splinter65 wrote: » So you find the term “your ilk”objectionable and offensive and feel the post was actionable? You do know “your ilk” is a term that is used, mostly sarcastically, to refer to people who identify with a particular group, could be a political group, could be a class sector....it’s not reserved for minorities?!?
1800_Ladladlad wrote: » Are u ok hun? What is your argument with the OP though? This is just another opportunity to be virtuous, to fulfill an unconscious need for acceptance and to get likes. This is cute. not brave.
jochenstacker wrote: » OK, let's deal with the point in the post I was replying to. Lefty wrote: who do those fags think they are strutting around like the own the place To which my reply is Fcuk off. No more needs to be said. Hope that helps.
Lefty wrote: who do those fags think they are strutting around like the own the place To which my reply is Fcuk off. No more needs to be said. Hope that helps.
To which my reply is Fcuk off. No more needs to be said.
osarusan wrote: » Please provide some kind of proof to back up this claim.
Harvey Weinstein wrote: » It is an undeniable fact that the vast majority of clerical sexual abusers were Homosexual men and the majority of victims were boys. If thats uncomfortable for you then so be it.
Dominik Echoing Flute wrote: » I wonder the next time he pops up to repeat that in a thread, saying it's some kind of verboten subject rather than horsecrap, and the same people thank it, will they believe it's actually true? Like is it deliberate deception, or an inability to comprehend reality? Both? The sad fact of the matter is that correcting the untruth doesn't kill it, all it needs is repetition and an audience of people who definitely aren't homophobic, no siree, but just conflate homosexuality with pedophilia, and it'll keep lodging in there along with the traveller/roma/Polish woman leaving her buggy on the bus and all the rest of it.
fritzelly wrote: » Not sure how this turned from everyone in Ireland has to become gay to immigration policy
Dominik Echoing Flute wrote: » Aanyways... I was speaking with a Polish customer about this at the weekend, she's living here about ten years but gets home once or twice a year. Her take on it was pretty much what I would have been thinking. That while compared to Ireland it is a more conservative, macho culture, it's a situation that's being exacerbated by the degree of emigration Poland has had for a long time but particularly since joining the EU, and that it's being fomented (from within and without in her opinion) by people for political gain. That over the last couple of years she's noticing a real change on her social media feeds from her friends back home, not necessarily specifically to do with LGBT issues but some of that and a degree of explicit, unselfconscious nativism etc that wasn't there before. The target demographic for this kind of meddling is huge in Poland, and there's been a steady drain of young educated Poles for a long time. Kind of similar to here where constituencies like Donegal and Roscommon are the consistent no voters, but on a much bigger scale. She also said the LGBT thing is a much less complicated issue to rally people around than the immigration one, though there are certainly lots of people to whom that appeals and there is a definite thread of that rhetoric too.
riffmongous wrote: » I do wonder though if it will continue that course now that the Catholic Church sex abuses in Poland are finally starting to come to light
interactive wrote: » Things that never happened for $100 please. "Talking to a customer" Yeah , we all believe you
tayto lover wrote: » Am I allowed to dislike, not to hate, people who are too much in my face regardless of their sexuality? These include show offs, noisy people and over flamboyant gay or straight types.
splinter65 wrote: » And that the vast majority of the public don’t appreciate public displays of intimacy?
hatrickpatrick wrote: » In that case, the vast majority of the public are pathetic, prudish busybodies.
splinter65 wrote: » Or maybe we just think that there’s a time and a place for everything.
DubInMeath wrote: » Who are this we you talk of? I'm Irish straight and married, if someone came up to me and started saying that I shouldn't be kissing my wife in public they'd be lucky just to be told where to go.
jochenstacker wrote: » You can dislike absolutely anyone, i don't see a problem there. The problem starts when someone says "I dislike a group of people and now I want to get others to dislike them as well, based on nothing but a few superficial characteristics". Also, it's a free country, so you're free to dislike someone because they're a bit too flamboyant for your taste, but people are entitled to be as camp as they want to be. As long as they're not directly hurting you, what's the problem?
interactive wrote: » Look at adverts on TV and in Print, every single time you will see that is a mixed race couple, you never see a white man and white woman, or a black man and black woman couple, always a mixed couple, its not something you see every day, its probably 5% in the real world, but in the media its ubiquitous.
osarusan wrote: » First two ads that come to mind are that annoying 'cheep-purr' insurance ad and the ad of the couple putting the sofa in every room before returning it to some charity shop. Both white couples. So, straight off, your claim that you will never see it is just wrong. Why are you saying stuff you know to be wrong?
interactive wrote: » Its blatantly obvious that its being promoted and pushed on the public, what percentage of the public are homosexual, if the media was to believed it must be close to 33%. Look at adverts on TV and in Print, every single time you will see that is a mixed race couple, you never see a white man and white woman, or a black man and black woman couple, always a mixed couple, its not something you see every day, its probably 5% in the real world, but in the media its ubiquitous. So the question is why are the powers that be pushing this?
The One Doctor wrote: » :cool: no I have a theory that the ratcheting gay agenda is a very subtle way of reducing population growth. It's trendy and cutting edge to be LGBTQI+... and very very few of these people produce children. Not a very controversial theory really tbh.
interactive wrote: » Mea culpa The fact is its very rare in the real world, but in the media its now ubiquitous.
The One Doctor wrote: » I have a theory that the ratcheting gay agenda is a very subtle way of reducing population growth. It's trendy and cutting edge to be LGBTQI+... and very very few of these people produce children. Not a very controversial theory really tbh.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c599644a213e5f18742e0afff85076a6.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f07ee44b0b39bbb635066da4046d9475.svg)
