switchlogic:
Carryfast:
suddenly she’s now definitely a vulnerable woman who doesn’t know what she wants
Hate to break it to you but any teacher of any ■■■ or ■■■■■■■■■ would be in the wrong here. Gay people don’t have some sort of magic paedo pass 
You do know that resigning from the job again changes everything.In which case you did read the age.
While the point was the bit about the ‘woman’s’ right to choose suddenly conveniently turns into her not knowing her own mind and what she wants when it suits.
Human nature being what it is inevitably means that it can only end up in the situation of increasing entrenchment on all sides regarding what defines their particular idea of accepted norms.In which their own perceived expectations,regarding rules and gender,are actually just as important to the LGBT lobby,as they are in the case of all the so called ‘bigots’.With society already well on the way to removing the right of women to choose when it doesn’t suit PC expectations.IE hypocrites.
newmercman:
■■■■■■■■■ doesn’t define who you are
To a very large extent it does, saying it doesn’t is simply a lie you’ve been spun over the years by people desperate to fit in.Had I grown up straight my life would be entirely different and probably much more like my brothers, married with kids etc
switchlogic:
newmercman:
■■■■■■■■■ doesn’t define who you are
To a very large extent it does, saying it doesn’t is simply a lie you’ve been spun over the years by people desperate to fit in.Had I grown up straight my life would be entirely different and probably much more like my brothers, married with kids etc
Isn’t that your individual traits rather than ■■■■■■■■■? I know straight people married without kids, married with kids, not married, not kids too. I see commonality there to both persuasions.
Traits formed by a variety of factors including ■■■■■■■■■.
switchlogic:
Traits formed by a variety of factors including ■■■■■■■■■.
There’s a gay couple I used to work with in their 50s. They were far more pipe, slippers and picket fence than I ever was. If anything I’m straight yet in exactly the same position as you. All my mates married off with kids. I’ve got a long term misses, not married, no children. I don’t feel my ■■■■■■■■■ has defined this rather my personality and sometimes dodgy personal choices 
I’m hardly saying it affects everyone to the same degree and in exactly the same way, that would be daft
switchlogic:
I’m hardly saying it affects everyone to the same degree and in exactly the same way, that would be daft
It’s interesting. Well, I’m no one to say if you feel defined by it all. If you say it has I respect it has. I just found it interesting. I don’t feel defined by it myself.
It’s a small player on the stage. I feel defined by the impact I have left on those around me in the past, good and bad. I try to use this to shape my future with hindsight in order to better myself and align with what I want out of life. I never seem to get all of that that quite right, but it’s a work in progress .
Put it this way, if someone mentioned my ■■■■■■■■■ in my Euology I’d feel pretty short changed 
Well married with kids is an option, obviously not as straightforward as a traditional man, women, 2.4 kids deal, but same ■■■ marriage is legal, so is adoption and surrogacy. The latter two also being necessary for heterosexual couples that can’t have kids for biological reasons.
I can see how you could believe that to be a drawback of being gay, but that’s life, in the same way that I would like to be able to sing like Frank Sinatra, or play football like Harry Kane, my genetics decided otherwise. I think that dwelling on what you can’t do because of genetics is assuming a victim mentality, or wanting to have your cake and eat it.
Easy for me to say I know, as I can only speak from my own experiences, but that’s all I have to go on. I don’t expect people to judge me on that and I certainly don’t judge anybody based on theirs, unless their experiences have been through the choices they’ve made, in that case I can and do make judgements.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
My original point was simply that to reduce being gay to ‘what someone does in the bedroom’ was a bit daft and I think I’ve more than explained why. Your ■■■■■■■■■ will be mentioned in your eulogy- when whoever gives it refers to your wife/girlfriend. Indirectly obviously but still there
newmercman:
Well married with kids is an option, obviously not as straightforward as a traditional man, women, 2.4 kids deal, but same ■■■ marriage is legal, so is adoption and surrogacy. The latter two also being necessary for heterosexual couples that can’t have kids for biological reasons.
I can see how you could believe that to be a drawback of being gay, but that’s life, in the same way that I would like to be able to sing like Frank Sinatra, or play football like Harry Kane, my genetics decided otherwise. I think that dwelling on what you can’t do because of genetics is assuming a victim mentality, or wanting to have your cake and eat it.
Easy for me to say I know, as I can only speak from my own experiences, but that’s all I have to go on. I don’t expect people to judge me on that and I certainly don’t judge anybody based on theirs, unless their experiences have been through the choices they’ve made, in that case I can and do make judgements.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
Who mentioned ‘drawbacks of being gay’? Certainly not me and don’t put words in my mouth or accuse me of having a victim mentality because of something YOU said. All I said was being gay extends beyond ■■■ and beyond the privacy of the bedroom
switchlogic:
. Your ■■■■■■■■■ will be mentioned in your eulogy- when whoever gives it refers to your wife/girlfriend. Indirectly obviously but still there
I totally disagree, I don’t think at a funeral mention of a wife will trigger a ■■■■■■■■■ thought response. It will have no relevance. People will take it in the context that is far deeper and more appropriate to a funeral. That is their grieving life companion, partner, wife, husband. Not “oh they’re not gay then”.
I can see how defining this if for you and I respect that, but for me it’s not that big a thing.
Freight Dog:
switchlogic:
. Your ■■■■■■■■■ will be mentioned in your eulogy- when whoever gives it refers to your wife/girlfriend. Indirectly obviously but still there
I totally disagree, I don’t think at a funeral mention of a wife will trigger a ■■■■■■■■■ thought response. It will have no relevance. People will take it in the context that is far deeper and more appropriate to a funeral. That is their grieving life companion, partner, wife, husband. Not “oh they’re not gay then”.
I can see how entrenched this if for you and I respect that, but more me it’s not that big a thing.
You’ve clearly misunderstood that particular point. I didn’t mean it would start anyone thinking about your ■■■■■■■■■. I doubt anyone is that interested. It’s just the way it is
switchlogic:
newmercman:
■■■■■■■■■ doesn’t define who you are
To a very large extent it does, saying it doesn’t is simply a lie you’ve been spun over the years by people desperate to fit in.Had I grown up straight my life would be entirely different and probably much more like my brothers, married with kids etc
You do know that being straight doesn’t automatically mean that anyone will be lucky with women and find a wife so that’s one bs stereotype out the window.
On that note there are same ■■■ couples doing what they choose to do in the bedroom living otherwise very similar lives to straight couples.Not that I agree with it,also sometimes to the point of also raising a surrogate family.
Just as there are straight single,widowed,medically unable,people living an often sexless as a result,but otherwise similar/same as everyone else,existence.So how do you categorise that scenario by your logic assuming a person’s supposed ■■■ life governs everything else in their life assuming that specific part of their life is actually effectively non existent ?.
While ironically,assuming that the LGBT lobby isn’t just a bunch of selfish self serving militants.It seems strange that few if any of them ever actually seem to want to question whether forcing their preferences onto the church for example thereby upsetting the religeous beliefs and morals of others.Or following their own selfish wishes to raise a family outside of the usually accepted gender norms of a mother and father,when that family has no say in the matter,is the right thing to do.
switchlogic:
Freight Dog:
switchlogic:
. Your ■■■■■■■■■ will be mentioned in your eulogy- when whoever gives it refers to your wife/girlfriend. Indirectly obviously but still there
I totally disagree, I don’t think at a funeral mention of a wife will trigger a ■■■■■■■■■ thought response. It will have no relevance. People will take it in the context that is far deeper and more appropriate to a funeral. That is their grieving life companion, partner, wife, husband. Not “oh they’re not gay then”.
I can see how entrenched this if for you and I respect that, but more me it’s not that big a thing.
You’ve clearly misunderstood that particular point. It doesn’t have to trigger a thought response in anyone and probably won’t in that respect. It’s just the way it is
Interesting you say I am misunderstanding you when it was yourself who took issue with something I said about how I feel and how I am defined. I have twice said I respected your stance. So rather it is yourself misunderstanding given the context was something personal to me.
Incidentally there’s a lot of us “misunderstanding” you it seems.
If mention of a wife or girlfriend at a funeral does not trigger a response then it is the most tenuous leap to suggest I am defined by my ■■■■■■■■■.
I rather think you feel defined by it, and that is a personal thing. Wonderful. Indeed, perhaps if someone equally as sensitive to ■■■■■■■■■ as yourself were at my funeral, perhaps they would think “oh that FD, he’s a good straight fellow/arse who owed me a tenner (delete)”. But just because you are hyper aware and even subconsciously choose to feel defined by it doesn’t mean others do.
OK if you insist, it’s all getting a bit tedious now. I’ve written more than enough ru justify my original point so I’m done. Have a lovely evening
switchlogic:
OK if you insist, it’s all getting a bit tedious now. I’ve written more than enough ru justify my original point so I’m done. Have a lovely evening
Have a good eve too. Cheers
switchlogic:
newmercman:
Well married with kids is an option, obviously not as straightforward as a traditional man, women, 2.4 kids deal, but same ■■■ marriage is legal, so is adoption and surrogacy. The latter two also being necessary for heterosexual couples that can’t have kids for biological reasons.
I can see how you could believe that to be a drawback of being gay, but that’s life, in the same way that I would like to be able to sing like Frank Sinatra, or play football like Harry Kane, my genetics decided otherwise. I think that dwelling on what you can’t do because of genetics is assuming a victim mentality, or wanting to have your cake and eat it.
Easy for me to say I know, as I can only speak from my own experiences, but that’s all I have to go on. I don’t expect people to judge me on that and I certainly don’t judge anybody based on theirs, unless their experiences have been through the choices they’ve made, in that case I can and do make judgements.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
Who mentioned ‘drawbacks of being gay’? Certainly not me and don’t put words in my mouth or accuse me of having a victim mentality because of something YOU said. All I said was being gay extends beyond ■■■ and beyond the privacy of the bedroom
You mentioned it Luke, when you brought up if you were straight you may be married with children like your brothers. Or were you celebrating the fact that you are not married with kids?
You’re far from stupid Luke and articulate enough to spell out exactly what you mean, or was it calculated? You know, be vague and hope people get the wrong end of the stick and then you can jump up on your high horse? I thought better of you. I was hoping to get a response about how a gay man views the new gender fluid craze, my thinking is that it is an insult to the struggles gay men (and women) have had to face to become accepted in society.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
No I really didn’t. You’re putting words in my mouth. Different doesn’t have to be good or bad, one or the other, it can just be. I’ve been anything but vague I’ve explained my views very clearly I simply didn’t realise that in your world everything needs to be good or bad. NOWHERE did I point anything out as being bad.
As for my views on the whole gender fluid thing? Dont really have any, not really put any thought into it, certainly not as much as you lads have
Well I apologize then Luke, as I read it, your words seemed to appear as if being gay was full of sacrifices, hence my victim comment, as I also said, I thought better of you, so clearly I wasn’t trying to misinterpret you to satisfy my own agenda. As for the gender thing, it’s all I seem to read about now, there’s a big thing going on about it in a school in BC and as I view my news online, the algorithms have picked up on my interest in that story and keep posting stories to my news feed, quite scary when you think about it, targeted news stories, very easy to influence thoughts and behavioral patterns. I do try to balance things by viewing both left and right wing news sites, but they all get their “news” from Thompson Reuters or the Associated Press anyway, so that’s not achieving much of anything.
Sent from my SM-T805W using Tapatalk