Attempted Robbery In Cape Town
ChatterBank0 min ago
The Oldest Gay In The Village
540 Answers
How cool is this guy ...
http://
Every year, he takes part in the Pride Parade ... on his mobility scooter !!
He carries a banner saying " I'm the oldest gay in the village".
In the past, he has been given a criminal conviction for being gay. This weekend, he married his BF, to coincide with Pride Weekend.
That's the way to go when you're in your 90s!
http://
Every year, he takes part in the Pride Parade ... on his mobility scooter !!
He carries a banner saying " I'm the oldest gay in the village".
In the past, he has been given a criminal conviction for being gay. This weekend, he married his BF, to coincide with Pride Weekend.
That's the way to go when you're in your 90s!
Answers
I'm curious to know what JJ will get from the Eds when her thread goes over 300.....☺
09:56 Tue 04th Aug 2015
-- answer removed --
Back in the saddle, it amazes me to what late hours some stay up to post their views on AnswerBank, just goes to show what a popular site it has become.
That said I must come on in defence of retrocop regarding his paedophile remarks, I am sure that like the rest of us he is not defending the vile acts of paedophiles.
But regarding homosexuality, go back to those days when it was considered to be a most horrendous act that paedophilia is today, so much so that it was made unlawful by our Governments.
So keeping this fact in mind, say a site such as this was around back in those distant days, what would be the response towards homosexuality then, yes I wager almost on a level with paedophilia now.
So looking into the future and the way things change out of all recognition to what things were like years ago, would it not be reasonable for it to be then thought that some are born as paedophiles and they themselves cannot help it (just the way they refer to homosexuality now).
After pressure from certain sympathetic groups the Governments of that time then decide that in the future not to consider paedophilia illegal, don't you think that we will then have the new young enlightened individuals of that time, coming out with almost the same support, that we are now witnessing here on the subject of homosexuality, and for then the older generation who remember when paedophilia was illegal, coming out with their so called bigoted, paedophilism views?
But this won't be in my time or even retrocop's time thank goodness.
That said I must come on in defence of retrocop regarding his paedophile remarks, I am sure that like the rest of us he is not defending the vile acts of paedophiles.
But regarding homosexuality, go back to those days when it was considered to be a most horrendous act that paedophilia is today, so much so that it was made unlawful by our Governments.
So keeping this fact in mind, say a site such as this was around back in those distant days, what would be the response towards homosexuality then, yes I wager almost on a level with paedophilia now.
So looking into the future and the way things change out of all recognition to what things were like years ago, would it not be reasonable for it to be then thought that some are born as paedophiles and they themselves cannot help it (just the way they refer to homosexuality now).
After pressure from certain sympathetic groups the Governments of that time then decide that in the future not to consider paedophilia illegal, don't you think that we will then have the new young enlightened individuals of that time, coming out with almost the same support, that we are now witnessing here on the subject of homosexuality, and for then the older generation who remember when paedophilia was illegal, coming out with their so called bigoted, paedophilism views?
But this won't be in my time or even retrocop's time thank goodness.
-- answer removed --
Svejk - //It's not easy when you've thought that way all your life to, like, click your fingers and 'celebrate' all things gay. //
I don't think anyone is suggesting that you have to adjust your thinking to the level of 'celebrating' all things gay.
Personally, I think anyone would settle of a reasonable level of tolerance - that is really all anyone would ask for. It's not required to wave a flag as a gay march goes past, but a wry smile and an acceptance that times have changed would go a long way.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that you have to adjust your thinking to the level of 'celebrating' all things gay.
Personally, I think anyone would settle of a reasonable level of tolerance - that is really all anyone would ask for. It's not required to wave a flag as a gay march goes past, but a wry smile and an acceptance that times have changed would go a long way.
-- answer removed --
AOG - //So looking into the future and the way things change out of all recognition to what things were like years ago, would it not be reasonable for it to be then thought that some are born as paedophiles and they themselves cannot help it (just the way they refer to homosexuality now).//
I couldn't swallow this scenario when retrocop tried putting it forward, I still can't now.
If you are looking forward, and equating the actions of mature adults in loving relationships being accepted when it once was not accepted, and extrapolating that change over time to suggest that abuse of children will become accepted, then that is frankly inexplicable.
We haven't put children down mines or up chimneys for quite a while now - should we be 'enlightened' enough to start now?
Of course not, because it was physical abuse of a vulnerable section of society - that hasn't altered because a hundred years have gone past.
So how on earth is any civilised society ever to reach a point where legal sanction of the physical and mental abuse of children by adults can be seen as some sort of enlightenment and progress?
I honestly cannot believe that a man of wisdom, experience, and intelligence can give such a concept a moment's thought, much less take the time to suggest it on a thread like this one.
I am truly amazed.
I couldn't swallow this scenario when retrocop tried putting it forward, I still can't now.
If you are looking forward, and equating the actions of mature adults in loving relationships being accepted when it once was not accepted, and extrapolating that change over time to suggest that abuse of children will become accepted, then that is frankly inexplicable.
We haven't put children down mines or up chimneys for quite a while now - should we be 'enlightened' enough to start now?
Of course not, because it was physical abuse of a vulnerable section of society - that hasn't altered because a hundred years have gone past.
So how on earth is any civilised society ever to reach a point where legal sanction of the physical and mental abuse of children by adults can be seen as some sort of enlightenment and progress?
I honestly cannot believe that a man of wisdom, experience, and intelligence can give such a concept a moment's thought, much less take the time to suggest it on a thread like this one.
I am truly amazed.
AOG - //jackthehat
/// whereas Homosexuality has no (yet, watch the arguments to the contrary suddenly appear) victims. ///
Try telling that to the family of Stuart Lubbock, the victim in the Michael Barrymore case. //
Stuart Lubock was not a 'victim of homosexuality', anymore than any female rape victim is a 'victim of heterosexuality' - what an utterly ludicrous analogy to make.
Mr Lubock was the victim of a violent sexual assault, and since we are pondering here - there is no proof that the perpetrators were in fact homosexual!
/// whereas Homosexuality has no (yet, watch the arguments to the contrary suddenly appear) victims. ///
Try telling that to the family of Stuart Lubbock, the victim in the Michael Barrymore case. //
Stuart Lubock was not a 'victim of homosexuality', anymore than any female rape victim is a 'victim of heterosexuality' - what an utterly ludicrous analogy to make.
Mr Lubock was the victim of a violent sexual assault, and since we are pondering here - there is no proof that the perpetrators were in fact homosexual!
divebuddy - //But that's the whole point Andy, he's dead so you can't libel/slander him.
I suppose by your reasoning Jimmy Saville doesn't have a stain on his character either. He should only be remembered for all the great charity work he did. That's not the way history is going to remember him,though, is it. //
I am not sure quite how you have made the leap from Smith to Saville and then the assumption that I think Saville's character is without blemish.
I didn't say that - did I?
I suppose by your reasoning Jimmy Saville doesn't have a stain on his character either. He should only be remembered for all the great charity work he did. That's not the way history is going to remember him,though, is it. //
I am not sure quite how you have made the leap from Smith to Saville and then the assumption that I think Saville's character is without blemish.
I didn't say that - did I?
divebuddy - //^^^^^^ if you google male rape. It seems that there are an awful lot of victims of homosexuality. //
You can't be a 'victim of homosexualty' - as I pointed out to AOG, that means all female rape victims are 'victims of heterosexuality'.
Homosexuals are not immune from the same violent and deviant behaviour that preys on heterosexual society - a rapist is not a rapist because he is homosexual, anymore than if he is heterosexual. An entirely alien and abhorrent mindset is not governed by sexual orientation!
You can't be a 'victim of homosexualty' - as I pointed out to AOG, that means all female rape victims are 'victims of heterosexuality'.
Homosexuals are not immune from the same violent and deviant behaviour that preys on heterosexual society - a rapist is not a rapist because he is homosexual, anymore than if he is heterosexual. An entirely alien and abhorrent mindset is not governed by sexual orientation!
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.