Anti-gay London bus advertising campaign pulled by TfL

1101113151625

Comments

  • statelessstateless Posts: 1,855
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Glowbot wrote: »
    It's bad if it's not what you want though... and there are reasons they feel like that which can't be blamed on other people, hence they can't be fixed by other people.
    ie, they want natural kids.

    Gay people are not infertile. If a gay person wants children they can have them. Lot's of people adopt too. A person anguishing or feeling guilty over sexuality clearly has nothing to do with whether they and their potential partner can both be biological parents to a child.

    People do change the colour of their skin and act like other races. They don't usually get the disdain people who seek to be ex-gay do.

    I'm talking night and day, like your gay and straight. The only person I know of who "may have" completely changed the colour of his skin was Michael Jackson (assuming that it wasn't entirely due to his skin condition). Do you honestly think that people viewed that in an understanding light? If a person drives themselves crazy over wanting to entirely change their skin colour then I have no problem saying that they have a problem. Their problem however is not their skin colour.
  • GlowbotGlowbot Posts: 14,847
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    stateless wrote: »
    Gay people are not infertile. If a gay person wants children they can have them. Lot's of people adopt too. A person anguishing or feeling guilty over sexuality clearly has nothing to do with whether they and their potential partner can both be biological parents to a child.



    I'm talking night and day, like your gay and straight. The only person I know of who "may have" completely changed the colour of his skin was Michael Jackson (assuming that it wasn't entirely due to his skin condition). Do you honestly think that people viewed that in an understanding light? If a person drives themselves crazy over wanting to entirely change their skin colour then I have no problem saying that they have a problem. Their problem however is not their skin colour.

    "clearly" wtf, how do you know. Even sterile people get sad because they can't have kids and have to adopt which is complex and costly and opens you to much more problems.

    Plenty people these days 'act black' or get a tan, or bleach their skin. It's not a problem to like another culture.

    Somehow it's ok to want to be a man or a woman but not a different sexuality.
  • statelessstateless Posts: 1,855
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Glowbot wrote: »
    "clearly" wtf, how do you know. Even sterile people get sad because they can't have kids and have to adopt which is complex and costly and opens you to much more problems.

    I'm not saying people don't get sad about these things, I'm saying that it's clearly is not an explanation for guilt or shame about sexuality when you factor in societies obsession with homosexuality and changing it or hiding it away (see this thread).

    If someone is unhappy about their sexuality do we try to get to the reasons they are upset (upbringing, religious family, intolerance etc) and try to get them to feel comfortable or happy, something which has a very good success rate

    OR

    Engage them in "ex-gay" therapy, which is typically religious, because it has no scientific merit?

    You do realise that in the states many children have been sent to "ex-gay" therapy by parents, don't you? You do realise that lots of people come out of ex-gay therapy loathing themselves even more and basically suicidal don't you? A therapy that actually makes people feel worse is not something that should be promoted in my view.

    Here's your ex-gay therapy: http://cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2011/06/08/ac.sissy.boy.part2.cnn



    Do you think that's commendable? You are trying to legitimise sending vulnerable people on a dangerous path.
  • GlowbotGlowbot Posts: 14,847
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    stateless wrote: »
    I'm not saying people don't get sad about these things, I'm saying that it's clearly is not an explanation for guilt or shame about sexuality when you factor in societies obsession with homosexuality and changing it or hiding it away (see this thread).

    If someone is unhappy about their sexuality do we try to get to the reasons they are upset (upbringing, religious family, intolerance etc) and try to get them to feel comfortable or happy, something which has a very good success rate

    OR

    Engage them in "ex-gay" therapy, which is typically religious, because it has no scientific merit?

    You do realise that in the states many children have been sent to "ex-gay" therapy by parents, don't you? You do realise that lots of people come out of ex-gay therapy loathing themselves even more and basically suicidal don't you? A therapy that actually makes people feel worse is not something that should be promoted in my view.

    Here's your ex-gay therapy: http://cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2011/06/08/ac.sissy.boy.part2.cnn

    Do you think that's commendable? You are trying to legitimise sending troubled people onto a dangerous path.

    It is an explination why someone would want to change their sexuality, that they want to have a biological child with a future partner...
    No matter how many times you say it, it isn't only the reason of intolerance that they would seek to change. You just want to blame other people for the problem.

    Neither is it an either or situation.
    I am not promoting or legitimising people to get ex gay therapy, I am suggesting researching a way of changing sexuality and letting people do it.

    At the moment the only option is to convince people to put up with their lot in life. And that's fine, but it doesn't make the problem go away, just makes them accept it.
  • statelessstateless Posts: 1,855
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Glowbot wrote: »

    Neither is it an either or situation.
    I am not promoting or legitimising people to get ex gay therapy, I am suggesting researching a way of changing sexuality and letting people do it.

    Ex-gay therapy is therapy designed to change gay peoples sexuality. What do you mean, you're not in favour of it but it should be researched. How exactly do you research how something impacts a persons sexuality without trying to change their sexuality and asking them if it has? Effectively what's going on and has happened in the past IS research, and unsuccessful research at that.
    At the moment the only option is to convince people to put up with their lot in life. And that's fine, but it doesn't make the problem go away, just makes them accept it.

    "put up with their lot", "the problem". Nice.

    Watch the video.

    It's interesting how you ignorantly stated that those being told that it's okay to be themselves are being "brainwashed" by therapists who are likely gay. That's clearly not true because the vast majority of therapists know that being gay is not a mental problem. Ironically, in the case featured in the video the gay kid was convinced how wrong it is to be gay by someone who it also turns out is gay. This whole ridiculous cycle starts because of the pressure from society that there is something wrong with being gay. This is what you're giving a thumbs up to. Something that wrecks lives. Shameful.
  • jesayajesaya Posts: 35,597
    Forum Member
    Glowbot wrote: »
    It is an explination why someone would want to change their sexuality, that they want to have a biological child with a future partner...
    No matter how many times you say it, it isn't only the reason of intolerance that they would seek to change. You just want to blame other people for the problem.

    Neither is it an either or situation.
    I am not promoting or legitimising people to get ex gay therapy, I am suggesting researching a way of changing sexuality and letting people do it.

    At the moment the only option is to convince people to put up with their lot in life. And that's fine, but it doesn't make the problem go away, just makes them accept it.


    ok, how about we research a means to produce biological children from two men or two women.

    Of course lesbians would have girls (unless genetic manipulation is developed to create a 'Y' chromosome) but that would solve the problem.

    The good thing about this is that much of the work has already been done. It would be far simpler than trying to find brain altering techniques that were safe and could be applied to all the different factors involved in determining sexuality.
  • statelessstateless Posts: 1,855
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jesaya wrote: »
    ok, how about we research a means to produce biological children from two men or two women.

    Of course lesbians would have girls (unless genetic manipulation is developed to create a 'Y' chromosome) but that would solve the problem.

    The good thing about this is that much of the work has already been done. It would be far simpler than trying to find brain altering techniques that were safe and could be applied to all the different factors involved in determining sexuality.

    As you correctly state, this has already been researched. It is very likely that an option will be available in future which will allow two same sex parents to have children that will biologically belong to both of them. Glowbot didn't think of this as a possibility because the emphasis across the board appears to be that there's something lesser or wrong about being gay and if we can remove that from peoples lives (even though no such "therapy" exists), then everything will magically be okay.

    Even if both parents can raise a child of their own, people will just move onto another argument, because it's not about the arguments themselves it's about underlying dislike that some people have about homosexuality. Thankfully it's a mindset that's dying out.
  • GlowbotGlowbot Posts: 14,847
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jesaya wrote: »
    ok, how about we research a means to produce biological children from two men or two women.

    Of course lesbians would have girls (unless genetic manipulation is developed to create a 'Y' chromosome) but that would solve the problem.

    The good thing about this is that much of the work has already been done. It would be far simpler than trying to find brain altering techniques that were safe and could be applied to all the different factors involved in determining sexuality.
    Actually I think it's easier to change sexuality than engineer men to have babies, but yeah if you say so.

    yeah I'd be fine with that too, whatever. The problem is every solution requires money and tampering with nature to an unhealthy degree. Men aren't designed to give birth.

    A magical pill to change sexuality though? I'd be right behind that. I think even if it existed, stonewall and you guys wouldn't let people take it because you are so protective over your gayness that it challenges you.
  • GlowbotGlowbot Posts: 14,847
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    stateless wrote: »
    Ex-gay therapy is therapy designed to change gay peoples sexuality. What do you mean, you're not in favour of it but it should be researched. How exactly do you research how something impacts a persons sexuality without trying to change their sexuality and asking them if it has? Effectively what's going on and has happened in the past IS research, and unsuccessful research at that.



    "put up with their lot", "the problem". Nice.

    Watch the video.

    It's interesting how you ignorantly stated that those being told that it's okay to be themselves are being "brainwashed" by therapists who are likely gay. That's clearly not true because the vast majority of therapists know that being gay is not a mental problem. Ironically, in the case featured in the video the gay kid was convinced how wrong it is to be gay by someone who it also turns out is gay. This whole ridiculous cycle starts because of the pressure from society that there is something wrong with being gay. This is what you're giving a thumbs up to. Something that wrecks lives. Shameful.

    For the last time, I am not putting the thumbs up to therapy that doesn't work :rolleyes:

    Ex-gay therapy is something totally distinct.
    The difference is ex-gay therapy is based on nonsense, shame, prayer and avoidance.

    Researching a way to change sexualities, is something else.

    and yes, put up with their lot. maybe it's fine for you but some people want other things from life.
  • statelessstateless Posts: 1,855
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Glowbot wrote: »
    Actually I think it's easier to change sexuality than engineer men to have babies, but yeah if you say so.

    yeah I'd be fine with that too, whatever. The problem is every solution requires money and tampering with nature to an unhealthy degree. Men aren't designed to give birth.

    A woman would give birth to the baby, but it would only have the genetics of both men. It's actually something that's not very far away, scientifically. Also, saying that it's easier to change sexuality is without merit, scientifically. You gotta love the "tampering with nature to an unhealthy degree" part too. Want to magically change your sexaulity? Go ahead. Want a baby if that's what makes you sad? that's tampering with nature!!
    A magical pill to change sexuality though? I'd be right behind that. I think even if it existed, stonewall and you guys wouldn't let people take it because you are so protective over your gayness that it challenges you.

    Nobody can pinpoint what defines a persons sexuality, so yes, it would be magic alright. If there was a pill like this on the market that would be fine in my book, but AGAIN you're looking at this solely from a gay to straight perspective every time. You seem to be assuming that no-one would want to take a pill to go straight to gay, or take it like some kind of recreational drug. At every single point the gist of your posts are "being gay is a problem". And who is "you guys"? Gay people are not one mass of people you know. Individual people have their own views.
  • SillyBillyGoatSillyBillyGoat Posts: 22,266
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Glowbot wrote: »
    I see no reason why "ex-gays" shouldn't be proud of who they are.

    Well, they clearly weren't proud before. Why should people be proud for pandering to the bigots?

    For the record, I don't believe "ex-gay" even exists. Denial, though. That certainly does. :)
  • jesayajesaya Posts: 35,597
    Forum Member
    Glowbot wrote: »
    Actually I think it's easier to change sexuality than engineer men to have babies, but yeah if you say so.

    yeah I'd be fine with that too, whatever. The problem is every solution requires money and tampering with nature to an unhealthy degree. Men aren't designed to give birth.

    A magical pill to change sexuality though? I'd be right behind that. I think even if it existed, stonewall and you guys wouldn't let people take it because you are so protective over your gayness that it challenges you.

    I do say so, because the research is already under way (actually it is research designed to help childless heterosexual couples, but can be applied to gay couples as well).

    Men may not be designed to give birth, but surrogacy is commonly used by heterosexual couples where the woman has difficulty carrying her child to term - the baby will still be the child of the two people concerned, which is the scenario you wanted to solve.

    I think trying to change brain chemistry is 'tampering with nature as well, isn't it'? Or are you convinced the mind isn't part of the brain but just sort of floats about separate from it?

    I think you are being more than a little presumptive about my reaction to your 'magical pill' (I can't speak for Stonewall as I am not a member of it). If scientists discovered such a thing I would be really really concerned about it - but not because those taking it wouldn't be gay anymore, but because people can be coerced into it by parents or churches or just by depression.

    Personally I might find it amusing to be straight for a while, then pop another magic pill to be gay... well I would have done when I was younger - I could imagine quite a black market in the pills so that people can have more exciting romantic lives...

    ... oh but wait... you would want a pill that could turn a straight person gay as well, wouldn't you?
  • statelessstateless Posts: 1,855
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Glowbot wrote: »
    For the last time, I am not putting the thumbs up to therapy that doesn't work :rolleyes:

    Ex-gay therapy is something totally distinct.
    The difference is ex-gay therapy is based on nonsense, shame, prayer and avoidance.

    Researching a way to change sexualities, is something else.

    and yes, put up with their lot. maybe it's fine for you but some people want other things from life.

    If you watch the video you will see that the guy was a therapist. His ex-gay therapy was not religiously based, it professed to be scientific. The same 'research' you're all for. The same 'research' that ruined that mans life as a child and likely resulted in him killing himself. Still, i guess you're proud of the good doctor for helping people not "put up with their lot".
  • GlowbotGlowbot Posts: 14,847
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    stateless wrote: »
    A woman would give birth to the baby, but it would only have the genetics of both men. It's actually something that's not very far away, scientifically. Also, saying that it's easier to change sexuality is without merit, scientifically. You gotta love the "tampering with nature to an unhealthy degree" part too. Want to magically change your sexaulity? Go ahead. Want a baby if that's what makes you sad? that's tampering with nature!!



    Nobody can pinpoint what defines a persons sexuality, so yes, it would be magic alright. If there was a pill like this on the market that would be fine in my book, but AGAIN you're looking at this solely from a gay to straight perspective every time. You seem to be assuming that no-one would want to take a pill to go straight to gay, or take it like some kind of recreational drug. At every single point the gist of your posts are "being gay is a problem". And who is "you guys"? Gay people are not one mass of people you know. Individual people have their own views.

    How are these gay men supposed to convince a woman to have their baby exactly. It doesn't work. In the straight world you convince them with love and the promise that they will raise the kid together... just bribing with money is a rather gross way of bringing a life into the world.

    No I am not assuming no one would go straight>gay, just it's most likely to go from gay to straight as there are more benefits from straight relationships than gay ones. I am not saying they are second class, that's just the facts.
  • GlowbotGlowbot Posts: 14,847
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Well, they clearly weren't proud before. Why should people be proud for pandering to the bigots?

    For the record, I don't believe "ex-gay" even exists. Denial, though. That certainly does. :)

    maybe it makes them happy? I don't know, I think everyone should be proud of who they are and want to be. If you want to delude yourself that you are cured of being gay, or that Jesus wants you for a sunbeam, go for it. Well done.
  • jesayajesaya Posts: 35,597
    Forum Member
    Glowbot wrote: »
    How are these gay men supposed to convince a woman to have their baby exactly. It doesn't work. In the straight world you convince them with love and the promise that they will raise the kid together... just bribing with money is a rather gross way of bringing a life into the world.

    No I am not assuming no one would go straight>gay, just it's most likely to go from gay to straight as there are more benefits from straight relationships than gay ones. I am not saying they are second class, that's just the facts.

    One way they can convince them is they way some gay men become parents now... by getting a sympathetic woman friend to help them. Some lesbian couples have had a child for a gay male couple and one of the men has fathered a child for them. All sorts of people are kind enough to help gay people... just as they are kind enough to help straight people in the same situation.

    There are more benefits from straight relationships? Such as what? .
  • statelessstateless Posts: 1,855
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Glowbot wrote: »
    How are these gay men supposed to convince a woman to have their baby exactly. It doesn't work. In the straight world you convince them with love and the promise that they will raise the kid together... just bribing with money is a rather gross way of bringing a life into the world. .

    Countless surrogate mothers have children for couples where there are fertility problems etc. Doesn't work? It's no different from what already happen! Also, a moment ago your main concern for gay people was that they can't have their own children. You were saying how sad it was. Now where we propose a time where both parents can, all of a sudden your concern disappears because of moral objection about how it could be loveless and gross. Totally unfounded, nonsense. Who cares if you personally morally object to gay people using surrogacy? What does that have to do with anything?
  • GlowbotGlowbot Posts: 14,847
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jesaya wrote: »
    One way they can convince them is they way some gay men become parents now... by getting a sympathetic woman friend to help them. Some lesbian couples have had a child for a gay male couple and one of the men has fathered a child for them. All sorts of people are kind enough to help gay people... just as they are kind enough to help straight people in the same situation.

    There are more benefits from straight relationships? Such as what? .

    mhm yeah. pity works.

    The thing is that straight couples rarely need someone else to have a baby for them, and that's why I think it's easier for the family to just have that nuclear unit.
    How many people are conned out of money by surrogates? lots. Straight people pay nothing for babies.

    Well to be honest most of the benefits from straight relationships are to do with babies and how they have sex being more convenient.
    If I mention the society based ones people are just going to rip my head off more.
  • statelessstateless Posts: 1,855
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Glowbot wrote: »
    mhm yeah. pity works.

    .

    If gay people use a surrogate mother, if they pay her, it's "gross". If they are good friends with the person and want to do it for them it's "pity". You paint it all in such a negative light, as it people want children out of spite and not love. Yet we don't hear a peep from you about how surrogacy for straight couples of negative. You view that in a positive light apparently.

    These statements are absolutely ludicrous because throughout this entire thread the only reason you've come up with for why people might be unhappy to be gay is that they can't have children and so should seek to change orientation (somehow). You said you feel very sorry that they can't have children. As soon as it emerges that it might be possible soon you are incredibly nasty and mean about that happening.
  • jesayajesaya Posts: 35,597
    Forum Member
    Glowbot wrote: »
    mhm yeah. pity works.

    The thing is that straight couples rarely need someone else to have a baby for them, and that's why I think it's easier for the family to just have that nuclear unit.
    How many people are conned out of money by surrogates? lots. Straight people pay nothing for babies.

    Well to be honest most of the benefits from straight relationships are to do with babies and how they have sex being more convenient.
    If I mention the society based ones people are just going to rip my head off more.

    It isn't pity, it is kindness and often friendship and love. That straight couples rarely need surrogacy doesn't mean they don't, or that surrogates aren't found. There are more kind people in this world than you might think I suspect.

    As for your benefits - well we have covered babies. And sex being convenient... I don't have sex for 'convenience', I have sex because I love my partner and I am sure other gay people will wholeheartedly agree that it is great.

    The society based benefits? You mean having to deal with prejudice? I think we both know the answer to that one, don't we.
  • GlowbotGlowbot Posts: 14,847
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jesaya wrote: »
    It isn't pity, it is kindness and often friendship and love. That straight couples rarely need surrogacy doesn't mean they don't, or that surrogates are found. There are more kind people in this world than you might think I suspect.

    As for your benefits - well we have covered babies. And sex being convenient... I don't have sex for 'convenience', I have sex because I love my partner and I am sure other gay people will wholeheartedly agree that it is great.

    The society based benefits? You mean having to deal with prejudice? I think we both know the answer to that one, don't we.
    no well by convenience, I mean at the risk of being a bit lurid, a vagina is lubed up and it expands and contracts for sex naturally, you both get off at roughly the same time.
    If you have anal sex you need to do a lot of stuff and it's unhygienic and leads to all kinds of problems down the line. Hence a lot of the guys don't even do it.
    Lesbian sex, well they need to buy things and fingers dont get aroused like a penis.

    I know the answer would be to change society, but science would be faster.
  • jesayajesaya Posts: 35,597
    Forum Member
    Glowbot wrote: »
    no well by convenience, I mean at the risk of being a bit lurid, a vagina is lubed up and it expands and contracts for sex naturally, you both get off at roughly the same time.
    If you have anal sex you need to do a lot of stuff and it's unhygienic and leads to all kinds of problems down the line. Hence a lot of the guys don't even do it.
    Lesbian sex, well they need to buy things and fingers dont get aroused like a penis.

    I know the answer would be to change society, but science would be faster.

    You do know that there is more to *heterosexual* sex than just the part where a man places his penis in a woman, don't you? And that anal sex is enjoyed by straight people (and lesbians by the way).

    Sex isn't meant to be 'convenient' - it is meant to be fun... and it is... as long as you are with the right person.
  • GlowbotGlowbot Posts: 14,847
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jesaya wrote: »
    You do know that there is more to *heterosexual* sex than just the part where a man places his penis in a woman, don't you? And that anal sex is enjoyed by straight people (and lesbians by the way).

    Sex isn't meant to be 'convenient' - it is meant to be fun... and it is... as long as you are with the right person.
    I do know that... I didn't know that lesbians enjoyed anal though that's a bit new on me :o
    Anal is ok once in a while but after a while it wears out the entrance. Vaginas don't wear out the same way.

    I don't think if straight people got intercourse taken from them they would be as happy as gay people. I mean if straight people had to get buy on blowjobs and handjobs, would be a bit boring.
  • skp20040skp20040 Posts: 66,872
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Glowbot wrote: »
    Actually I think it's easier to change sexuality than engineer men to have babies, but yeah if you say so.

    yeah I'd be fine with that too, whatever. The problem is every solution requires money and tampering with nature to an unhealthy degree. Men aren't designed to give birth.

    A magical pill to change sexuality though? I'd be right behind that. I think even if it existed, stonewall and you guys wouldn't let people take it because you are so protective over your gayness that it challenges you.

    What about a pill that changed black people to white ? or indeed a pill that made us all the same so there would be no differences at all ?

    Or is it not better to allow people to be who they are and not try to change what cannot be changed..
  • jesayajesaya Posts: 35,597
    Forum Member
    Glowbot wrote: »
    I do know that... I didn't know that lesbians enjoyed anal though that's a bit new on me :o
    Anal is ok once in a while but after a while it wears out the entrance. Vaginas don't wear out the same way.

    I don't think if straight people got intercourse taken from them they would be as happy as gay people. I mean if straight people had to get buy on blowjobs and handjobs, would be a bit boring.

    Glowbot - you either lack imagination or experience :)
Sign In or Register to comment.