I knew a gay man with an ear infection and he got cured with antibiotics...science is amazing

Doubtful. It's just what they are. I, for instance, am attracted to petite women with large boobiez. There's no amount of "treatment" that will ever change that. I suspect it's the same for dudes with an affinity for the trouser snake.

Originally Posted by Tantal

Doubtful. It's just what they are. I, for instance, am attracted to petite women with large boobiez. There's no amount of "treatment" that will ever change that. I suspect it's the same for dudes with an affinity for the trouser snake.

I share a similar attraction, perhaps we should compare notes. The difference is that we have a healthy infinity whereas gays and nonses have an unhealthy infinity. If a gay man is happy with his sexuality thats fine, however I am sure that there must be many that are disgusted with what nature has done to them, I would be if it were me !!

Given that it's not an illness, there's hardly anything to be 'cured'. Regardless of whether the cause is genetic or hormonal, and allowing for varying degrees, if you're gay, you're gay, period.

Originally Posted by Midas

Given that it's not an illness, there's hardly anything to be 'cured'. Regardless of whether the cause is genetic or hormonal, and allowing for varying degrees, if you're gay, you're gay, period.

And there's nothing wrong with it so why 'cure' it anyway?

Originally Posted by Opinionated

And there's nothing wrong with it so why 'cure' it anyway?

I think AIDS is the problem here but the act of anal sex in it's self is a problem. a cure to both would only be found by stopping people from having anal sex, then you would find AIDS decreasing quite rapidly???

I think that's called castration.

Originally Posted by CAGAN

I am sure that there must be many that are disgusted with what nature has done to them, I would be if it were me !!

Homosexuality is in nature its not genetic viable but it happens.
Not to be cured, encourged, discourged, its just different.

Originally Posted by fubar

I think AIDS is the problem here but the act of anal sex in it's self is a problem. a cure to both would only be found by stopping people from having anal sex, then you would find AIDS decreasing quite rapidly???

Anal sex isn't the problem any transaction of bodily fluid can transmit the virus, its more prevalent in gay men in the west not in africa.

Originally Posted by CAGAN

In Western society we find homosexuality acceptable whilst pedophilia we find abhorrent, whereas in the Muslim community having sex with very young girls is Ok, however two blokes batting off the other wicket is by no means acceptable at all. The only difference is cultural perception of right and wrong.

Experts in their field believe that there has been headway made in some cases and nonses can in many cases can be cured of their perversion, so is it conceivable that gay men can be cured of their own perversion ?

Even if you could chang who homosexuals found atractive would it be morally right? if they are both concenting 16+s then in law its its ok.
With phedophillia concent is not know or safe as the child or teenager may be more perswadeable and peer pressured into it their mental and sexual maturety are in question.

Originally Posted by Robin Edward Putland

Anal sex isn't the problem any transaction of bodily fluid can transmit the virus, its more prevalent in gay men in the west not in africa.

could you back that statement up with facts please, ?????

Originally Posted by Robin Edward Putland

Homosexuality is in nature its not genetic viable but it happens.
Not to be cured, encourged, discourged, its just different.

Facts please,?

Originally Posted by Midas

Given that it's not an illness, there's hardly anything to be 'cured'. Regardless of whether the cause is genetic or hormonal, and allowing for varying degrees, if you're gay, you're gay, period.

In may cultures being gay would be considered a mental illness as in our culture pedophilia is.

Originally Posted by Opinionated

And there's nothing wrong with it so why 'cure' it anyway?

I do wonder if you realize what you have said, do you agree on a social level or nature. As there is plenty things wrong with homosexuality.

Originally Posted by fubar

could you back that statement up with facts please, ?????

Lets get the facts straight here, HIV can only be transmitted through infected blood, semen, vaginal fluids, and breast milk. The reason anal sex is considered more dangerous is due the increased danger of tears and blood to blood contact but you can get the same tears via heterosexual intercourse as well. Basically whatever sex you are practising as long as you use a condom you are considerably safer from any sexually transmited disease.

http://www.avert.org/howcan.htm
http://www.thewellproject.org/en_US/...erceptions.jsp
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/hiv/pag...roduction.aspx

Originally Posted by CAGAN

Like the sad git I am, I have just been watching Eastenders and it got me thinking. The story line goes like this, there is an Asian bloke that enjoys having his back door kicked in, and his parents to say the least can't come to terms with it. He has found someone on the internet that claims to be able to cure him from his perversion.

In Western society we find homosexuality acceptable whilst pedophilia we find abhorrent, whereas in the Muslim community having sex with very young girls is Ok, however two blokes batting off the other wicket is by no means acceptable at all. The only difference is cultural perception of right and wrong.

Experts in their field believe that there has been headway made in some cases and nonses can in many cases can be cured of their perversion, so is it conceivable that gay men can be cured of their own perversion ?

I dont think so.

Homosexuality is not a disease. All major mental health organizations, including the American Psychological Association (APA), have stated that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

As far as I know no one knows 100% why some people are homosexual. Some people who study human sexuality believe that sexuality is a result of genetics, social or individual factors, alone or in combination. A common misperception is that troubled family relationships cause people to be homosexual, but no scientifically sound research supports this myth.

I found this in wiki answers as well - I have no idea of it's validity although it appears logically sound.
WikiAnswers - What is the scientific explanation for homosexual behavior

Originally Posted by fubar

I do wonder if you realize what you have said, do you agree on a social level or nature. As there is plenty things wrong with homosexuality.

Of course I know what I said!!! I think there is nothing wrong with homosexuality on a moral level, so therefore I guess "socially" is what I meant.

Originally Posted by Opinionated

Of course I know what I said!!! I think there is nothing wrong with homosexuality on a moral level, so therefore I guess "socially" is what I meant.

I would largely go along with that, but adding the qualification "as long as it's kept behind closed doors". Homosexuality is not normal in the sense that it's very much a minority inclination, and whilst I believe many people are neutral toward it, they certainly don't want it thrust in their faces, something many gay people are prone to try to do.

Originally Posted by Midas

I would largely go along with that, but adding the qualification "as long as it's kept behind closed doors". Homosexuality is not normal in the sense that it's very much a minority inclination, and whilst I believe many people are neutral toward it, they certainly don't want it thrust in their faces, something many gay people are prone to try to do.

I could not disagree with this more. The majority of gay men and women do nothing of the sort. This is the equivelant of judging all hetrosexual people by their fanatical homophobes...they are a minority, and one that embarasses the majority who just want to live and let live.

Originally Posted by Midas

I would largely go along with that, but adding the qualification "as long as it's kept behind closed doors". Homosexuality is not normal in the sense that it's very much a minority inclination, and whilst I believe many people are neutral toward it, they certainly don't want it thrust in their faces, something many gay people are prone to try to do.

It depends on what you mean by 'thrust in their faces'. Regardless, I don't think it's anybody's place to tell individuals how to go about their lives, public or private, in this manner, unless they are actually causing harm to people.

if you're gay, you're gay, period.

Not so! There was a case recently in The Times when a guy, a helicopter pilot reached the ripe old age of forty and realised he wanted to be straight, and was going to be, having had two long term gay relationships (10 years each).

That's the thing with it all, it seems to me there are no set rules, regards genetics well I thought they had not found it yet? That said I believe there is a gene with the very feminate type of gay person. The characteristics are all too obvious generally speaking of course.

Originally Posted by uncon

I could not disagree with this more. The majority of gay men and women do nothing of the sort. This is the equivelant of judging all hetrosexual people by their fanatical homophobes...they are a minority, and one that embarasses the majority who just want to live and let live.

I never said the majority did, but you have to admit that even a small but very vocal group of any people can set the perception of that group by the majority of other people.

Originally Posted by JacquesMagique

It depends on what you mean by 'thrust in their faces'. Regardless, I don't think it's anybody's place to tell individuals how to go about their lives, public or private, in this manner, unless they are actually causing harm to people.

I'm really talking about overtly camp gays who go out of their way to make everyone aware of their sexuality - as in so-called 'gay pride' parades for example - to the great discomfort of huge numbers of heterosexual people, and not a few much more private gay people as well, who're quite happy to accept that there are people of all inclinations around, as long as their inclination is confined to the privacy of their own homes or specific bars and clubs which can be avoided.

I should add that I've got absolutely no problem with homosexuality itself, it's part and parcel of people, but I do object to it, indeed the activities of any over-vocal minority group, being given overt publicity.

Originally Posted by Midas

I'm really talking about overtly camp gays who go out of their way to make everyone aware of their sexuality - as in so-called 'gay pride' parades for example - to the great discomfort of huge numbers of heterosexual people, and not a few much more private gay people as well, who're quite happy to accept that there are people of all inclinations around, as long as their inclination is confined to the privacy of their own homes or specific bars and clubs which can be avoided.

I don't understand this idea that people have a 'right' to avoid it. The implications of this idea are quite troubling, and almost suggests that everything in public should conform to some kind of homogenous 'norm' in a society, despite the fact that society is made up of hugely different and dynamic individuals.
Most people belong to some kind of a 'minority' grouping, even just in terms of taste in music or clothing, but suppressing public displays of this would simply be ridiculous. You are of course going to accuse me of unreasonably extrapolating your views to change their meaning, but I don't think this particular comparison is unreasonable at all. From somebody who occasionally refers to themself as a libertarian I find this view very odd indeed.

Originally Posted by Midas

I'm really talking about overtly camp gays who go out of their way to make everyone aware of their sexuality - as in so-called 'gay pride' parades for example - to the great discomfort of huge numbers of heterosexual people, and not a few much more private gay people as well, who're quite happy to accept that there are people of all inclinations around, as long as their inclination is confined to the privacy of their own homes or specific bars and clubs which can be avoided.

Really? Really?! Wow Mr democracy, that's pretty intolerant right there. If a majority of people didn't particularly like the sight of blacks, would it be OK to pass a law saying that they had to cover their entire body before venturing outside? Apart from the hideous prejudice exhibited in this post, just the idea that there should be any restrictions on anything like homosexuality over the rest of the population is absurd. What's the law going to be? Men not allowed to hold hands in public? Sent to jail if they kiss? Or just fined? Perhaps given an ASBO? Why the need to 'avoid' homosexuals? I don't quite understand what the issue is unless you ARE homophobic. Now it's OK if you are, you're old and living in the past, but don't be dishonest about it. Say you don't like gays and that you want to limit their freedom of expression in order to satisfy the demands of your bigotry.

Originally Posted by Midas

I should add that I've got absolutely no problem with homosexuality itself, it's part and parcel of people, but I do object to it, indeed the activities of any over-vocal minority group, being given overt publicity.

So insecure that you can't deal with it being right there in front of you? Afraid that the nasty 'gay agenda' is stifling your right to sleep with women? I daresay any mention of gays in school would also be banned under the Midas regime. Teachers telling anyone under 21 that men sometimes love other men would be jailed. Or given an ASBO. Or maybe fed to George Osbourne's dogs?

THOSE SNEAKY GAYS!!!

I was just wondering, can blacks be cured of being black? It's an unnatural condition (by this I mean it is not in the majority) and many people are afflicted by it. I know if I was black I would want to be cured and become white instead.

Now I have many friends so I am not prejudiced. I also like the music of Ella Fitzgerald and Sammy Davis Junior. I just think these people should be saved.

If it is not possible, perhaps there should just be a law so that they can only be black behind closed doors? This would probably benefit society as a whole because most people would rather not have to look at them being black. I have no problem with them being black, really, but it would just be better for everyone, including them, if they were only allowed to do it in their own private time.

I think this is very reasonable. I might email the Conservative party with a suggestion.

Personally I find the whole idea of black history month and any 'pride' event to be deeply troubling, pride in anything outside of the norm (determined by what the majority think, act, say etc) is simply not acceptable in modern society. As you say Douglas, can't they keep it behind closed doors and not shove it down our throats at every opportunity? Diversity, tolerance, understanding and freedom are all well and good as long as they do not require any change in behaviour. That is where I draw the line.

Originally Posted by JacquesMagique

I don't understand this idea that people have a 'right' to avoid it. The implications of this idea are quite troubling, and almost suggests that everything in public should conform to some kind of homogenous 'norm' in a society, despite the fact that society is made up of hugely different and dynamic individuals.

Of course people have a right to avoid something they don't wish to be exposed to, in particular if it's something they find distasteful for whatever personal reason. The average view of society should be exactly that, the norm, and if something is too far away from that norm for the comfort of the majority, I think people have every right to expect that it be controlled to some degree or other.

Most people belong to some kind of a 'minority' grouping, even just in terms of taste in music or clothing, but suppressing public displays of this would simply be ridiculous. You are of course going to accuse me of unreasonably extrapolating your views to change their meaning, but I don't think this particular comparison is unreasonable at all. From somebody who occasionally refers to themself as a libertarian I find this view very odd indeed.

Yes, they do, but there are degrees of acceptance of every minority grouping, and with the best will in the world you can't compare the variation in people's tastes of music or clothing to public demonstrations of a sexual deviancy (in statistical terms I mean). I don't see this view as being at odds with a partial libertarian view though; if something is not 'normal' (as in not being the same as the significant majority), that majority view should prevail.

Originally Posted by Midas

Of course people have a right to avoid something they don't wish to be exposed to, in particular if it's something they find distasteful for whatever personal reason. The average view of society should be exactly that, the norm, and if something is too far away from that norm for the comfort of the majority, I think people have every right to expect that it be controlled to some degree or other.

Demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of rights - rights are intended to protect minorities (such as people who are gay) from majorities (such as you). They are not there to provide a basis off which bigots can restrict the activities of minorities.

Originally Posted by Midas

Yes, they do, but there are degrees of acceptance of every minority grouping, and with the best will in the world you can't compare the variation in people's tastes of music or clothing to public demonstrations of a sexual deviancy (in statistical terms I mean). I don't see this view as being at odds with a partial libertarian view though; if something is not 'normal' (as in not being the same as the significant majority), that majority view should prevail.

Rubbish. Homosexual sex should be disallowed in public because heterosexual sex also is. If you intend to also make straight couples kissing in public illegal, then that is fine (if very prudish). Anything else is, however, applying the law differently to different groups of people - discrimination. It contradicts the rule of law and the principles of freedom and human rights. Go ahead and be a bigot, but, as I said, be honest about it.

Originally Posted by Midas

if something is not 'normal' (as in not being the same as the significant majority), that majority view should prevail.

Originally Posted by Midas

if something is not 'normal' (as in not being the same as the significant majority), that majority view should prevail.

Originally Posted by Midas

if something is not 'normal' (as in not being the same as the significant majority), that majority view should prevail.

Originally Posted by Midas

if something is not 'normal' (as in not being the same as the significant majority), that majority view should prevail.

Originally Posted by Midas

if something is not 'normal' (as in not being the same as the significant majority), that majority view should prevail.

Sorry, just wanted to point out that you had posted this.

Originally Posted by Midas

Of course people have a right to avoid something they don't wish to be exposed to, in particular if it's something they find distasteful for whatever personal reason. The average view of society should be exactly that, the norm, and if something is too far away from that norm for the comfort of the majority, I think people have every right to expect that it be controlled to some degree or other.

Well I find tracksuit bottoms and very short hair distasteful, do I have right to go about by daily business without seeing it?? :S

Yes, they do, but there are degrees of acceptance of every minority grouping, and with the best will in the world you can't compare the variation in people's tastes of music or clothing to public demonstrations of a sexual deviancy (in statistical terms I mean). I don't see this view as being at odds with a partial libertarian view though; if something is not 'normal' (as in not being the same as the significant majority), that majority view should prevail.

By 'partial libertarian' though, you in fact mean corporatist neoconservatism, let's be honest. It's 'free' markets (apart from when foreign people want to be involved) you want, and clearly not a high level of freedom for each and every individual.

Come on guys there is an obvious solution to the problem of 'blacks' ... we should invite 15-30 million over here and let them breed. At the rate they knock them out not only will our population growth be sustained for years to come, ensuring a consistent staff for the NHS but think of all the other economic benefits that come with increased immigration. I feel richer both financially and as an individual just writing this. Also over time the 'white' skin tone with dilute into a light brown tone and then we no longer need to worry about racism as we'll all be the same colour...that is providing global warming doesn't end the world first!!

Originally Posted by Tete123

Come on guys there is an obvious solution to the problem of 'blacks' ... we should invite 15-30 million over here and let them breed. At the rate they knock them out not only will our population growth be sustained for years to come, ensuring a consistent staff for the NHS but think of all the other economic benefits that come with increased immigration. I feel richer both financially and as an individual just writing this. Also over time the 'white' skin tone with dilute into a light brown tone and then we no longer need to worry about racism as we'll all be the same colour...that is providing global warming doesn't end the world first!!

But then we'd have to keep the whole population inside!!

Originally Posted by DougieG

But then we'd have to keep the whole population inside!!

Perfect ... not only will housing be novel to our new visitors it will assist in the enhanced breeding program I have in mind.

Of course they can, just look at Michael Jackson.

I agree with you.

We should have the right to be happy amongst our own without enforced tolerance of something we are not particularly comfortable with.

Originally Posted by JacquesMagique

Well I find tracksuit bottoms and very short hair distasteful, do I have right to go about by daily business without seeing it?? :S

Since when did wearing different clothes or having a different haircut to others even remotely equate to people making a public display of very much a minority sexual inclination practiced by a small percentage of people? You're comparing chalk and cheese.

By 'partial libertarian' though, you in fact mean corporatist neoconservatism, let's be honest. It's 'free' markets (apart from when foreign people want to be involved) you want, and clearly not a high level of freedom for each and every individual.

By 'partial libertarian' I mean exactly what I say; I don't believe in full libertarianism because there are far too many sheeple and predatory individuals around, so some regulation in the interests of the majority is needed. There should be freedom for the individual as long as it doesn't interfere with the lives or opinions of the majority, and in the context of this thread I'd lay a pound to a penny that whilst the majority of people will say they have no problem with gay people, that same majority would also say "but not in public" or very similar. As far as foreign people are concerned, although very much off this topic, exactly the same applies; as long as they don't come here illegally, to sponge off the state or to take the jobs of British people which could be filled locally, I have no problem with them.

Originally Posted by Midas

Since when did wearing different clothes or having a different haircut to others even remotely equate to people making a public display of very much a minority sexual inclination practiced by a small percentage of people? You're comparing chalk and cheese.



By 'partial libertarian' I mean exactly what I say; I don't believe in full libertarianism because there are far too many sheeple and predatory individuals around, so some regulation in the interests of the majority is needed. There should be freedom for the individual as long as it doesn't interfere with the lives or opinions of the majority, and in the context of this thread I'd lay a pound to a penny that whilst the majority of people will say they have no problem with gay people, that same majority would also say "but not in public" or very similar. As far as foreign people are concerned, although very much off this topic, exactly the same applies; as long as they don't come here illegally, to sponge off the state or to take the jobs of British people which could be filled locally, I have no problem with them.

Looks like you can't deal with my points.

Originally Posted by DougieG

Looks like you can't deal with my points.

Minority groups should have no more rights than the majority, and as I've said several times, if the majority find something offensive or distasteful, it should be their absolute right to insist that they're not exposed to it. Call it discrimination if you like, but as far as I, and a huge number of people are concerned, it's quite right and proper that certain activities from certain groups are restricted, and the sooner we can get rid of the Human Rights Act and replace it with something more sensible and which doesn't itself discriminate against the majority, the better.

Originally Posted by Midas

Minority groups should have no more rights than the majority, and as I've said several times, if the majority find something offensive or distasteful, it should be their absolute right to insist that they're not exposed to it. Call it discrimination if you like, but as far as I, and a huge number of people are concerned, it's quite right and proper that certain activities from certain groups are restricted, and the sooner we can get rid of the Human Rights Act and replace it with something more sensible and which doesn't itself discriminate against the majority, the better.

Nope, noone should have rights over anyone else. Including majorities over minorities. If the majority can do something that the minority don't like, and the minority cannot do the same thing, then that's discrimination. And any law that did would breach the ECHR. Which I know you hate anyway, opposing as you do rights for thos upstart proles.

Originally Posted by Midas

I never said the majority did, but you have to admit that even a small but very vocal group of any people can set the perception of that group by the majority of other people.

And education is the way to stop others being influenced that way. We know that no good ever comes when people are influenced and start to believe in an extreme minority from history.

I'm not religious but I do believe that peace is achieved through acceptance, and I definately favour peace. I believe that anyone who can find love or look for it regardless of whether they fit a macho or feminine model is fine by me.

I think what you may be referring to is the overly camp community in gay areas...what concerns me more is that there has to be those areas in order for gay people to feel safe. It used to be that Gay men only felt safe in the theatrical world where pretense was the norm and they closed ranks to protect each other because it was a crime.

Homosexuality just is....nobody is gay to offend their straight friends or parents. It isn't the easy fun route. Some are beatifully flamboyant too!

Not sure if they can be 'cured' of their blackness, but there are a few things that could be addressed.

1. Their apparent addiction to menthols. It's a public health crisis that should be addressed.
2. Their preference for Hennessey and Malt Liquor over finer adult beverages.
3. Their inability to pronounce the word "ask" properly. In the U.S., they pronounce it as "axe". They'll never get a decent job until they master the English language.
4. Their penchant for putting $5,000 wheels and $3,000 stereos into a $300 car. This is simply wasteful. That money could be better spent in the welfare system so that Sheniqua can have that 13th child she's always wanted.
5. Their inability to select the proper size in clothing. A teenager with a 30" waist should not be wearing 42" pants. Further, the belt is supposed to go around the waist, not just over the pubic bone and under the buttocks leaving the underwear exposed.
6. Their whining about a lack of educational opportunities when they're wearing 2 semesters'-worth of college tuition around their necks, in their mouths, and on their feet.
7. For black women: It's a vagina, not a clown car. Condoms are your friend.
8. The manufacturer's tag on your hat just looks stupid.....the fact that said hat is on sideways doesn't help much either.
9. Black and Milds aren't really cigars.

This is just a partial list and may just be specific to the U.S. Once these issues are properly addressed, I'm sure that we can come to an agreement on what's left.

Originally Posted by fubar

Facts please,?

Not to Sieve through the entire animal Kingdom i'll settle for Banobos our closest living relative (along with Chimps). Banobos do it with anyone, within there family there social groups anyage any sex it doesn't matter its a soical bonding activity to them.
Human culture does effect how sex, in all its diversity is percieved: in Rome and Ancient Greece Homoseluality was noraml and openly pracited even with boys, in Sparta it was compulsory in their military academies, in all cases just part of growing up.
Once christianity became the dominent religion and preached Homosexuality was evil it came to be percieved that way, and still is by some even though were suposed to be living in an enlighted secular society.
The point is no matter how sex ,in all its diverstiy, is percieved and practiced in a culture it is present.

Originally Posted by Midas

Minority groups should have no more rights than the majority, and as I've said several times, if the majority find something offensive or distasteful, it should be their absolute right to insist that they're not exposed to it. Call it discrimination if you like, but as far as I, and a huge number of people are concerned, it's quite right and proper that certain activities from certain groups are restricted, and the sooner we can get rid of the Human Rights Act and replace it with something more sensible and which doesn't itself discriminate against the majority, the better.

Wouldn't this create a moral dictatorship of grannies and grandads, saying oow did't you see that yobbo with a huddy must be banned along with people kissing int he street, how un cooth and rude tops, disgraseful.
The Human rights act is sensible and defends the basic human rights of everry individual in the world, heaven forbid Britian agree with a sane law that isn't thiers thats just not jingoistic at all!

Originally Posted by Midas

the sooner we can get rid of the Human Rights Act and replace it with something more sensible and which doesn't itself discriminate against the majority, the better.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Well.

As a start, the point of Human Rights is to protect minorities, and then to protect all citizens from right wing Governments. We have something called DEMOCRACY (or, rather, we don't in Britain) to protect majorities, and RIGHTS to protect minorities. Those most in need of protection from bigots like your good self are minorities and unpopular groups. This includes, but is not limited to, homosexuals, black people, Asians, Muslims, prisoners and criminals. These people all need protection from torture and discrimination (and in the case of prisoners/criminals they are only fully protected in certain rights, namely articles 2,4,5,6,7 and 8, generally). Now, majorities of people do not need rights. I don't get discriminated against. Ever. Nor do you. Shockingly, the persecution that homosexuals have feared and suffered under the rule of those of YOUR ilk in this 'fair' country (Oscar Wilde?) has been genuine and terrible. Compared to that, you having to avert your eyes when a man gives another man a peck on the lips seems a little petty, do you not think?

Not only petty, pathetic. You actually believe that your right to enforce your will against others is more important than that of other people to behave as they wish. I think, furthermore, that you would find that you were in a TINY minority were you to put this to referendum. A law against gay people holding hands in public? You'd be voted down by 95% of the country, and the rest vote BNP. Or possibly Conservative.

Explain to us, Midas, what your 'MAJORITIES BILL OF RIGHTS' would consist of. I'll have a guess:

Originally Posted by Midas

This, enacted by her majesty's Parliament on the 06/06/06, is a bill intended to eradicate minorities and such people who Midas, in his infinite wisdom and glory, does not like very much. These people include, but are not limited to, homosexuals, ethnic groups, and prisoners.

1. No white heterosexual man shall be denied the right to hunt foxes.
2. No white heterosexual woman shall be required to drive.
3. No white heterosexual person shall have their rights infringed under articles 2-14 ECHR.

4. The Human Rights Act 1998 is to be repealed.

Good enough? Because seriously, that is what you are arguing for.

Now, explain to me, with at least an attempt at a modicum of understanding, how the HRA discriminates against the majority. I will point you to the following cases considered enormously significant in it, and you will note that they mostly include only white, presumably heterosexual, people:

R v A
Re S v Re W
Home Secretary v MB
R v Home Sec ex p D
R v Home Sec ex p Anderson
PCC v Wallbank
YL v Birmingham CC
R (A) v Partnerships in Care
Poplar Housing v Donoghue
R (Beer) v Hampshire Farmers
Cameron v Rail Network
Mullins v Jockey Club
Douglas v Hello! (OH MY GOD MICHAEL DOUGLAS WON A LANDMARK CASE USING IT AND HE IS A WHITE STRAIGHT MAN!!!!!!!!!!)
Campbell v MGN
Murray v Express
Mosley v NGN
R(Ullah) v Special Adjudicator
N v Home Secretary (OK, this person was a foreigner).
R v Horncastle
Kay v Lambeth
Belfast v Miss Behavin'
R v DPP ex p Kebilene
Roth GmbH v Home Sec
R (Greenfield) v Home Office
R (Pro Life Alliance) v BBC

For the sake of completeness:

Bellinger v Bellinger (About transsexuals)
Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza (About gay people)

Right, that is all of the cases that I learnt in order to get a qualification in Human Rights law. I haven't doctored the list to remove important cases that serve minorities. There are a few on there, about 5, but I think it will be clear to anyone that the Human Rights Act is not prejudiced against us white men.

Oh, but wait! THAT MEANS MIDAS CAN'T GET AWAY WITH BEING A BIGOT!! Boo hoo, better change the law.

You've got even more right wing since we all buggered off, showing your true colours now you've been unchallenged for a while, I guess. Well hopefully everyone can see from the list above how incorrect you are. It's not your fault, you clearly know nothing about the topic. Just stop claiming to.

And that, I think, along with the rest of my posts, sums up most of the reasons why you are categorically wrong. Or, if there is any subjectivity in it, why you are intensely immoral.

Originally Posted by DougieG

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Well.

As a start, the point of Human Rights is to protect minorities, and then to protect all citizens from right wing Governments. We have something called DEMOCRACY (or, rather, we don't in Britain) to protect majorities, and RIGHTS to protect minorities. Those most in need of protection from bigots like your good self are minorities and unpopular groups. This includes, but is not limited to, homosexuals, black people, Asians, Muslims, prisoners and criminals. These people all need protection from torture and discrimination (and in the case of prisoners/criminals they are only fully protected in certain rights, namely articles 2,4,5,6,7 and 8, generally). Now, majorities of people do not need rights. I don't get discriminated against. Ever. Nor do you. Shockingly, the persecution that homosexuals have feared and suffered under the rule of those of YOUR ilk in this 'fair' country (Oscar Wilde?) has been genuine and terrible. Compared to that, you having to avert your eyes when a man gives another man a peck on the lips seems a little petty, do you not think?

Not only petty, pathetic. You actually believe that your right to enforce your will against others is more important than that of other people to behave as they wish. I think, furthermore, that you would find that you were in a TINY minority were you to put this to referendum. A law against gay people holding hands in public? You'd be voted down by 95% of the country, and the rest vote BNP. Or possibly Conservative.

Explain to us, Midas, what your 'MAJORITIES BILL OF RIGHTS' would consist of. I'll have a guess:



Good enough? Because seriously, that is what you are arguing for.

Now, explain to me, with at least an attempt at a modicum of understanding, how the HRA discriminates against the majority. I will point you to the following cases considered enormously significant in it, and you will note that they mostly include only white, presumably heterosexual, people:

R v A
Re S v Re W
Home Secretary v MB
R v Home Sec ex p D
R v Home Sec ex p Anderson
PCC v Wallbank
YL v Birmingham CC
R (A) v Partnerships in Care
Poplar Housing v Donoghue
R (Beer) v Hampshire Farmers
Cameron v Rail Network
Mullins v Jockey Club
Douglas v Hello! (OH MY GOD MICHAEL DOUGLAS WON A LANDMARK CASE USING IT AND HE IS A WHITE STRAIGHT MAN!!!!!!!!!!)
Campbell v MGN
Murray v Express
Mosley v NGN
R(Ullah) v Special Adjudicator
N v Home Secretary (OK, this person was a foreigner).
R v Horncastle
Kay v Lambeth
Belfast v Miss Behavin'
R v DPP ex p Kebilene
Roth GmbH v Home Sec
R (Greenfield) v Home Office
R (Pro Life Alliance) v BBC

For the sake of completeness:

Bellinger v Bellinger (About transsexuals)
Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza (About gay people)

Right, that is all of the cases that I learnt in order to get a qualification in Human Rights law. I haven't doctored the list to remove important cases that serve minorities. There are a few on there, about 5, but I think it will be clear to anyone that the Human Rights Act is not prejudiced against us white men.

Oh, but wait! THAT MEANS MIDAS CAN'T GET AWAY WITH BEING A BIGOT!! Boo hoo, better change the law.

You've got even more right wing since we all buggered off, showing your true colours now you've been unchallenged for a while, I guess. Well hopefully everyone can see from the list above how incorrect you are. It's not your fault, you clearly know nothing about the topic. Just stop claiming to.

But isn't fox-hunting like, the gayest thing ever? Lots of men dressed in tight leggings and vermillion rouge jackets take a little sherry before collectively racing around the countryside blowing horns and whooping loudly with their doggies, gay! gay! gay!

Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

But isn't fox-hunting like, the gayest thing ever? Lots of men dressed in tight leggings and vermillion rouge jackets take a little sherry before collectively racing around the countryside blowing horns and whooping loudly with their doggies, gay! gay! gay!

Haha yes I guess so. One way for the multitude of closet gays in the Tory party to express themselves.

They have the newly married Dave and Nick to druel over now

I am asexual and I know that it is a completely bological phenomenon - why can't people accept that people can love other members of the same sex in the same way they can love members of the opposite sex, and some can do so without sexual attraction. We can talk about thrusting it in our face but you get that from all sexualities and I'm not a fan of it personally.

Originally Posted by Robin Edward Putland

Not to Sieve through the entire animal Kingdom i'll settle for Banobos our closest living relative (along with Chimps). Banobos do it with anyone, within there family there social groups any age any sex it doesn't matter its a social bonding activity to them.
Human culture does effect how sex, in all its diversity is perceived: in Rome and Ancient Greece Homosexuality was normal and openly pracited even with boys, in Sparta it was compulsory in their military academies, in all cases just part of growing up. .

How you can use the animal kingdom as a example is both confusing an misleading we are so far removed from them that you form the lie in you own head to justify the act of the homosexual Male, Female,as natural rather than socially acceptable.

Originally Posted by Robin Edward Putland

Once Christianity became the dominant religion and preached Homosexuality was evil it came to be perceived that way, and still is by some even though were supposed to be living in an enlightened secular society.
The point is no matter how sex ,in all its diversity, is perceived and practiced in a culture it is present.

To some it is evil, even now.considering the negative effect on society.