father of the child.
Pat
|
It really doesn't matter, one of them is not the mother no matter how Elton wishes to dress and do his hair.
|
>>> one of them could be the biological father of the child.
I don't think it's a could be... I'm sure it's been announced Sharon's the *dad*.
|
In my book a Mother is someone who brings you up, teaches you right from wrong, loves you when you're bad as well as good, provides for you as best she can, protects you and guides you.
Biology has nothing to do with it at all.
Pat
|
>> Biology has nothing to do with it at all.
Indeed it does, without biology there is no kid and no mother.
|
You entirely miss my point Z, but I'll put it in simple terms for you.
My Daughter in law has never got on with her Mother at all, and hardly ever sees her now.
She would stand here and tell you that for the last 20 years I've been the Mum she never had, and in fact, she's the daughter I never had too. I love her to bits.....no biology there.
Pat
|
She's right you know Zeddo. The biological process, in some form, produces the baby. But the real parent doesn't have to be the one who has the sex (or not) and tolerates the pregnancy. The real parent is the one who comes closest to doing all the long-term stuff - you know, love, education, setting the examples and so on. Ordinary human tragedy means that this role isn't always performed by the biological parent, and it's always been like that especially in times of war, plague and famine. Indeed we all know where to find children who are more or less wild and whose role models are many, various, not necessarily of the best.
I would add that like you and some others here I think there's something distasteful about this kind of surrogacy, and against the sort of pick'n'mix adoptions favoured by some Hollywood stars and others. But this is the world we live in, and it isn't our business to say others can't do it if they think they have a reason. All we can really say is that we probably wouldn't do it ourselves.
What I have been mostly saying in this thread though is nothing to do with that. I have been trying to persuade people that tabloid accounts of the doings of people like Elton John tell us nothing about what they are really like; and there's no reason to assume that because they are homosexual they are going to corrupt and ruin a child in their care. Perhaps they will of course, but there's no reason to assume it.
|
>>I have been trying to persuade people that tabloid accounts of the doings of people like Elton John tell us nothing about what they are really like<<
I watched some of that interview with Michael Jackson kids and you would imagine they would be freakish, but scarily they appeared rather well adjusted and seemed to be very at ease with who they were. I was most shocked by the fact that Jacko apparently cooked - somehow it never crossed my mind that he would do normal stuff like that, but then I only know what the media put out there. I imagine the same is true of Elton.
Last edited by: stunorthants29 on Thu 30 Dec 10 at 17:50
|
But there is - without the biology she wouldn't have been born.
|
|
Story today suggesting Elton IS the father.
|
>> The act of intercourse is for the purpose of procreation
Some people prefer to call it recreation - me being one of them.
|
>>>Some people prefer to call it recreation - me being one of them.
Recreation.... please assure us..... not down the park??
|
I can remember when it was the only pleasure in life I could afford:)
Pat
|
>> Recreation.... please assure us..... not down the park??
I can assure you. Too many dog stools for starters, that and not being able to keep my balance on the see saw.
|
>> I'm not keen on people of the same gender having sex.
>>
>> The act of intercourse is for the purpose of procreation which cannot happen between two
>> men or two women.
Just out of interest Iffy, what are your thoughts on a man and woman engaging in sexual acts that have no hope of resulting in pregnancy?
Are you keen on that or not?
If Elton is morally bankrupt just because he has sex with men, I shudder to think what kind of moral deficit I have. My wife and I may well need an EU bailout....
|
>>>Story today suggesting Elton IS the father.
As I said earlier I thought it had been leaked that Sharon was indeed the biological father.... there are also other statements out there they will never reveal which it is.
In any case I wonder how they decided who should be *dad*......
|
>>In any case I wonder how they decided who should be *dad*.....>>
Perhaps they tossed for it?
|
|
Indeed... I hesitated to continue my sentance!
|
|
................you may trust me, where bluntness rules over delicacy!
|
The Pope dies and goes to heaven. At the Pearly Gates St Peter asks him if there is anyone he would like to meet. Yes says the Pope, I would like to meet Mary the mother of Jesus.
So off he goes to meet Mary and he asks her why she looks so sad in all the pictures of her. She replies ".. I wish I wasn't a Virgin...!"
|
My views on homosexual relationships produced a predictable gale of disapproval, although only one poster called me a bigot.
Just to be clear, it is the sexual relationship between two men that I have a problem with.
My original post reads: "I'm not keen on people of the same gender having sex."
The swear filter will prevent me spelling it out, but I would ask those in favour to stop for a moment and consider the act between two men they are supporting.
At t'other end of the scale, there will be some homosexual couples who may be living together but possibly not even sharing a bed.
My views on how male/female couples conduct themselves are probably not so very different from the other posters to the thread.
Do what you wanna do, although I would prefer it was safe and legal.
I'm not mad keen on promiscuous behaviour, but only because it seems to cause more trouble than enough when relationships break down.
I was amused by whoever it was who raised the topic of contraception.
That's the one thing old Elt and Furnish don't have to worry about.
|
>> only one poster called me a bigot.
>> Just to be clear, it is the sexual relationship between two men that I have a problem with.
>> consider the act between two men they are supporting.
I'm sorry if you think I was calling you a bigot iffy. More like encouraging you not to be, but a bit abrupt I admit.
What you don't seem to get is that no one is 'supporting' anything in particular, let alone some prurient sexual fantasy of yours.
They are just minding their own business. Not the same thing at all.
|
...What you don't seem to get is that no one is 'supporting' anything in particular...
There's lots of people on here posting, in general terms, in support of the right of two men to have a homosexual relationship.
What other way other than 'support' is there to put it?
And those posters are certainly not minding their own business, which is a just as well because there would be no forum if everyone did that.
|
>> And those posters are certainly not minding their own business, which is a just as well because there would be no forum if everyone did that.
Heh heh... thassa point, as one of my daughters used to say.
All the same, iffski, there's really no obligation on you to bother your head about what other people do in the darkness of the night. That way lies madness, for anything is possible.
Much, much better to pretend at any rate to mind your own business. Have you no benign sexual fantasies to dwell on? If not, cultivate them, unless you have some entanglement with the religious concept of sexual sin.
In that case there's nothing that sound, well-intended advice can do for you.
|
>> The swear filter will prevent me spelling it out, but I would ask those in
>> favour to stop for a moment and consider the act between two men they are
>> supporting.
I guess that you are probably not being very inventive when you picture what they might do but, assuming that you are defaulting to the first act that might spring to mind, do you have a problem with a man and woman doing the same thing?
|
>> Just to be clear, it is the sexual relationship between two men that I have
>> a problem with.
That's a helpful clarification for those of us who thought that you meant men should not be allowed to be friends with, or have warm feelings for, other men.
>> The swear filter will prevent me spelling it out, but I would ask those in
>> favour to stop for a moment and consider the act between two men they are
>> supporting.
>>
I'd rather not, to be honest. It's like imagining what one's parents get up to in bed - ghastly. Not sure why, maybe because both my parents are both past the first flush of youth? I sometimes wonder why there hasn't been some kind of campaign amongst decent right-thinking people to stop this stomach-churning activity of middle aged people having sex (shudder).
I suppose I realised when I was, oh about 10 years old, that thinking about what other people get up to in bed isn't particularly appealing or interesting. And I can't imagine starting a thread on an internet forum about it. But then it sounds as though you have a more active imagination than me.
|
This hapless result of a musician's millions and a scientist's test tube is to have two lesbians as godparents.
tinyurl.com/39aj8c2
Don't suppose their 'moral guidance' will be able to confuse the poor the little mite any further.
|
Now let's be honest, whoever they had chosen would have attracted criticism.
The 'poor little mite' will grow up with a far more open mind than some of the teenagers we see around today.
I'd like to bet that the child will grow up to be non judgemental, caring and sensitive to others feelings, simply because of the inevitable knocks he'll have to take about his unusual parentage.
However much our natural instinct is to protect children, both our own and others, from these knocks, it is the one thing that goes to form the make up of each individual character.
If some of the younger generation had not been so protected in their childhood, they would be far more tolerant and less quick to bully and hurt people.
Pat
|
>> I'd like to bet that the child will grow up to be non judgemental, caring
>> and sensitive to others feelings,
I bet the child will grow up to be intolerant., unable to react or converse with the real world, spoilt, unable to pursue stable relationships, and may even die early through substance abuse.
That's got nothing to do with the sexuality of the parents or god parents, just the fact its been bred into rich showbizzy popstar hollywood world.
|
"intolerant., unable to react or converse with the real world,"
Indeed, but there are many such people in the world.
|
indeed there are, but you did miss out all the other added on features as well.
I was thinking of the more rounded package I described.
|
|
..........and those two are straight out of the casting studios for "The Munsters".
|
Oh dear, another of my posts zapped just because it goes against the increasingly politically correct grain around here.
What is the point of the rating system if it's never allowed to function?
|
|
There is a difference between deeply offensive and potentially criminally homophobic remarks iffy and political correctness.
|
...potentially criminally homophobic...
Utter cobblers - the post was nothing of the sort.
Of course, if you genuinely think that, you're bound to zap it.
Still, no point in falling out over it.
My professional discipline tells me the post was legally safe, you are not going to agree, and never the 'twain shall meet.
Back to motoring, I think.
|
|
Well I bet your paper wouldn't print it. Motoring who mentioned motoring ?
|
...Well I bet your paper wouldn't print it...
True, not the sort of thing you would find in a newspaper, Viz comic, maybe.
|
|
Use that as your baseline when posting then please.
|
...Use that as your baseline when posting then please...
I will if the others do - which a lot of them haven't so far.
|
I dislike the publicity surrounding these adoptions, though with the unhealthy obsession the great unwashed have with celebrity it's going to happen, so the celeb in question might as well try to get at least some positive spin by letting the media in on the event.
I could imagine a scenario where a lifelong friend or sister for example would have a surrogate child for someone through love and a lifelong gift but i am uncomfortable with a commercial/stranger aspect to such a thing...that's me and only my opinion based on my beliefs and limited knowledge, however there's far more wrong in the world than this little storm in a teacup.
Over the years i've heard all sorts of attitudes to sexuality, i know people of all persuasions, and homo/bisexual chaps i've known have generally been well adjusted amusing fellows who unlike many of their straight counterparts haven't taken themselves too seriously...able maybe to see their own faults and foibles more clearly than others?
What's amusing is the emphasis some people put on the sexual act itself.
Don't know about you lot but out of my lifetime sex itself has taken up such a minute percentage of my time as be almost insignificant, though being in a loving relationship and making ones partners feel loved wanted and secure takes a whole lifetime.
Homophobes must imagine that same sex lovers are at it 24 hours a day, and spend every waking minute lusting after anyone and everyone of their own gender that they meet.
|
>> I will if the others do - which a lot of them haven't so far.
You have to copy what others do? Have you not got a mind of your own then?
|
You have to copy what others do? Have you not got a mind of your own then?
You have to copy what others do? Have you not got a mind of your own then?
You have to copy what others do? Have you not got a mind of your own then?
|
|
Do we get "lines" for misbehaving now?
|
A moderators job it to apply a policy of moderation fairly to everyone, regardless of personal likes and dislikes.
Pat
|
I'm wondering if it might be worth setting up a new subforum in which Iffy could explore his, erm, preoccupation (obsession?) with same-sex relationships.
Not sure about the name - 'Iffy's Gay Corner' perhaps?
I suspect there might need to be some kind of 'over 18s only' health warning, judging by some of the graphic details contained in the posts of the one or two forumers who share this fascination with what other people get up to in bed.
If there was a clear enough health warning, it might free the moderators up from having to continually monitor posts in the 'non-motoring forum' and give the Gay Corner enthusiasts a bit of space to indulge in their human right to gratuitously insult other people for the way they choose to live their lives.
It might also put an end to the outraged squeaking about 'freedom of speech'.
|
...'Iffy's Gay Corner' perhaps?...
I'm all for it - might be interesting to see who checks in.
Other than that, Pete, you are commenting on what you've not been allowed to see, which makes those comments, er, worthless at best.
|
>>
>> Other than that, Pete, you are commenting on what you've not been allowed to see,
>> which makes those comments, er, worthless at best.
>>
>>
>>
I boggled at Dog's 'fudgepacker' post before it was swiftly deleted. That was the post I was refering to. Perhaps you didn't see it?
|
...I boggled at Dog's 'fudgepacker' post before it was swiftly deleted. That was the post I was refering to. Perhaps you didn't see it?...
Nope - your humorous remark about Iffy's Gay Corner and me 'squeaking' about freedom of speech led me to focus only on what I've posted.
Either way, we're not going to be allowed to have what might be termed a public bar-type of conversation about this one.
I suspect most members regard that as a good thing.
Me? I'd relax the rules a bit, but as it's not up to me, that's really neither here nor there.
Last edited by: Iffy on Sun 9 Jan 11 at 18:35
|
Pete, dont get any more drawn in that you have been already, its not worth it.
Regarding the homophobes, what is true, like it or not, is that their objections, however much they are rooted in the past or some twisted version of whats right and wrong, are clearly genuinely held and I dont think they are held to persecute anyone in particular, its just something they cant get over - much the same way that I cannot begin to want to know what my parents may or may not get up to.
In essence, nothing you say will change their minds, so I wouldnt bother saying anymore on it. I suspect the more its discussed, the more you are likely to draw an even darker side to these people into the light, which is only going to make for trouble rather than any kind of reasoned debate.
|
Much the same as the opposing opinions on winter tyres, or how to use air con in winter......
But those discussions continue endlessly, are entertaining and show a lot about the people making their opinions heard quite strongly.
Are posts deleted from those threads?
Of course not, so what's the difference?
Pat
|
Of course not, so what's the difference?
The difference being was that the posts that have been remove from public view were in breach of the terms that members are asked to comply with as regards offensiveness and as pointed out could have been deemed as homophobic.
Strong opinions are one thing, being gratuitously offensive is quite another.
|
>>members are asked to comply with as regards offensiveness<<
So let me get this straight.
The thumbs down system only works if a moderator doesn't get there first and delete it.
Surely we're all adults here and capable of a reasoned debate without taking offence at others remarks?
If anyone is offended then I assumed the thumbs down button was the way to go, but more and more often a post isn't up long enough for anyone to use it.
I often have to resist pulling a post on our forums because it offends me ( usually something along the lines of 'women lorry drivers should be doing a mans job') as an example, but I have to sit back and ask myself if it would offend the majority of the other people reading it.
The answer is usually no, and if it's yes they will soon post to that effect.
Pat
|
>>if it would offend the ((majority of the other people)) reading it.
The answer is usually no, and if it's yes they will soon post to that effect<<
I couldn't be more in agreement with that statement Mrs P.
:)
|
|
The issue here is that views expressed in some posts, mostly from Iffy, had already been flagged as offensive. In those circs, and particularly where comments might overstep the law, I don't see the moddies have much choice.
|
Here’s a selection from today’s posts that I actually find offensive.
>>Tesco is the place to go for the muffin-topped pond life.<<
>>not to mix with the muffin top tattooed vicky polards and their disgusting progeny stuffing their trolleys with cut price crisps<<
>>Should have been left to die<<
>>Are you fat or obese, iffy?<<
I wouldn’t complain about them, but I think it all helps to build a picture of the type of person who posted each remark.
I certainly wouldn’t expect anyone else to find them offensive.
I wouldn’t imagine either, that anyone passing an opinion could in any way be breaking the law.
But it is a funny old world, because I can honestly say the 4 statements above would never have been posted on our lorry drivers forums.
And it isn’t because we don’t understand what progeny means either……that tells me a lot.
Pat
|
|
Pat, I'm merely responding to Zero in his own idiom.
|
I've read enough of your posts to realise that Alanovic:)
Pat
|
Please Miss it wasn't me Honest.
|
|
How the hell, do you always mange to relate every thing to lorry drivers. For gods sake woman they are not the saints of the earth.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 17 Jan 11 at 01:15
|
But we are certainly less judgmental.
Pat
|
I thought it was a reasonable comment in the context of this thread - response seemed a bit OTT, IMO.
EDIT: perhaps it wasn't a serious comment
Last edited by: Focus on Mon 10 Jan 11 at 14:03
|
oops -
>> I thought it was a reasonable comment
'it' = Pat's
>> EDIT: perhaps it wasn't a serious comment
'it' = Z's
sorry
Last edited by: Focus on Mon 10 Jan 11 at 14:09
|
...particularly where comments might overstep the law...
Can we just nail that one?
None of my posts, even the deleted one, has come close to being illegal.
For that to be the case, I would have to 'demonstrate hostility' to the minority group concerned.
All I've done is question the attitude of others to homosexuality and declare my disapproval of some of its practices.
If anyone thinks that's homophobia, they have led a very sheltered life.
Another example, if I say I find shooting pheasants for sport disgusting, I am not at any risk of legal action from those who shoot.
Happily for us all, criticism, even strident criticism which some might find offensive, is still legal.
Although the restrictions on freedom of speech are greater than they once were.
|
Iffy, your post was not along the lines of "I find shooting pheasants for sport disgusting" was it? What you posted gave rise at best to a fairly unpleasant image and on those grounds alone I would have hidden it, if PU hadn't got there first with a rather more serious reason.
Thankfully the mods life here is generally much easier than it was on HJ but there are still limits of decency etc which apply.
|
...but there are still limits of decency etc which apply...
My only point was the deleted post was legal, not that it was necessarily acceptable.
It should go without saying - the editorial stance of the site is a matter for those who run it.
As I posted earlier, what I think about that doesn't matter because I have no input.
|
|
So the only disagreement here is about me saying that it was potentially criminal. Apart from the breach of terms of this site's use my concern was that it may constitute an offence under Section 4(1)(b) Public Order Act 1986 - it is an area that I claim a certain amount of expertise in professionally - But remember that anything you may post here is your personal liability, but there is also the interests of the site to consider if it's a toss up between your views and the interests of the site, the site wins. You accept that your newspaper wouldn't print it, may be worth wondering why that is.
Last edited by: Pugugly on Mon 10 Jan 11 at 14:13
|
Hi all,
Can I just chip in here; I know I haven't been around much lately, but I am very grateful to the mods for all the work they do here. I cannot understate this point. Without some form of moderation any site could go horribly unpleasant to the detriment of the majority and the site overall.
As we stated when we set this place up, we want to keep the tone civilised and pleasant, above all trying to respect the positions of others. Clearly when certain subjects are involved this will be a tricky thing to do. There is one thing to hold the view that one feels say "homosexuality is wrong". It's another to reduce the issue to the sexual act that practising ones perform and use loaded language to describe them in a way that one knows could easily tread over the respect boundary.
While we adopt the stance here that we are much freer about moderation, clearly the line has to be drawn somewhere. In this case there were a number of emails to the mods complaining about the post, and I have to be in the place where I trust them in their decision making.
Again in this case one of the mods flagged up that the post had been hidden to prevent further offence and we backed them in their decision.
I understand that the line at which we do this is a not a hard and fast one with very clear boundaries. So we accept that some will disagree with their (and my endorsed) decision.
However, the aim is not to snip as a way of silencing or putting down the author, but more to maintain harmony and the light mood that this site enjoys.
This is not even considering the legal implications of posts...
Seen that way, can we just accept it and move on please?
|
>> There is one thing
>>to hold the view that one feels say "homosexuality is wrong". It's another to reduce
>> the issue to the sexual act that practising ones perform and use loaded language to
>> describe them in a way that one knows could easily tread over the respect boundary.
Beyond that, the sexual act concerned is the one straight people assume to be widespread and joke about.
My gay contacts suggest that it's a minority pursuit for them as well.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 10 Jan 11 at 15:02
|
This thread was fired up again with an announcement of the old lesbian godparents details. Given that the *parents* are an old gay couple I do feel they missed the chance to redress the balance somewhat with godparents from a caring young married male/female couple with children.... just to show that there is another way.
Anyway in the spirit of moving on let's forget the sexuality... just remember the fashion crime. That poor kid looking through the family album in 15yrs time being told these were your parents on an average night down the pub...
i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/29/article-1342354-00E8CF5300000190-884_634x896.jpg
Last edited by: Fenlander on Mon 10 Jan 11 at 15:05
|
Adopting kids would you want these parents? - Zero
