Ann Widdecombe

First topic message reminder :

http://news.sky.com/story/ann-widdecombe-science-may-produce-an-answer-to-homosexuality-11733559

Not just ugly, but impossibly stupid, homophobic, racist, has become a right wing extremist and appears as mad as a bag of frogs.
I wonder whether she spread for Nigel?
It's clear to see why he recruited her.
I cannot understand why she is so anti gay, when no bloke in his right mind would want to impale her.

Syl wrote:

phildidge wrote:

She is advocating conversion therapy, which is going to be banned in the uk and rightly so
There is such a thing as gender dysphoria, not sexual dysphoria, but even people with gender dysphoria go through a long process. To help devleope who they are and understand their gender identity.

She has openly spoken out against homosexuality, being as she is religious and even  debated the position of the Church against Stephen Fry and Christopher hitchins. So to say that sicence may one day find a view to basically cure. homosexuality. Is claiming it is some how wrong.

Noboby thinks its wrong to be woman or a man, which is what most transgender people believe they are, but born into the wrong body 
There is biological bases for why people are homosexual and if people are confused over this, you do what has always been done and provide support and clinical help if need be

She was not advocating conversion therapy at all. She has said and repeated that such science may exist in the future to help homosexuals who dont want to be gay.

Her words may be naive , but hardly homophobic.

Stop the press, everyone is wrong, because Syl says so. The oinly people who have felt distressed as being gay. Are ones that are from strict religious families, where they are not accepted into society by close family etc. Are believers themselves and have preachers, promote crap saying they can be cured Hence its her beliefs, that is driving her to views here as she thinks its a sin.

The cure for this, is for people to be accepting of homosexuals, the point you miss and that she should also know. As nobody would not want to be gay, if accepted by society. Its religious beliefs and conflictions with families that can and does lead to a minor few homosexuals feeling pushed to want to change

Believing there will be one day a view to change a person from being homosexual to being hetrosexual. Is conversion therapy, no matter how poorly you try to say otherwise and that is homophobic. As the only reason she brings this up, is she sees homosexuality as a sin and wants science to basically cure this sin. As how else does changing someone gay to not being gay mean? Its again saying something is wrong with being gay and it needs to be cured. If she really cared, then she should be advocating for religious people to be accepting of homosexuals. That is the cure for this issue that some homosexuals do not feel wanted by their own families.

The only peson being naive here, is yourself, failing to grasp this

It also shows how you have not the first clue about attraction, as its not something anyone can control. People can only control how they act on their attractions.

phildidge wrote:

Syl wrote:

She was not advocating conversion therapy at all. She has said and repeated that such science may exist in the future to help homosexuals who dont want to be gay.

Her words may be naive , but hardly homophobic.

Stop the press, everyone is wrong, because Syl says so. The oinly people who have felt distressed as being gay. Are ones that are from strict religious families, where they are not accepted into society by close family etc. Are believers themselves and have preachers, promote crap saying they can be cured Hence its her beliefs, that is driving her to views here as she thinks its a sin.

The cure for this, is for people to be accepting of homosexuals, the point you miss and that she should also know. As nobody would not want to be gay, if accepted by society. Its religious beliefs and conflictions with families that can and does lead to a minor few homosexuals feeling pushed to want to change

Believing there will be one day a view to change a person from being homosexual to being hetrosexual. Is conversion therapy, no matter how poorly you try to say otherwise and that is homophobic. As the only reason she brings this up, is she sees homosexuality as a sin and wants science to basically cure this sin. As how else does changing someone gay to not being gay mean? Its again saying something is wrong with being gay and it needs to be cured. If she really cared, then she should be advocating for religious people to be accepting of homosexuals. That is the cure for this issue that some homosexuals do not feel wanted by their own families.

The only peson being naive here, is yourself, failing to grasp this

It also shows how you have not the first clue about attraction, as its not something anyone can control. People can only control how they act on their attractions.

I agree with the thought that many gay people would feel uncomfortable and would want to change who they are merely down to family/friends/society influence or attitude towards them

but what about those who might just want to be straight cos they want a normal family life and kids

what about your brother in law? do you think if there was a conversion therapy available he would have taken it in order to change his sexuality rather than leave your sister and his kids?

and should we ban it if it were available?

if we allow kids to swap genders on a whim why are we shutting down possibilities for gay people to swap?

gelico wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Stop the press, everyone is wrong, because Syl says so. The oinly people who have felt distressed as being gay. Are ones that are from strict religious families, where they are not accepted into society by close family etc. Are believers themselves and have preachers, promote crap saying they can be cured Hence its her beliefs, that is driving her to views here as she thinks its a sin.

The cure for this, is for people to be accepting of homosexuals, the point you miss and that she should also know. As nobody would not want to be gay, if accepted by society. Its religious beliefs and conflictions with families that can and does lead to a minor few homosexuals feeling pushed to want to change

Believing there will be one day a view to change a person from being homosexual to being hetrosexual. Is conversion therapy, no matter how poorly you try to say otherwise and that is homophobic. As the only reason she brings this up, is she sees homosexuality as a sin and wants science to basically cure this sin. As how else does changing someone gay to not being gay mean? Its again saying something is wrong with being gay and it needs to be cured. If she really cared, then she should be advocating for religious people to be accepting of homosexuals. That is the cure for this issue that some homosexuals do not feel wanted by their own families.

The only peson being naive here, is yourself, failing to grasp this

It also shows how you have not the first clue about attraction, as its not something anyone can control. People can only control how they act on their attractions.

I agree with the thought that many gay people would feel uncomfortable and would want to change who they are merely down to family/friends/society influence or attitude towards them

but what about those who might just want to be straight cos they want a normal family life and kids

what about your brother in law?  do you think if there was a conversion therapy available he would have taken it in order to change his sexuality rather than leave your sister and his kids?

and should we ban it if it were available?

if we allow kids to swap genders on a whim why are we shutting down possibilities for gay people to swap?

1. Sorry, but how can a homosexual not have a normal family life with kids gelico? Dont they already do so?

2. So its then society views around, and as seen what you class as normal, that is driving such a view is it not onto some homosexuals?

3. No I dont think he should have taken this route.

4. Many gay men and women in the past married to fit into society and had families with the opposite sex. This would never have happened, if homosexuality had been accepted within society. If gay marriage, adoption of kids, or through others having their children etc. Would then gay men even feel the need to change to being hetrosexual? The answer would be fundementally no. Its was the stigma and hostility of homosexuals that drove homosexuals to lead hetrosexual relationships. Just think of the number of people who also married them, later ending up being hurt by the failed marriage, due to society not accepting of homosexuals.

5. So I ask again, why would a homosexual think or believe he needs to be hetrosexual, if a society is 100% accepting of homosexuality?

6. Gender is completely different from sexuality, hence strawman argument. There is gender dysphoria, but not sexual dysphoria

So your view to shutting down conversion therapy is based on sound reason. The so called people who claim to cure homosexuality, are people who are anti-gay. So a view to look to think this can be cured, is claiming that something is wrong with being homosexual. So why then would there be a need to cure homosexuality. Homosexuality is not a medial condition or mental health problem. Gender dysphoria is certainly a condition that does effect people, where they feel trapped inside the wrong body. Hence your view would have to view homosexuality as a medical condition that requires medial intervention. Homosexuals have fought for years to fight exactly against this kind of stigma on homosexuality itself

gelico wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Syl wrote:

She was not advocating conversion therapy at all. She has said and repeated that such science may exist in the future to help homosexuals who dont want to be gay.

Her words may be naive , but hardly homophobic.

Stop the press, everyone is wrong, because Syl says so. The oinly people who have felt distressed as being gay. Are ones that are from strict religious families, where they are not accepted into society by close family etc. Are believers themselves and have preachers, promote crap saying they can be cured Hence its her beliefs, that is driving her to views here as she thinks its a sin.

The cure for this, is for people to be accepting of homosexuals, the point you miss and that she should also know. As nobody would not want to be gay, if accepted by society. Its religious beliefs and conflictions with families that can and does lead to a minor few homosexuals feeling pushed to want to change

Believing there will be one day a view to change a person from being homosexual to being hetrosexual. Is conversion therapy, no matter how poorly you try to say otherwise and that is homophobic. As the only reason she brings this up, is she sees homosexuality as a sin and wants science to basically cure this sin. As how else does changing someone gay to not being gay mean? Its again saying something is wrong with being gay and it needs to be cured. If she really cared, then she should be advocating for religious people to be accepting of homosexuals. That is the cure for this issue that some homosexuals do not feel wanted by their own families.

The only peson being naive here, is yourself, failing to grasp this

It also shows how you have not the first clue about attraction, as its not something anyone can control. People can only control how they act on their attractions.

I agree with the thought that many gay people would feel uncomfortable and would want to change who they are merely down to family/friends/society influence or attitude towards them

but what about those who might just want to be straight cos they want a normal family life and kids

what about your brother in law?  do you think if there was a conversion therapy available he would have taken it in order to change his sexuality rather than leave your sister and his kids?

and should we ban it if it were available?

if we allow kids to swap genders on a whim why are we shutting down possibilities for gay people to swap?

Firstly, kids shouldn't be allowed to swap genders 'on a whim'; it should be a carefully made decision by adults (which, tbf, it usually is).

Secondly, trans people transition despite enormous cultural and societal pressure to conform and deny what they feel they really are. They know they were born the wrong gender and even in face of potential ridicule, transition if they can because that is mentally better for them. Not doing can be mental catastrophic and damaging long terms.

Lastly, gay people in my experience actually only feel positively about their feels (in themselves) the desire and love is amazing (same as it is for anyone). The only bad feeling (or even sickness) from those feelings comes from knowing how society sometimes views it and/or their religious/cultural indoctrination. Gay people would simply never even consider changing their sexuality if society was 100% positive about the issue. Furthermore, gay conversion therapy is dangerous, and allowing it any form can only lead to more damage being caused.

Also, let's differentiate transgenderism and sexuality. Trans people are perfectly sound of mind but feel trapped in the wrong body. Therefore it is natural there should be a procedure to allow them to change the problem (to as greater extent as they can). Whereas gay people are also perfectly sound of mind, feel no problem with their bodies OR their sexuality. The only issue again is societal. It isn't like they are trapped with something they don't want.

phildidge wrote:

Syl wrote:

She was not advocating conversion therapy at all. She has said and repeated that such science may exist in the future to help homosexuals who dont want to be gay.

Her words may be naive , but hardly homophobic.

Stop the press, everyone is wrong, because Syl says so. The oinly people who have felt distressed as being gay. Are ones that are from strict religious families, where they are not accepted into society by close family etc. Are believers themselves and have preachers, promote crap saying they can be cured Hence its her beliefs, that is driving her to views here as she thinks its a sin.

The cure for this, is for people to be accepting of homosexuals, the point you miss and that she should also know. As nobody would not want to be gay, if accepted by society. Its religious beliefs and conflictions with families that can and does lead to a minor few homosexuals feeling pushed to want to change

Believing there will be one day a view to change a person from being homosexual to being hetrosexual. Is conversion therapy, no matter how poorly you try to say otherwise and that is homophobic. As the only reason she brings this up, is she sees homosexuality as a sin and wants science to basically cure this sin. As how else does changing someone gay to not being gay mean? Its again saying something is wrong with being gay and it needs to be cured. If she really cared, then she should be advocating for religious people to be accepting of homosexuals. That is the cure for this issue that some homosexuals do not feel wanted by their own families.

The only peson being naive here, is yourself, failing to grasp this

It also shows how you have not the first clue about attraction, as its not something anyone can control. People can only control how they act on their attractions.

Stop the press...Didge knows how every gay man who walked the earth feels about his sexuality.

I have no idea whether Ms Widdicombe is homophobic or not, but the interview she gave years ago which is now being regurgitated as proof that she is.....proves nothing.

Eilzel wrote:

gelico wrote:


I agree with the thought that many gay people would feel uncomfortable and would want to change who they are merely down to family/friends/society influence or attitude towards them

but what about those who might just want to be straight cos they want a normal family life and kids

what about your brother in law?  do you think if there was a conversion therapy available he would have taken it in order to change his sexuality rather than leave your sister and his kids?

and should we ban it if it were available?

if we allow kids to swap genders on a whim why are we shutting down possibilities for gay people to swap?

Firstly, kids shouldn't be allowed to swap genders 'on a whim'; it should be a carefully made decision by adults (which, tbf, it usually is).

Secondly, trans people transition despite enormous cultural and societal pressure to conform and deny what they feel they really are. They know they were born the wrong gender and even in face of potential ridicule, transition if they can because that is mentally better for them. Not doing can be mental catastrophic and damaging long terms.

Lastly, gay people in my experience actually only feel positively about their feels (in themselves) the desire and love is amazing (same as it is for anyone). The only bad feeling (or even sickness) from those feelings comes from knowing how society sometimes views it and/or their religious/cultural indoctrination. Gay people would simply never even consider changing their sexuality if society was 100% positive about the issue. Furthermore, gay conversion therapy is dangerous, and allowing it any form can only lead to more damage being caused.

Also, let's differentiate transgenderism and sexuality. Trans people are perfectly sound of mind but feel trapped in the wrong body. Therefore it is natural there should be a procedure to allow them to change the problem (to as greater extent as they can). Whereas gay people are also perfectly sound of mind, feel no problem with their bodies OR their sexuality. The only issue again is societal. It isn't like they are trapped with something they don't want.

Excellent points and fully agree.
There is one issue though and that is around policies now to affirm gender dysphoria, than long term consultation.
Posted an article on this, which I believe is going to lead to mistakes. Some obviously will have gender dysphoria. Whilst others will simple be gay. If gay people are led to believe through the social media, that they are instead trans. Its going to lead to issues and to me, would be a form of converison therapy.

Kids/people that suffer with gender dysphoria require all the support and help going, but the policies to affirm so quickly. Is open to lead to mistakes happening.

I posted an article on this yesterday

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t27274-it-feels-like-conversion-therapy-for-gay-children-say-clinicians#517143

Syl wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Stop the press, everyone is wrong, because Syl says so. The oinly people who have felt distressed as being gay. Are ones that are from strict religious families, where they are not accepted into society by close family etc. Are believers themselves and have preachers, promote crap saying they can be cured Hence its her beliefs, that is driving her to views here as she thinks its a sin.

The cure for this, is for people to be accepting of homosexuals, the point you miss and that she should also know. As nobody would not want to be gay, if accepted by society. Its religious beliefs and conflictions with families that can and does lead to a minor few homosexuals feeling pushed to want to change

Believing there will be one day a view to change a person from being homosexual to being hetrosexual. Is conversion therapy, no matter how poorly you try to say otherwise and that is homophobic. As the only reason she brings this up, is she sees homosexuality as a sin and wants science to basically cure this sin. As how else does changing someone gay to not being gay mean? Its again saying something is wrong with being gay and it needs to be cured. If she really cared, then she should be advocating for religious people to be accepting of homosexuals. That is the cure for this issue that some homosexuals do not feel wanted by their own families.

The only peson being naive here, is yourself, failing to grasp this

It also shows how you have not the first clue about attraction, as its not something anyone can control. People can only control how they act on their attractions.

Stop the press...Didge knows how every gay man who walked the earth feels about his sexuality.

I have no idea whether Ms Widdicombe is homophobic or not, but the interview she gave years ago which is now being regurgitated as proof that she is.....proves nothing.

Never claimed to know every homosexual, but I certainly understand psychology around peer pressure and the history of what has happened to homosexuals in the past and even today. I simple research information. She thinks homosexuality is a sin. That means she thinks its wrong. It does not matter if she comes across as nice, its still homophobic.

gelico wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Stop the press, everyone is wrong, because Syl says so. The oinly people who have felt distressed as being gay. Are ones that are from strict religious families, where they are not accepted into society by close family etc. Are believers themselves and have preachers, promote crap saying they can be cured Hence its her beliefs, that is driving her to views here as she thinks its a sin.

The cure for this, is for people to be accepting of homosexuals, the point you miss and that she should also know. As nobody would not want to be gay, if accepted by society. Its religious beliefs and conflictions with families that can and does lead to a minor few homosexuals feeling pushed to want to change

Believing there will be one day a view to change a person from being homosexual to being hetrosexual. Is conversion therapy, no matter how poorly you try to say otherwise and that is homophobic. As the only reason she brings this up, is she sees homosexuality as a sin and wants science to basically cure this sin. As how else does changing someone gay to not being gay mean? Its again saying something is wrong with being gay and it needs to be cured. If she really cared, then she should be advocating for religious people to be accepting of homosexuals. That is the cure for this issue that some homosexuals do not feel wanted by their own families.

The only peson being naive here, is yourself, failing to grasp this

It also shows how you have not the first clue about attraction, as its not something anyone can control. People can only control how they act on their attractions.

I agree with the thought that many gay people would feel uncomfortable and would want to change who they are merely down to family/friends/society influence or attitude towards them

but what about those who might just want to be straight cos they want a normal family life and kids

what about your brother in law?  do you think if there was a conversion therapy available he would have taken it in order to change his sexuality rather than leave your sister and his kids?

and should we ban it if it were available?

if we allow kids to swap genders on a whim why are we shutting down possibilities for gay people to swap?

I think that's exactly what Widdicombe meant when she was first talking about this, which is why I think she was well meaning but totally naive.
She talks about science advancing so far that people can now change gender, but thats the physical, it's a lot easier to change the body than the mind.

Syl wrote:

gelico wrote:


I agree with the thought that many gay people would feel uncomfortable and would want to change who they are merely down to family/friends/society influence or attitude towards them

but what about those who might just want to be straight cos they want a normal family life and kids

what about your brother in law?  do you think if there was a conversion therapy available he would have taken it in order to change his sexuality rather than leave your sister and his kids?

and should we ban it if it were available?

if we allow kids to swap genders on a whim why are we shutting down possibilities for gay people to swap?

I think that's exactly what Widdicombe meant when she was first talking about this, which is why I think she was well meaning but totally naive.
She talks about science advancing so far that people can now change gender, but thats the physical, it's a lot easier to change the body than the mind.

Strawmnan on gender

Again homosexuality is not a medical contion, its a sexual attraction. Hence there is no sexual dysphoria
There is gender dysphoria which is a medical condition.
You still are missing the main point. No homosexual would view to want to change their sexuality, if they were accepted into society 100%

phildidge wrote:

Syl wrote:

I think that's exactly what Widdicombe meant when she was first talking about this, which is why I think she was well meaning but totally naive.
She talks about science advancing so far that people can now change gender, but thats the physical, it's a lot easier to change the body than the mind.

Strawmnan on gender

Again homosexuality is not a medical contion, its a sexual attraction. Hence there is no sexual dysphoria
There is gender dysphoria which is a medical condition.
You still are missing the main point. No homosexual would view to want to change their sexuality, if they were accepted into society 100%

I am missing no point, where did I say I agree with Ann Widdicombe?
I am saying (from the start) that the remarks she made are NOT homophobic, though it seems many are interpreting them that way, probably because they dont agree with her political stance.

Syl wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Strawmnan on gender

Again homosexuality is not a medical contion, its a sexual attraction. Hence there is no sexual dysphoria
There is gender dysphoria which is a medical condition.
You still are missing the main point. No homosexual would view to want to change their sexuality, if they were accepted into society 100%

I am missing no point, where did I say I agree with Ann Widdicombe?
I am saying (from the start) that the remarks she made are NOT homophobic, though it seems many are interpreting them that way, probably because they dont agree with her political stance.

Have you actually digested anything myself and Eilzel has said, seriously?
So let me break this down again for you
Her argument is that some men have wanted to change from being homosexual, but never understanding why that is.
I listed the many reasons, and her faith is one of those reasons. So if she wanted to resolve this problem, there is a very easy cure. She needs to stop looking at people as being a sin and thus wrong to her, because of her faith.
So she is conflating an issue, claiming that some men are desperate not to be homosexual, ignoring how its her views and how society treats them, that is actually fueling this.
Arguing off this to them claim to care, is thus misleading and false and very homophobic. As she is the very symptom of this problem herself

Jules wrote:Trapped then.
Stitched up by her political enemies like a ...… well, … kipper!
She walked right into that one.

Huh? She's not ashamed of her views, so she didn't walk into anything. She probably wouldn't have mentioned it if she hadn't been asked though.

I don't get what the fuss is about really, and I bet most people don't care anyway.

Syl wrote:

phildidge wrote:

She is advocating conversion therapy, which is going to be banned in the uk and rightly so
There is such a thing as gender dysphoria, not sexual dysphoria, but even people with gender dysphoria go through a long process. To help devleope who they are and understand their gender identity.

She has openly spoken out against homosexuality, being as she is religious and even  debated the position of the Church against Stephen Fry and Christopher hitchins. So to say that sicence may one day find a view to basically cure. homosexuality. Is claiming it is some how wrong.

Noboby thinks its wrong to be woman or a man, which is what most transgender people believe they are, but born into the wrong body 
There is biological bases for why people are homosexual and if people are confused over this, you do what has always been done and provide support and clinical help if need be

She was not advocating conversion therapy at all. She has said and repeated that such science may exist in the future to help homosexuals who dont want to be gay.

Her words may be naive , but hardly homophobic.

I agree. Can't see what the fuss is about.

gelico wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Stop the press, everyone is wrong, because Syl says so. The oinly people who have felt distressed as being gay. Are ones that are from strict religious families, where they are not accepted into society by close family etc. Are believers themselves and have preachers, promote crap saying they can be cured Hence its her beliefs, that is driving her to views here as she thinks its a sin.

The cure for this, is for people to be accepting of homosexuals, the point you miss and that she should also know. As nobody would not want to be gay, if accepted by society. Its religious beliefs and conflictions with families that can and does lead to a minor few homosexuals feeling pushed to want to change

Believing there will be one day a view to change a person from being homosexual to being hetrosexual. Is conversion therapy, no matter how poorly you try to say otherwise and that is homophobic. As the only reason she brings this up, is she sees homosexuality as a sin and wants science to basically cure this sin. As how else does changing someone gay to not being gay mean? Its again saying something is wrong with being gay and it needs to be cured. If she really cared, then she should be advocating for religious people to be accepting of homosexuals. That is the cure for this issue that some homosexuals do not feel wanted by their own families.

The only peson being naive here, is yourself, failing to grasp this

It also shows how you have not the first clue about attraction, as its not something anyone can control. People can only control how they act on their attractions.

I agree with the thought that many gay people would feel uncomfortable and would want to change who they are merely down to family/friends/society influence or attitude towards them

but what about those who might just want to be straight cos they want a normal family life and kids

what about your brother in law?  do you think if there was a conversion therapy available he would have taken it in order to change his sexuality rather than leave your sister and his kids?

and should we ban it if it were available?

if we allow kids to swap genders on a whim why are we shutting down possibilities for gay people to swap?

It's probably easier for a bloke to have kids if he's heterosexual. Gay men have to find a surrogate or adopt or whatever, and that sort of thing can be quite difficult and involve red tape, changes of mind, etc.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

She was not advocating conversion therapy at all. She has said and repeated that such science may exist in the future to help homosexuals who dont want to be gay.

Her words may be naive , but hardly homophobic.

I agree. Can't see what the fuss is about.

You cannot see what the fuss is?

Do you think that homosexuality is a medical condition that needs to be cured?

Raggamuffin wrote:

gelico wrote:


I agree with the thought that many gay people would feel uncomfortable and would want to change who they are merely down to family/friends/society influence or attitude towards them

but what about those who might just want to be straight cos they want a normal family life and kids

what about your brother in law?  do you think if there was a conversion therapy available he would have taken it in order to change his sexuality rather than leave your sister and his kids?

and should we ban it if it were available?

if we allow kids to swap genders on a whim why are we shutting down possibilities for gay people to swap?

It's probably easier for a bloke to have kids if he's heterosexual. Gay men have to find a surrogate or adopt or whatever, and that sort of thing can be quite difficult and involve red tape, changes of mind, etc.

Easier? The point was made about having a normal family with childen, of which many gay families now have.

Its even more happenning because homosexuality is righftully becoming more acceptable

See what happens when something that does not harm anyone becomes acceptable?

Somebody does not feel ashamed of who they are, from how religious hateful people tend to make them feel

I don’t see how a homosexual “doesn’t want to be gay”
That makes no sense to me considering that homosexuality isn’t a choice?

eddie wrote:I don’t see how a homosexual “doesn’t want to be gay”
That makes no sense to me considering that homosexuality isn’t a choice?

Depends on how he's treated. If his community treats him like a pervert or an outcast, he may very well wish he was straight.

eddie wrote:I don’t see how a homosexual “doesn’t want to be gay”
That makes no sense to me considering that homosexuality isn’t a choice?

Exactly and its only certain hateful society and religious views that place pressure on homosexuals. That make them not feel wecoolme in society. So many in the past hid behind their identity, because they were not welcoem, by marrying into hetrosexual relationships. It was hate, driving them into holding their identity secret. That is the pressure and hate what causes these problems. We saw this happen to Jews even in Nazi Germany, where some hid their identity. When people are not accepted by a society and pressure is applied. As we see with religious families not accepting gay family members. Even worse applying religious beliefs onto them when they are also religious themselves. Its going to make some question whether its okay to be homosexual. Like i said Ann is the symptom of this problem, that stems from non-acceptance and fuels homosexuals to question who they are, because they are shunned by these religious idiots

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:I don’t see how a homosexual “doesn’t want to be gay”
That makes no sense to me considering that homosexuality isn’t a choice?

Depends on how he's treated. If his community treats him like a pervert or an outcast, he may very well wish he was straight.

In this day and age that is just downright sad. Makes me really angry tbh.

eddie wrote:I don’t see how a homosexual “doesn’t want to be gay”
That makes no sense to me considering that homosexuality isn’t a choice?

It would make no sense if it was a choice, but if it's not, then it could make sense.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:I don’t see how a homosexual “doesn’t want to be gay”
That makes no sense to me considering that homosexuality isn’t a choice?

It would make no sense if it was a choice, but if it's not, then it could make sense.

Well when is it ever a choice?

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Depends on how he's treated. If his community treats him like a pervert or an outcast, he may very well wish he was straight.

In this day and age that is just downright sad. Makes me really angry tbh.

Ben didn't say that happens though. I know a few gay men and none of them are treated like perverts or outcasts.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It would make no sense if it was a choice, but if it's not, then it could make sense.

Well when is it ever a choice?

I didn't say it was, but your post made no sense to me. Not having a choice doesn't mean someone doesn't want to change things.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:I don’t see how a homosexual “doesn’t want to be gay”
That makes no sense to me considering that homosexuality isn’t a choice?

It would make no sense if it was a choice, but if it's not, then it could make sense.

Can you force yourself to be attrracted to women?

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Depends on how he's treated. If his community treats him like a pervert or an outcast, he may very well wish he was straight.

In this day and age that is just downright sad. Makes me really angry tbh.

The point is though eddie it still happens in countries that are still predomninantly practicing christians or Muslims or jewish. Its religion that is driving the view to otracizse gay people. So placed in that position, what will some do. I saw this first hand growing up

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It would make no sense if it was a choice, but if it's not, then it could make sense.

Well when is it ever a choice?

I didn't say it was, but your post made no sense to me. Not having a choice doesn't mean someone doesn't want to change things.

But it’s never a choice, is it? That’s my point, I guess.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't say it was, but your post made no sense to me. Not having a choice doesn't mean someone doesn't want to change things.

But it’s never a choice, is it? That’s my point, I guess.  

Nobody can control who they are attracted to. Just as ben and you are attracted to each other. So you are right nobody can control this. They can only control how we act on these attractions. There is nothing wrong with being attracted to the same sex. What matters is how people act on this and whether the other consents to being with each other. What gay couples do with their lives is no buisness of anyone else as it does not harm tanyone, but some religious people take the view to cast them as wrong and sinnful. They never consider how this effects a child growing up and have their own family think there is something very wrong with them, when nothing is wrong with them. Its the beliefs that is driving this and hence why some, seek  to look to change, to please their biigoted families

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't say it was, but your post made no sense to me. Not having a choice doesn't mean someone doesn't want to change things.

But it’s never a choice, is it? That’s my point, I guess.  

That didn't appear to be your point though. Your point appeared to be that they want to be gay because they have no choice, and that doesn't make sense to me.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

But it’s never a choice, is it? That’s my point, I guess.  

That didn't appear to be your point though. Your point appeared to be that they want to be gay because they have no choice, and that doesn't make sense to me.

Really?

How did you conclude that?

phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

But it’s never a choice, is it? That’s my point, I guess.  

That didn't appear to be your point though. Your point appeared to be that they want to be gay because they have no choice, and that doesn't make sense to me.

Really?

How did you conclude that?

I’d kinda like to know that too.

eddie wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Really?

How did you conclude that?

I’d kinda like to know that too.

Yep i am perplexed at rags claim here, as you never made that claim at all

It's a great thing that gay men can live freely and proudly now.

Anyone remember Liberace?  He sued the ass off every newspaper or magazine that dared even hint that he was gay - and he won each time. It was a bit awkward when he dropped dead of AIDS. 

His wealth could have helped prolong his life. But having concealed his homosexuality meant that he felt unable to seek treatment after he was secretly diagnosed.  Basically he just sat at home and waited for death. Needless suffering due to secrecy.

Anyone over 50 should remember when he died. I was in my early 20's?? He could have admitted the truth and sought treatment - and apologised to the British and American newspapers whom he sued.  Thankfully the world has moved on and become a better place now.

Jules wrote:It's a great thing that gay men can live freely and proudly now.

Anyone remember Liberace?  He sued the ass off every newspaper or magazine that dared even hint that he was gay - and he won each time. It was a bit awkward when he dropped dead of AIDS. 

His wealth could have helped prolong his life. But having concealed his homosexuality meant that he felt unable to seek treatment after he was secretly diagnosed.  Basically he just sat at home and waited for death. Needless suffering due to secrecy.

Yeah, I remember reading that. So sad and so unnecessary. How can anyone judge someone for being homosexual? I’ve never, ever understood it.
And I never will.

Jules wrote:It's a great thing that gay men can live freely and proudly now.

Anyone remember Liberace?  He sued the ass off every newspaper or magazine that dared even hint that he was gay - and he won each time. It was a bit awkward when he dropped dead of AIDS. 

His wealth could have helped prolong his life. But having concealed his homosexuality meant that he felt unable to seek treatment after he was secretly diagnosed.  Basically he just sat at home and waited for death. Needless suffering due to secrecy.

I dont think only gay peope die of AIDS.
His camp demeanor more than the way he died was the big giveaway.

eddie wrote:

Jules wrote:It's a great thing that gay men can live freely and proudly now.

Anyone remember Liberace?  He sued the ass off every newspaper or magazine that dared even hint that he was gay - and he won each time. It was a bit awkward when he dropped dead of AIDS. 

His wealth could have helped prolong his life. But having concealed his homosexuality meant that he felt unable to seek treatment after he was secretly diagnosed.  Basically he just sat at home and waited for death. Needless suffering due to secrecy.

Yeah, I remember reading that. So sad and so unnecessary. How can anyone judge someone for being homosexual? I’ve never, ever understood it.
And I never will.

Couldn't agree more, and I dont think anyone on this thread has said anything to contradict that view.
Not even Ann Widdecombe, in spite of all the bluster.

Syl, I certainly don’t think you’re anti-gay. For the record.

eddie wrote:Syl, I certainly don’t think you’re anti-gay. For the record.

Of course I am not anti-gay, I think the only person here who misunderstands what I say is Didge.

Syl wrote:

Jules wrote:It's a great thing that gay men can live freely and proudly now.

Anyone remember Liberace?  He sued the ass off every newspaper or magazine that dared even hint that he was gay - and he won each time. It was a bit awkward when he dropped dead of AIDS. 

His wealth could have helped prolong his life. But having concealed his homosexuality meant that he felt unable to seek treatment after he was secretly diagnosed.  Basically he just sat at home and waited for death. Needless suffering due to secrecy.

I dont think only gay peope die of AIDS.
His camp demeanor more than the way he died was the big giveaway.

Yes, straight people do die of aids too.  No one needs to be reminded of such an obvious fact.
But back in the 80's it was mostly gay men who died of it.


To this day I don't know of any famous heterosexual who died of it.(apart from Arthur Ashe who got it thru a blood transfusion).
Yes it was Liberace's ubercamp ways that made people think he was gay, nowt else.
In fact the AIDS was very much an 11th hour event in his life,  and few knew he had it, until after he died.
But it sort of confirmed their suspicions. 
With all the threats of  libel lawsuits, it sparked a lot of interest.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:Syl, I certainly don’t think you’re anti-gay. For the record.

Of course I am not anti-gay, I think the only person here who misunderstands what I say is Didge.

You certainly aren't. Widdecombe, however, certainly is. She advocated for gay conversion a decade ago too, it was a question on that that brought this back to the fore. She vote against the equal age of consent, civil partnerships, revoking section 28 and was an advocate against same sex marriage. She has also stated homosexuality is wrong, and debated Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens on the subject.

Her comments were not innocent or naive. They were part of a consistent anti-gay narrative she has espoused throughout her entire career.

Eilzel wrote:

Syl wrote:

Of course I am not anti-gay, I think the only person here who misunderstands what I say is Didge.

You certainly aren't. Widdecombe, however, certainly is. She advocated for gay conversion a decade ago too, it was a question on that that brought this back to the fore. She vote against the equal age of consent, civil partnerships, revoking section 28 and was an advocate against same sex marriage. She has also stated homosexuality is wrong, and debated Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens on the subject.

Her comments were not innocent or naive. They were part of a consistent anti-gay narrative she has espoused throughout her entire career.

In that case she is homophobic, and I said as much at the start of the thread....I never argued she was or wasn't by the way.

Syl wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

You certainly aren't. Widdecombe, however, certainly is. She advocated for gay conversion a decade ago too, it was a question on that that brought this back to the fore. She vote against the equal age of consent, civil partnerships, revoking section 28 and was an advocate against same sex marriage. She has also stated homosexuality is wrong, and debated Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens on the subject.

Her comments were not innocent or naive. They were part of a consistent anti-gay narrative she has espoused throughout her entire career.

In that case she is homophobic, and I said as much at the start of the thread....I never argued she was or wasn't by the way.

Glad you got there in the end

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:Syl, I certainly don’t think you’re anti-gay. For the record.

Of course I am not anti-gay, I think the only person here who misunderstands what I say is Didge.

Really?I understood you very well, thanks

Jules wrote:

Syl wrote:

I dont think only gay peope die of AIDS.
His camp demeanor more than the way he died was the big giveaway.

Yes, straight people do die of aids too.  No one needs to be reminded of such an obvious fact.
But back in the 80's it was mostly gay men who died of it.


To this day I don't know of any famous heterosexual who died of it.(apart from Arthur Ashe who got it thru a blood transfusion).
Yes it was Liberace's ubercamp ways that made people think he was gay, nowt else.
In fact the AIDS was very much an 11th hour event in his life,  and few knew he had it, until after he died.
But it sort of confirmed their suspicions. 
With all the threats of  libel lawsuits, it sparked a lot of interest.

It may have been gay men who were publicised more for having and spreading HIV and AIDS in the 80's, but straight men and women have been dying from it globally since the 80's and before.

Who knows how many famous people gay or  straight have died from AIDS, it was hushed up for a long time.
I do remember Paul Micheal Glasers (Starsky and Hutch fame) wife and young daughter tragically dying from the disease due to a contaminated blood transfusion.

phildidge wrote:

Syl wrote:

In that case she is homophobic, and I said as much at the start of the thread....I never argued she was or wasn't by the way.

Glad you got there in the end

Obviously you didn't read my post on the FIRST page.

Syl wrote:

phildidge wrote:
Glad you got there in the end

Obviously you didn't read my post on the FIRST page.

Well what is funniest here, is Eizel has said throughout basically exactly the same as me.
I would say then  the problem here, is how you are with me and not anything else.
It shows you never bothered to listen to me properly

Syl wrote:

Jules wrote:

Yes, straight people do die of aids too.  No one needs to be reminded of such an obvious fact.
But back in the 80's it was mostly gay men who died of it.


To this day I don't know of any famous heterosexual who died of it.(apart from Arthur Ashe who got it thru a blood transfusion).
Yes it was Liberace's ubercamp ways that made people think he was gay, nowt else.
In fact the AIDS was very much an 11th hour event in his life,  and few knew he had it, until after he died.
But it sort of confirmed their suspicions. 
With all the threats of  libel lawsuits, it sparked a lot of interest.

It may have been gay men who were publicised more for having and spreading HIV and AIDS in the 80's,  but straight men and women have been dying from it globally since the 80's and before.

Who knows how many famous people gay or  straight have died from AIDS, it was hushed up for a long time.
I do remember Paul Micheal Glasers (Starsky and Hutch fame) wife and young daughter tragically dying from the disease due to a contaminated blood transfusion.

By giving me even more examples of blood transfusion deaths, you have actually STRENGTHENED my argument, not weakened it. 

You still haven't provided any examples of sexually transmitted AIDS deaths of heterosexual celebs in those very early days. It is not good enough to say "they may have been hushed up". In any case the truth about the deaths of famous people always comes out in the end.

In fact the truth behind Liberace's own death was hushed up too. [Maybe his relatives were worried that the news editors he impoverished with his lawsuits would countersue his estate? ]  But the Fed coroners battled to expose the truth and won the case to do a proper post mortem, which revealed the truth.  


Finally, yes I know that HIV/AIDS was spreading like wildfire among some men & women in poor countries because of poor nutrition and few being able to afford condoms. But I was referring specifically to 'Hollywood celebs' here - a VERY different demographic group.

Jules wrote:

Syl wrote:

It may have been gay men who were publicised more for having and spreading HIV and AIDS in the 80's,  but straight men and women have been dying from it globally since the 80's and before.

Who knows how many famous people gay or  straight have died from AIDS, it was hushed up for a long time.
I do remember Paul Micheal Glasers (Starsky and Hutch fame) wife and young daughter tragically dying from the disease due to a contaminated blood transfusion.

By giving me even more examples of blood transfusion deaths, you have actually STRENGTHENED my argument, not weakened it. 

You still haven't provided any examples of sexually transmitted AIDS deaths of heterosexual celebs in those very early days. It is not good enough to say "they may have been hushed up". In any case the truth about the deaths of famous people always comes out in the end.

In fact the truth behind Liberace's own death was hushed up too. [Maybe his relatives were worried that the news editors he impoverished with his lawsuits would countersue his estate?  ]  But the Fed coroners battled to expose the truth and won the case to do a proper post mortem, which revealed the truth.  


Finally, yes I know that HIV/AIDS was spreading like wildfire among some men & women in poor countries because of poor nutrition and few being able to afford condoms. But I was referring specifically to 'Hollywood celebs' here - a VERY different demographic group.

It's hardly an argument Jules.
This thread wasn't about AIDS or celebrities, you brought both into the debate.
I have as much idea as you do  which celebs died of AIDS or are presently suffering from HIV infections passed on through sexual contact.
Like I said, things like this have always been and are still covered up, and in any case, apart from the people involved, is it anyone else's business?