Firstly, I am not, nor have I ever been, a homosexual.

But nor am I a homophobe.

At least, several of my mates who ARE gay don't think so, and I guess they'd know.

They know that I don't give a bugger (oops!) what they get up to in their bedrooms, and
they're good with that. They know that I have no interest in participating, so they don't
ask. While several are quite open about being gay, others prefer to keep it on a 'need-
to-know' level for whatever reason, but they know that I'm not going to turn round and
'out' them, or similar.

I'm quite comfortable stirring them about all the pu$$y they've been missing out on, or
pointing out blatantly gay men ('There's one for ya, mate...nudge nudge,wink wink!'...)
and they're likewise equally at ease pointing out the biggest 'bush-pig' in the place to me
('I used to go out with her brother, I can line you up....') or what a hassle and expense it
must be having a g/f or missus and kids to lug around. And so on.

All friendly banter, words like poofter or poof aren't out-of-order, and are used quite
freely by all, with no offense given or take. If I hear a good 'poofter joke' I tell them
knowing that, rather than take offense, they'll often tell me the latest one THEY'VE
heard.

They also know that I support equality, and they know that I support 'civil unions', for
want (need?) of a better name, but not gay 'marriage' as such.

And they're good with that. Some don't agree, a couple don't care either way. But
no-one gets offended, or throws a hissy-fit.

Basically, it's mutual respect. I respect their right to their lifestyle and their privacy, and
they respect my right to not approve of every single thing that lifestyle entails.

And none of them regard me as a homophobe.

So I'm not really worried if a stranger on a message-board thinks I am.

Matty, it is the right who pushed the "climate change" terminology.



Quote:

matty wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 12:54am:


what gender is the homosexual? lol

I get the feeling you dont know the meaning of the word bigot. Go look it up. you will be glad you did because you can avoid misusing the word in future.

SOB

MOTR wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 7:29am:


What are you trying to say "There is no God"?
Even with science you still need creation.

MOTR wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 8:15am:


It is likewise true that Gods existence does not depend on anyones belief for it so be so. The argument is usually circular because when asked for a standard of proof that the atheist would accept it is usually ridiculously high. EG if you prayed for a billion dollars and the next day Bill Gates drove up and gave you a cheque for $100million would you than claim that God doesnt answer prayer?

Ive asked atheists in the past for a statement of their minimum level of proof that God exists, Its amazing how they can never seem to really find an answer beyond 'world peace' and other motherhood statements.

JC Denton wrote on Jun 10^th, 2012 at 11:11pm:



In itself, I don't really care either - but it is a symbolic issue, and it's what this fight represents that I care strongly about.
We've already been sold the sh!t sandwich of cultural marxism - if we then specifically recognise homosexual unions as "equal", to me thats akin to telling them it tastes good.  They can break my body, but they will never break my spirit.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 12:12pm:



No, they were not suggesting anything of the sort. You are again talking about your misunderstanding of half-remembered conversations you overheard in your dreams.
There was never a suggestion for civil unions for different races.