Im not disputing that. I dont think that Doj intended to cause any offence.

However it still does not make it acceptable that he used those words on a forum anyway. If for no other reason children may be reading.

think what I am trying to say scottyboy there is a danger of over sensitivity on both sides and there will be those will seize upon any comment and read what they want into it.

noted but one would hope given the title of the thread then they wouldn't be reading it anyway if their parents are monitoring what they look at on the internet.

I agree with you. As was mentioned earlier, if the "N" word was used there would be war. Same kind of thing. Although, I think the original post "Why the Gay Agenda" most likely was intended to cause these kind of arguments.

At the end of the day, everyone is entitled to an opinion, and the points made like, kids reading, offending language etc is surely not suitable? Maybe I am wrong, and maybe there are a few over-sensitive reactions, but then if it is offending straight people, maybe there is a point.

Of course; we all can.

But Dojjen's post falls quite clearly into the latter category.
That does not, to me, read like a light-hearted use of the word "faggot".

In my opinion the fact that someone is offended or irritated to see it so much that they go to the trouble of complaining about it shows what unfortunately the majority (not that I know of course but I'm guessing it would be safe to say the majority on the whole) of society still thinks about gay and/or bisexual people.

As many people have pointed out, it's highly unlikely (ok we do have to say not impossible, but it's fair to say highly unlikely) that this person and many others would be offended in the same way by a straight couple kissing, so that in itself shows that whether the person/people think they are homophobic or not, they are at the least very closed minded and unaccepting of it...otherwise it would be a non-issue.

I am a fan of Doctor Who and did mean to catch Torchwood out of interest but actually haven't seen any of it. The reason being because I missed the early episodes and didn't want to start partway in and miss anything important. I may catch up with it if I get the opportunity to see it from the beginning of Season 1 but we'll see. Overall though I can't say this does or would bother me any.

I think part of the problem is that it's so held back in the majority of television and maybe to a smaller degree in films, that for the most part gay and bisexual people are still thrown in very rarely as a token character or they are displayed as someone having a real struggle with their sexuality and in the context of the rest of the show where 99% of people are straight, it's easy to fall into the category as "out of the norm" even if that's not entirely what was intended.

For those reasons I think it's definitely a good thing that people are willing to take risks if you want to put it that way (it shouldn't be risk taking, but because it's not very prominent on TV then it can be viewed that way) in order to open people's eyes and show them that it isn't anything that's "not normal" or anything to be ashamed of and has every right to be on the exact same level as any straight sex. I think there is potential though to use that reason to fall into the trap of having too much, and that might be involved in this thread to a degree going off the posts. I think there's a fine line between opening people's eyes and going too far into shock value or not portraying things very realistically (if that's the right word) in order to hammer a point home where it really only needs to be stated. It can come across as overkill which can even end up diluting the original point and harming it more than helping. I think that seems to be the problem here for some people. Truthfully I can't comment on that as I haven't seen the show to have an opinion on that part.

The other thing I noticed was all about the certain words that people aren't meant to say etc. I think society has become far too PC these days and even though it certainly isn't right to go around offending people and not caring, it's definitely becoming too much of a society where you can't say this and you can't say that and free speech has gone out of the window. It's become so over-PC that you can't even say simple things about inanimate objects that have nothing in the slightetst to do with race (just as an example) like how a blackboard is apparently not a blackboard anymore but a chalkboard? Who came up with that completley ludicrous situation? The board is black, just like it could be red, blue, green, white or bloody multi-coloured. I don't see how saying a blackboard which is infact black has anything to do with being racist and offending a person who happens to have black skin??? Are we one day going to eradicate the colours white, black, brown and any other just because people have that colour skin? Why?

I went a little off the point there, but what I meant to say was in this now over-PC state I don't think anyone has the right to say "you CAN'T say that" because every person has the right to say whatever the hell they want. That's what free speech is, and we should never lose that. The point is sure that doesn't mean it's right to deliberately offend people, and people have every right to say they are offended by something, but it isn't right to say people aren't entitled to say words or what they think. They have that right even if you think it's wrong. It also all depends on the context that they are said in. If someone is saying it in a deliberate attempt to be abusive then that's one thing and that should encourage being banned if we're talking online as an example, but someone using those words who is not intending to be that way should not be silenced. You can disagree and point out it offends you if you wish but should not attempt to say "you CAN'T say that" it just encourages the people that want to have us lose all our rights and end free speech once and for all.

I agree with you to a point, I really do, however, the words used are homophobic names for a gay person. I can not think of any for a straight person as that is "normal", the same that the "P" word is racist to Indian/Pakistan, and the "N" word is racist to others.

You are entirely correct, the world has gone mad with the PC thing, but there is still a time and a place.

Don't shoot me down in flames here, but red haired, glasses, large ears etc etc etc - it is all in the same context if used incorrectly.

I hope i didn't offend you, i had no intention to-and yes you probably are a lot more 'normal' than most parents!!!(myself included!)
It just made me angry he used those words, which i (being straight) think are offensive, yet he is the first to get a thread closed which has harmless flirting in-because he doesn't want his son seeing it.
I know if one of my boys EVER used those words-i would go mad.

perhaps not but only Dojjen can explain themselves.

This is a good point. It is very easy, especially in an internet forum, to say something that isn't intended to offend but it does. If someone is offended, then it's only right to apologise and that should be the end of the incident.

Of course, if the 'perpetrator' continues to 'accidentally' offend people then we're in a different situation, and that's where the mods should maybe get involved, but I try to think the best of people, and a 'first offence' should not be too harshly punished.

At the end of the day this is quite simple, without going into the theory of words, freedom of speech etc.

The word "faggot" is unacceptable in most peoples eyes.
Most people know it is likely to cause offence no matter what context it is used in.

So therefore unless you know who your audience is, you should assume it will cause offence and not use it.Dojjen even acknowledges this by justifying why he believes he has a right to say it.

** Also its not as if Dojj could not have used other words to argue his point.

I am heterosexual and seeing two homosexuals kissing on TV or anywhere else just revolts me.
Couldnt care less what anyone else thinks, but most people I know feel the same way

Indeed, you probably do, the same way I know a lot of "hetrosexual" people that are offended by it, but there you go, we put up with "hetrosexuals" snogging the faces off each other for years.

Why does it revolt you?

Also are you including Homosexual women into your disgust?

This'll be good! I put money that not offending!

oooh thats a very strong word.

I find it a lttle bit cringey-i admit that but it certainly doesn't revolt me.

Cat poo revolts me
Dog sick revolts me

but not 2 men kissing.

So, you won't be watching future episodes of Torchwood and won't be complaining about them on this board then?

Dear God, I can understand such threads popping up for Episode 1 when people might not have been expecting it. But if people go watching it again with the intention of being offended, and then come onto this board bleating on about it... I think I shall scream!

LMAO!!!

So gp and Raytops, its all a bit of 'political correctness gone mad and people can't be allowed to say what they want. You can say what you like provided you're not going to qualify it as follows: i'm not racist/homophobic/sexist but....' You see that conjunction is carte blanche for some peple to make outrageous comments that cross the line from constructive criticsm into subjective bigotry, I personally think there probably is too much sex in the show that gets in the way of narrative and makes the show a little bit ridiculous, but other people like it and I can see why it's there for entertainment purposes. Just cos I don't think its always appropriate doesn't mean it 'revolts' me because it is a television show that I CHOOSE to watch and I'm prepared to accept all the various idiosyncracies particular to this programme and its timeslot. but as for the same gender issue, frankly who cares, really in this day and age, honestly why is it such a big issue that two men have a snog?

Trouble is there are a lot of people like Raytops. It isn't going to appeal to your average Doctor Who/SciFi fan, so the show is going to miss out on a lot of potential viewers. If it was on a commercial network the show might not last that long.

I will watch next weeks show, before reviewing whether I want to watch it again. This is a shame because I really wanted to see what happens with Martha Jones, and what happens to Captain Jack at the end leading up to S4 of DW, etc etc.

With refernce to your opening sentence, I am gay and I still have issues with the gay sex in TW. Not because seeing it offends me, but because of its irrelevance to good story telling.

good post btw

gp, Then why not watch it and accept that there will be spurious and gratuitous same sex and inter-gender innuendos and action and just enjoy the sci-fi side, it is possible to just watch the edited version for the kiddies if it's all abit too graphic for your constitution?

If this was the case it would not have been commisioned for a second series.

The bit I highlighted shows your obviously are not very offended by the homosexual references and I suspect you will be back again next week, with similar comments....

and just out of interest what is an "average Dr Who / Torchwood fan" LMAO

temperare, the show was re-comissioned because of the good and succesful S1. This weeks episode was unlike anythink in S1, and from what I have heard there will be many other episodes like it.

lol.....

I could say so much against this, but I dont know where to start.