Eric Bristow

What are you actually scared of, TrafficMaster? Are you worried the so called "raging woofwoof" is going creep into your bedroom at night and shove his penis up your rectum and/or in your mouth?

Are you scared that you will be turned and that you might actually enjoy it?
 
Im not "scared" about anything. There is no phobia...Like I said I believe in equality, but I also believe in free speech. The right to express opinions which might not be universally liked by anyone, this does not equate to a "phobia". I'm happy people are gay and finding happiness. But I also believe that if people say its "natural" to be gay, then on this basis, if you stick with natural, then it is also natural for them to not have children, as you know, it is biologically impossible. Its like having your cake and eating it. Very selfish.
 
Its the new breed of gays that are desperate on social normalisation.

Most people are NOT gay, it is therefore NOT normal.

An example of this would be a youtube channel, called QueerKidsStuff....

Truly truly disturbing.

I believe in equality, but real equality, where bakery owners and churches should not be forced into marrying people they do not like.

If you want to be gay, great, be gay, get on with it, just do not kick up a fuss when most of the population are not gay like you and have different beliefs.

When I was at school, if I had a "dad and a dad" I would have had the **** kicked out of me everyday, and rightly so I think, its a ridiculous situation. Children should have a mother and a father for a balanced upbringing.

Two camp guys raising a child, is not going to produce a healthy, balanced individual.

most gay people I have met have been grating, effeminate, drama queens, and they get right on my nerves. Why can they not be normal, everyday men?

And it's completely ok to have those views, just as long as you recognise you're homophobic - you don't like gay people just because of their sexuality.
 
I'm not the only one who makes this argument, so it's not a case of me versus everyone else. It may well be the minority versus the majority, but that doesn't mean anything. The majority can be wrong, especially when they are misled by those pushing a narrative.

It is still ultimately a case of you vs the dictionary, despite your foot-stamping protestations to the contrary.

Also, it is ironic that you waved the "minority" flag? It feels like it ;)

Most people are NOT gay, it is therefore NOT normal.

Most people are not white. Discuss.

most gay people I have met have been grating, effeminate, drama queens, and they get right on my nerves. Why can they not be normal, everyday men?

OR, most "grating, effeminate, drama queens" you have met have been gay and you have no idea about anyone else?

Bearing in mind you think...

If you want to be gay, great, be gay, get on with it, just do not kick up a fuss when most of the population are not gay like you and have different beliefs.

When I was at school, if I had a "dad and a dad" I would have had the **** kicked out of me everyday, and rightly so I think, its a ridiculous situation. Children should have a mother and a father for a balanced upbringing.

Two camp guys raising a child, is not going to produce a healthy, balanced individual.

...I find it hard to believe you're high on the list of "People to come out to"
 
Im not "scared" about anything. There is no phobia...Like I said I believe in equality, but I also believe in free speech. The right to express opinions which might not be universally liked by anyone, this does not equate to a "phobia". I'm happy people are gay and finding happiness. But I also believe that if people say its "natural" to be gay, then on this basis, if you stick with natural, then it is also natural for them to not have children, as you know, it is biologically impossible. Its like having your cake and eating it. Very selfish.

Free speech is nothing to do with this. I question your standpoint and opinion on something, not what you are saying about it, but why.


PS. It's already been shown to you that the "warping" of child's minds is total nonsense, and as such is an irrational fear that you have - so yes, you do have a phobia. Homophobia.
 
Wasn't one of the footballers 18 years of age when he claimed he was abused? An adult in fact? Maybe prostituting himself through choice to further a potential career? Maybe even a willing and enthusiastic participant? At eighteen he surely has the maturity to decide whether participation is something he wishes to engage in?

Personally I view this as potentially another PPI type thing with all and sundry about to jump on this latest bandwagon.
 
Wasn't one of the footballers 18 years of age when he claimed he was abused? An adult in fact? Maybe prostituting himself through choice to further a potential career? Maybe even a willing and enthusiastic participant? At eighteen he surely has the maturity to decide whether participation is something he wishes to engage in?

Personally I view this as potentially another PPI type thing with all and sundry about to jump on this latest bandwagon.

This is sarcasm surely?
 
It is still ultimately a case of you vs the dictionary, despite your foot-stamping protestations to the contrary.

The dictionary doesn't have a dog in this fight. But again, what is your point? Citing the dictionary does not change the misuse of "-phobia".

Also, it is ironic that you waved the "minority" flag? It feels like it ;)

What is ironic about it?
 
This is sarcasm surely?

No, of course not, if I had £50 for every unwarranted approach by some sexual deviant when I went through my youth and schooling I would have been able to invest it and have a nice little pot by the time I was 21. I have to say Bristow just told it as I see it. A different age, and different sensibilities. My school, (which was ultra highly rated), had a plethora of homosexual teachers and a fair number of pupils, I just made it clear I didn't wish to swirl in their cesspit. I remember Chief Constable James Anderton of GMP getting some earache for similar comments, again, he was just telling it as he saw it as a religious man, working in an era of less politically correct strangulation of free speech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Anderton
 
The dictionary doesn't have a dog in this fight. But again, what is your point? Citing the dictionary does not change the misuse of "-phobia".

Perhaps not, but etymology does not equal definition. That's why you don't need to be naked in a gymnasium (gymnos - naked); you can destroy more than a 10th of something when you decimate it and you can split an atom (a + tomos - no cutting)

Regardless, there's certainly enough fear of the amazing mind-warping powers the gay community apparently have, that even the Thompson_NCL Edition Dictionary definition is being used correctly.
 
Wasn't one of the footballers 18 years of age when he claimed he was abused? An adult in fact? Maybe prostituting himself through choice to further a potential career? Maybe even a willing and enthusiastic participant? At eighteen he surely has the maturity to decide whether participation is something he wishes to engage in?

Personally I view this as potentially another PPI type thing with all and sundry about to jump on this latest bandwagon.

I'm pretty sure back then the age of consent for gay sex was 21 and I don't think I've ever seen a 'mature' 18 year old even though the law says otherwise.
 
Im not "scared" about anything. There is no phobia...Like I said I believe in equality, but I also believe in free speech. The right to express opinions which might not be universally liked by anyone, this does not equate to a "phobia". I'm happy people are gay and finding happiness. But I also believe that if people say its "natural" to be gay, then on this basis, if you stick with natural, then it is also natural for them to not have children, as you know, it is biologically impossible. Its like having your cake and eating it. Very selfish.

Natural and normal are two very misused words. But it is and always has been perfectly possible for a homosexual couple to raise a child regardless of your personal feelings towards that situation - it could be a child from a previous relationship, born via a surrogate mother/father for the purposes of procreation or enabled through the wonders of modern medical practices such as artificial insemination - only the last of those options is one that is comparatively recent, the others have always been an option although perhaps more common now than previously.

Wasn't one of the footballers 18 years of age when he claimed he was abused? An adult in fact? Maybe prostituting himself through choice to further a potential career? Maybe even a willing and enthusiastic participant? At eighteen he surely has the maturity to decide whether participation is something he wishes to engage in?

Personally I view this as potentially another PPI type thing with all and sundry about to jump on this latest bandwagon.

It could still be a situation with an abuse of trust based on an imbalance of the power in the relationship. This might well be exacerbated by the role that coaches take in an athletes development and that young athletes are often expected to follow orders because it will help them to develop - it's a form of conditioning, mostly benign or beneficial but open to abuse.

It's a deeply cynical approach to immediately assume that this is little more than an attempt to jump on a bandwagon but, of course, your experiences shape you as mine do for me. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the vast majority of claims are indeed and sadly true, it appears that paedophilia and abuse are more common than thought as more evidence comes to light.
 
Back
Top Bottom