My 'Outing'

[chesters1]

hijack! its been to every "airport" in the country like most posts we left cumbria airport days ago

Edited December 6, 2008 by chesters1

[Ken Davison South Wales]

Glad you are better, but why hi-jack this thread?

 

And if you want to talk of fishing matters as opposed to gender issues

 

Try posting here......

 

It had gone very quiet on this thread just Chester and me chewing the fat waiting for you lot to come back I must say it appears the gender issue been well and truly debated, can't be an awful lot more to say on the issue.

 

Talking of fishing the weather is excellent so I am just going to study tides and time and see where I can go and waste a few hours in the fresh air.

[barry luxton]

It had gone very quiet on this thread just Chester and me chewing the fat waiting for you lot to come back I must say it appears the gender issue been well and truly debated, can't be an awful lot more to say on the issue.

 

Talking of fishing the weather is excellent so I am just going to study tides and time and see where I can go and waste a few hours in the fresh air.

 

 

Glad to hear you are on the 'up' Ken , go and enjoy yerself mate. Nice day forecast for tommorow, shame it's a neap though, going to try and find a bit of tide somewhere. Might just try and clear out the warren.

Edited December 6, 2008 by barry luxton

[chesters1]

Glad to hear you are on the 'up' Ken , go and enjoy yerself mate. Nice day forecast for tommorow, shame it's a neap though, going to try and find a bit of tide somewhere. Might just try and clear out the warren.

 

so long as theres a few by april help yourself ,rocks are mine

[Emma two]

It worries me that people should be so self-obsessed to think that people actually give a damn about someone else's sexuality.

 

It becomes an issue only when it's inflicted unwantedly upon others, whereupon it is a matter for the police and the legal system.

 

I have thought about this one for a couple of days. If the implication is one of my being self obsessed, then I feel moved to point out that I was contributing to matters of fishin' and the general subjects in this part of the forum. My revelation came only after others, who apparently did 'give a damm'.

 

There is a mix up of terms here, which is common enough, we have moved from gender and its expression to sexuality, and gender does not determine sexuality. Not all trans people are gay, and certainly not all gay people are trans, in the same way as not all women are attracted to men and vice versa. When painting pictures of human nature then all the colours in the box may need to be used not just blue and pink, or black and white.

 

There are whole countries who 'give a damm' about people's sexuality to the extent that they have laws which are used to punish gay people, in many it is a capital offense. Some 'give a damm' based upon their religous conviction, for example, a recent proposal by the UN to decriminalise homosexuality has been challenged by the Vatican, and how the Anglican church is bitterly divided over the issue of gay clergy is well publicised. While others 'give a damm' by going to the trouble to abuse and even violently attack LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) people. It's true that most people seem to be decent, and really don't worry too much about the sexuality of others.

If this subject has caused offense,or perhaps worse still become tiresome, then that is regretable. Again, I didn't raise the subject but excercised a right to reply

Edited December 8, 2008 by Emma two

[Alan Stubbs]

I have thought about this one for a couple of days. If the implication is one of my being self obsessed, then I feel moved to point out that I was contributing to matters of fishin' and the general subjects in this part of the forum. My revelation came only after others, who apparently did 'give a damm'.

 

There is a mix up of terms here, which is common enough, we have moved from gender and its expression to sexuality, and gender does not determine sexuality. Not all trans people are gay, and certainly not all gay people are trans, in the same way as not all women are attracted to men and vice versa. When painting pictures of human nature then all the colours in the box may need to be used not just blue and pink, or black and white.

 

There are whole countries who 'give a damm' about people's sexuality to the extent that they have laws which are used to punish gay people, in many it is a capital offense. Some 'give a damm' based upon their regigous conviction, for example, a recent proposal by the UN to decriminalise homosexuality has been challenged by the Vatican, and how the Anglican church is bitterly divided over the issue of gay clergy is well publicised. While others 'give a damm' by going to the trouble to abuse and even violently attack LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) people. It's true that most people seem to be decent, and really don't worry too much about the sexuality of others.

If this subject has caused offense,or perhaps worse still become tiresome, then that is regretable. Again, I didn't raise the subject but excercised a right to reply

 

It was a general point, not personal. To have made personal would have undermined the very point I was making!

 

I simply don't care about other people's gender, but what I do resent is when people assume I either want to, or need to know.

 

As someone who appears to have a detailed knowledge of the subject, please tell me why people insist upon using the individual terms 'gay' and 'lesbian', when homosexual will suffice in an age where descrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender is an offence in this country?

[chesters1]

I have thought about this one for a couple of days. If the implication is one of my being self obsessed, then I feel moved to point out that I was contributing to matters of fishin' and the general subjects in this part of the forum. My revelation came only after others, who apparently did 'give a damm'.

 

There is a mix up of terms here, which is common enough, we have moved from gender and its expression to sexuality, and gender does not determine sexuality. Not all trans people are gay, and certainly not all gay people are trans, in the same way as not all women are attracted to men and vice versa. When painting pictures of human nature then all the colours in the box may need to be used not just blue and pink, or black and white.

 

There are whole countries who 'give a damm' about people's sexuality to the extent that they have laws which are used to punish gay people, in many it is a capital offense. Some 'give a damm' based upon their regigous conviction, for example, a recent proposal by the UN to decriminalise homosexuality has been challenged by the Vatican, and how the Anglican church is bitterly divided over the issue of gay clergy is well publicised. While others 'give a damm' by going to the trouble to abuse and even violently attack LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) people. It's true that most people seem to be decent, and really don't worry too much about the sexuality of others.

If this subject has caused offense,or perhaps worse still become tiresome, then that is regretable. Again, I didn't raise the subject but excercised a right to reply

you've made a revelation err whats that then? you outed yourself 90% of members probably either didnt have a clue (i cant even remenber the post where all this "speculation" was ),another 8 % probably only wondered why you were so blinkered in the "gods image " and only two % probably saw read more into it and a fraction found out there was more than met the eye and the reason of the blinkers ,frantic cutting and pasting and blind fixation that they were right (stats like all stats just figments of someones imagination in this case mine)

if you were open and honest why not the real avatar? ,i on the other hand think mines more handsome than i but would have prefered an english flag to a british one.i guess you do to but are more honest elswhere.

the planes landed in cumbria agan those hijackers sure are mixed up

 

i'v left the bad grammar and spelling mistake to divert your reply away from everything else as do other members when they dont have constructive replies

Edited December 8, 2008 by chesters1

[Emma two]

As someone who appears to have a detailed knowledge of the subject, please tell me why people insist upon using the individual terms 'gay' and 'lesbian', when homosexual will suffice in an age where descrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender is an offence in this country?

 

Alan,

that is s good question, and one which was posed to me regularly when I was working. The term 'homosexual' is one which emerged in 19th century medical science, then it was used to describe same-sex attraction and sexual behaviour which were seen as symptoms of mental disorders or moral deficiency. Homosexual men and women decided to use the term 'gay' in order to distance themselves from this type of negative labelleing as it carries an implication of being somehow abnormal or ill. Some people find the term 'homosexual' insulting and abusive and object to its use.

 

A couple of years ago the Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer) banned the word "homosexual" from official documents in his department on the grounds that it "may be considered offensive."

[Alan Stubbs]

Alan,

that is s good question, and one which was posed to me regularly when I was working. The term 'homosexual' is one which emerged in 19th century medical science, then it was used to describe same-sex attraction and sexual behaviour which were seen as symptoms of mental disorders or moral deficiency. Homosexual men and women decided to use the term 'gay' in order to distance themselves from this type of negative labelleing as it carries an implication of being somehow abnormal or ill. Some people find the term 'homosexual' insulting and abusive and object to its use.

 

A couple of years ago the Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer) banned the word "homosexual" from official documents in his department on the grounds that it "may be considered offensive."

 

 

Frankly, I'd sooner use a clearly meant medical term than have a lot of politically correct mumbo-jumbo thrust upon the world.

 

It says more about Lord Falconer that he would ban the use of an exact word on the grounds that it may cause offence!

 

When I was a child, gay had only one meaning, and it had nothing to do with homosexuality (at least, not to my knowledge!) So it would seem another word was hi-jacked on the grounds of fear of someone forming an ill-founded point of view.

 

Emma, this is a general point with no personal content involved... it is extremely frustrating when words are given alternative meanings to protect someone's sensibilities - my sons' attitude to people since coming out has been 'I'm homosexual, deal with it!' If he never achieved another thing in his life, I'm proud of him for that. I fear obfuscation seems to have no effect other than to make a senstive subject more confusing than it needs to be.

 

By trying to confuse the neanderthals of society, it serves to protect them as much as the people doing the confusing, which means the neanderthals are still there and still unreconstructed in their bigotry and it's them who need dealing with.

 

In the main, I still believe that people simply don't give a damn about people's sexual orientation / preference / alignment, call it what you will. It's the person and how they deal with other people which certainly forms my opinions and those of all my friends.

Edited December 8, 2008 by Alan Stubbs

[Ken Davison South Wales]

By trying to confuse the neanderthals of society, it serves to protect them as much as the people doing the confusing, which means the neanderthals are still there and still unreconstructed in their bigotry and it's them who need dealing with.

 

Am I to understand that if someone finds homosexuality offensive and to them unacceptable they are to be labeled Neanderthals ?