Ann Widdecombe

by Andy Sun Jun 02, 2019 10:17 pm

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.

by Guest Sat Jun 08, 2019 5:50 am

phildidge wrote:I have to say, i am sorry, when Eilzel reads the comments here, because none of you have ever walked in his shoes. Sorry mate, it shows people have no conception of empathic intelligence and we both know when hateful views are normalised what happens in history.
Some people think that said views are nothing to be worried about. Well, Hitler started with little support and it was the Wall Street Crash that propelled him to power.

Again she can say what she likes but for people to be up in arms, because people are condemning her for this, says more about how they care for her, than they do actually for homosexuals. More so when she is the actual cause of why some homosexuals feel confused in who they are. Like I said, this was a one way street and not looking at confusion on sexuality. If it was we would see hetrosexuals wanting to be gay. Its just a poor excuse by her to think its acceptable to go after homosexual people, based on her beliefs. Nobody is looking to cure her of her christian beliefs are they? Even though she will like many religious preachers look to convert people to their faith. Us Athiest would rather people come to their own conclusions through reason. We do not convert people, we simple open peoples eyes to being able to find their own paths

I mean I even stated this on page 6 as well.
Nothing worse when people tell lies, claiming something I never did

by Guest Sat Jun 08, 2019 5:57 am

Ben Reilly wrote:
Syl wrote:

Errr excuse me but I posted this on the first page of the thread....

"She should know though that the best way to get EVERYONE to accept their own natural sexuality is by having no discrimination at all..
The proof being I doubt many heterosexual people ask for help to convert them to homosexuality."

I apologize profusely! It is a great question, I don't know if Didge thought it up as well.

I did also think of this and never saw this post. I notice looking back now that she said this on the first page on the 3rd June, when I was not even in the country and I never joined the debate until the second page on the 4th. The first post I replied to of Syls. Was not even until the 3rd page on the 5th of June. So I never read or replied to her posts before the 3rd page. Two people can think seperately of the same things. Happy to admit she thought of his first, hey ho.

by Raggamuffin Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:51 am

Syl wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:

I can't tell you why anybody would be converted to homosexuality. The closest thing I can come to that is the phenomenon of some young people experimenting with homosexuality, but that's not even close to the same thing, so I won't even offer it up as an answer.

Your question is so good, it could be used as a benchmark for empathy towards all sorts of different people.

Errr excuse me but I posted this on the first page of the thread....

"She should know though that the best way to get EVERYONE to accept their own natural sexuality is by having no discrimination at all..
The proof being I doubt many heterosexual people ask for help to convert them to homosexuality."

Being heterosexual is the default setting. It has to be because that's how the human race continues. Therefore, it's not a valid comparision IMO.

I pointed out earlier that if a man wants children, it's much easier for him to have them if he's heterosexual, unless he lies to a woman and pretends that he's heterosexual of course.

by Guest Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:54 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

Errr excuse me but I posted this on the first page of the thread....

"She should know though that the best way to get EVERYONE to accept their own natural sexuality is by having no discrimination at all..
The proof being I doubt many heterosexual people ask for help to convert them to homosexuality."

Being heterosexual is the default setting. It has to be because that's how the human race continues. Therefore, it's not a valid comparision IMO.

I pointed out earlier that if a man wants children, it's much easier for him to have them if he's heterosexual, unless he lies to a woman and pretends that he's heterosexual of course.

Default setting?

That makes even less sense, as homosexuality occurs naturally throughout many species. So its a very valid comparrison, being the fact I have never seen a case of a hetrosexual wanting to convert. The point is to show and prove how people are treated in society that can push people into things

by Raggamuffin Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:54 am

Syl wrote:
eddie wrote:

That’s what I meant. You can’t over-generalise and think all gay people are simply out to dupe people. That’s not fair.

I think it was a lot more understandable a couple of generations ago for homosexuals to marry, unless they were prepared to break the law and have openly gay relationships, and ruin their chances of forging a decent career and fitting into society, they didn't have much choice....apart from being alone all their lives.
Thankfully times have changed.

But if they got some woman to marry them, that means they lied to her because they knew they were gay - unless she knew that and didn't mind. Isn't that the same as using a woman for the purpose of being "accepted"? I don't get why people think that's OK.

by Guest Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:55 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

I think it was a lot more understandable a couple of generations ago for homosexuals to marry, unless they were prepared to break the law and have openly gay relationships, and ruin their chances of forging a decent career and fitting into society, they didn't have much choice....apart from being alone all their lives.
Thankfully times have changed.

But if they got some woman to marry them, that means they lied to her because they knew they were gay - unless she knew that and didn't mind. Isn't that the same as using a woman for the purpose of being "accepted"? I don't get why people think that's OK.

Still missing the point of how homosexuals had to hide their identity within society, due to how they were discriminated against by society

by Eilzel Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:57 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:

I can't tell you why anybody would be converted to homosexuality. The closest thing I can come to that is the phenomenon of some young people experimenting with homosexuality, but that's not even close to the same thing, so I won't even offer it up as an answer.

Your question is so good, it could be used as a benchmark for empathy towards all sorts of different people.

Errr excuse me but I posted this on the first page of the thread....

"She should know though that the best way to get EVERYONE to accept their own natural sexuality is by having no discrimination at all..
The proof being I doubt many heterosexual people ask for help to convert them to homosexuality."

Being heterosexual is the default setting. It has to be because that's how the human race continues. Therefore, it's not a valid comparision IMO.

I pointed out earlier that if a man wants children, it's much easier for him to have them if he's heterosexual, unless he lies to a woman and pretends that he's heterosexual of course.

It isn't the 'default setting' for millions of us, though.

And you're missing the point - gay people wouldn't want to become straight if society was completely accepting. They just wouldn't. Yes, having kids would be easier, but changing themselves to make that possible and possibly changing their mind in other ways would not be a price worth paying.

There are ways around having children these days too, and they will only become easier over time.

by Raggamuffin Sat Jun 08, 2019 7:28 am

Eilzel wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Being heterosexual is the default setting. It has to be because that's how the human race continues. Therefore, it's not a valid comparision IMO.

I pointed out earlier that if a man wants children, it's much easier for him to have them if he's heterosexual, unless he lies to a woman and pretends that he's heterosexual of course.

It isn't the 'default setting' for millions of us, though.

And you're missing the point - gay people wouldn't want to become straight if society was completely accepting. They just wouldn't. Yes, having kids would be easier, but changing themselves to make that possible and possibly changing their mind in other ways would not be a price worth paying.

There are ways around having children these days too, and they will only become easier over time.

It's the default setting for the human race. Even you must be able to see that.

People keep trotting out this stuff about gay people being accepted or not. Yes, there are ways around having children, but it's not as easy is it? They either have to adopt or find a surrogate - neither of those options are as easy as having children the heterosexual way. You can surely see that?

Also, perhaps some gay people feel they would have more choice of partners if they were heterosexual?

by Guest Sat Jun 08, 2019 7:35 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

It isn't the 'default setting' for millions of us, though.

And you're missing the point - gay people wouldn't want to become straight if society was completely accepting. They just wouldn't. Yes, having kids would be easier, but changing themselves to make that possible and possibly changing their mind in other ways would not be a price worth paying.

There are ways around having children these days too, and they will only become easier over time.

It's the default setting for the human race. Even you must be able to see that.

People keep trotting out this stuff about gay people being accepted or not. Yes, there are ways around having children, but it's not as easy is it? They either have to adopt or find a surrogate - neither of those options are as easy as having children the heterosexual way. You can surely see that?

Also, perhaps some gay people feel they would have more choice of partners if they were heterosexual?

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Never heard something so absurd in all my life

The view seems to being made and not backed by any evidence is that some gays are only wanted to convert based around having children.

Its a really poor argument as again as I stated to Gelico, where is the evidence for any of these claims.

Its now as if Gay people cannot have children, when they can. So these vies are simple red herrings, when we do know already what is pushing some gay people to feel pushed to convert and it has everything to do with religion. It always has for centuries and how they have persecuted, murdered and discriminated against homosexuals. The same happened to many Jews throughout the centuries, where they had to hide their identity. People are and in my case disgustingly misdirecting away from the real cuase here. The hate that is preached from with religions towards homosexuals. That is the main real cause of this and not being accepting of homosexuals.

by Guest Sat Jun 08, 2019 7:44 am

Here is some good articles people can read on this

https://www.hrc.org/resources/the-lies-and-dangers-of-reparative-therapy

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/understanding-the-erotic-code/201604/can-someone-be-homosexual-and-not-gay

by Eilzel Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:15 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Being heterosexual is the default setting. It has to be because that's how the human race continues. Therefore, it's not a valid comparision IMO.

I pointed out earlier that if a man wants children, it's much easier for him to have them if he's heterosexual, unless he lies to a woman and pretends that he's heterosexual of course.

It isn't the 'default setting' for millions of us, though.

And you're missing the point - gay people wouldn't want to become straight if society was completely accepting. They just wouldn't. Yes, having kids would be easier, but changing themselves to make that possible and possibly changing their mind in other ways would not be a price worth paying.

There are ways around having children these days too, and they will only become easier over time.

It's the default setting for the human race. Even you must be able to see that.

People keep trotting out this stuff about gay people being accepted or not. Yes, there are ways around having children, but it's not as easy is it? They either have to adopt or find a surrogate - neither of those options are as easy as having children the heterosexual way. You can surely see that?

Also, perhaps some gay people feel they would have more choice of partners if they were heterosexual?

1. I know what you're trying to say. But a default is a 'setting' and if we aren't 'that setting' then the implication is that there's been some kind of change or deviation from that default. A better word would be typical/common/usual.

2. As I said, the surrogacy option will get easy in time. I appreciate it can never be AS easy - but a major psychological alteration is a MASSIVE risk to take for the sake of making it easier to have children (I imagine the 'change' would be incredibly risky and long winded too - so you're really talking about supplanting one difficult procedure for another arguably more dangerous one).

3. This is a non-starter. They might have more choice, but the idea of a sexual relationship with a woman is as unpleasant a thought for a gay man as a sexual relationship with a man is for a straight guy. The idea of having 'more choice' does not, for me at least, trump the idea of having 'better' choices even if fewer Laughing

by Eilzel Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:21 am

Also, I want to add here, that by suggesting the concept of altering one's sexuality is not homophobic or harmful is in itself passively accepting the idea as reasonable.

It really is not.

Firstly, if science can reach a point where it might be able to do this, it would have to involve psychological meddling that could have SERIOUS side effects. You cannot casually alter someones brain the same way you can their genitalia.

Secondly, if this even became remotely possible, regardless of risks and consequences, it is extremely likely that places/regimes/cultures less tolerant of homosexuality WOULD use it on their own gay citizens. The victims would get no choice - be a criminal or be changed. Be ostracized or be changed.

Which makes the suggestion by Widdecombe grossly irresponsible and ultimately she is condoning the use of this as better than a gay person accepting themselves for what they are (how unthinkable!).

by Raggamuffin Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:30 am

Eilzel wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It's the default setting for the human race. Even you must be able to see that.

People keep trotting out this stuff about gay people being accepted or not. Yes, there are ways around having children, but it's not as easy is it? They either have to adopt or find a surrogate - neither of those options are as easy as having children the heterosexual way. You can surely see that?

Also, perhaps some gay people feel they would have more choice of partners if they were heterosexual?

1. I know what you're trying to say. But a default is a 'setting' and if we aren't 'that setting' then the implication is that there's been some kind of change or deviation from that default. A better word would be typical/common/usual.

2. As I said, the surrogacy option will get easy in time. I appreciate it can never be AS easy - but a major psychological alteration is a MASSIVE risk to take for the sake of making it easier to have children (I imagine the 'change' would be incredibly risky and long winded too - so you're really talking about supplanting one difficult procedure for another arguably more dangerous one).

3. This is a non-starter. They might have more choice, but the idea of a sexual relationship with a woman is as unpleasant a thought for a gay man as a sexual relationship with a man is for a straight guy. The idea of having 'more choice' does not, for me at least, trump the idea of having 'better' choices even if fewer

I like the word "default". Heterosexuality is the default because that's how the human species continues.

Anyway, we're discussing the reasons that a gay person might wish he/she were not gay. I doubt that "conversion therapy" works and would probably leave someone traumatised to an extent, but that's not really relevant.

Of course a gay man doesn't want sex with a woman (although apparently they can force themselves in some cases), but he might wish that he did want to so that it's statistically easlier for him to find a partner.

How will surrogacy get easier in time? Do you mean that the surrogate mother should lose the rights to her child or something? No matter how much easier it gets, it's never going to be as easy as having the children the heterosexual way. It's going to involve money, legal issues, and also, which one of the gay couple is going to be the biological father? That kind of decision can have repercussions.

by Eilzel Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:58 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It's the default setting for the human race. Even you must be able to see that.

People keep trotting out this stuff about gay people being accepted or not. Yes, there are ways around having children, but it's not as easy is it? They either have to adopt or find a surrogate - neither of those options are as easy as having children the heterosexual way. You can surely see that?

Also, perhaps some gay people feel they would have more choice of partners if they were heterosexual?

1. I know what you're trying to say. But a default is a 'setting' and if we aren't 'that setting' then the implication is that there's been some kind of change or deviation from that default. A better word would be typical/common/usual.

2. As I said, the surrogacy option will get easy in time. I appreciate it can never be AS easy - but a major psychological alteration is a MASSIVE risk to take for the sake of making it easier to have children (I imagine the 'change' would be incredibly risky and long winded too - so you're really talking about supplanting one difficult procedure for another arguably more dangerous one).

3. This is a non-starter. They might have more choice, but the idea of a sexual relationship with a woman is as unpleasant a thought for a gay man as a sexual relationship with a man is for a straight guy. The idea of having 'more choice' does not, for me at least, trump the idea of having 'better' choices even if fewer

I like the word "default". Heterosexuality is the default because that's how the human species continues.

Anyway, we're discussing the reasons that a gay person might wish he/she were not gay. I doubt that "conversion therapy" works and would probably leave someone traumatised to an extent, but that's not really relevant.

Of course a gay man doesn't want sex with a woman (although apparently they can force themselves in some cases), but he might wish that he did want to so that it's statistically easlier for him to find a partner.

How will surrogacy get easier in time? Do you mean that the surrogate mother should lose the rights to her child or something? No matter how much easier it gets, it's never going to be as easy as having the children the heterosexual way. It's going to involve money, legal issues, and also, which one of the gay couple is going to be the biological father? That kind of decision can have repercussions.

You might like it, but it doesn't work. My default setting wasn't heterosexuality, nor was it for any other gay person out there.

And the whole point of my second post above was to address the potential trauma ANY conservation therapy might have, and why it really isn't a thing that should even be experimented with - it is just too dangerous and too open to abuse by malevolent forces.

And I don't think a straight man would ever consider conversion therapy - even if he lived in a country where 95% of the population were gay men. For the same reason a gay man wouldn't do it in this scenario.

by Raggamuffin Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:02 am

Eilzel wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I like the word "default". Heterosexuality is the default because that's how the human species continues.

Anyway, we're discussing the reasons that a gay person might wish he/she were not gay. I doubt that "conversion therapy" works and would probably leave someone traumatised to an extent, but that's not really relevant.

Of course a gay man doesn't want sex with a woman (although apparently they can force themselves in some cases), but he might wish that he did want to so that it's statistically easlier for him to find a partner.

How will surrogacy get easier in time? Do you mean that the surrogate mother should lose the rights to her child or something? No matter how much easier it gets, it's never going to be as easy as having the children the heterosexual way. It's going to involve money, legal issues, and also, which one of the gay couple is going to be the biological father? That kind of decision can have repercussions.

You might like it, but it doesn't work. My default setting wasn't heterosexuality, nor was it for any other gay person out there.

And the whole point of my second post above was to address the potential trauma ANY conservation therapy might have, and why it really isn't a thing that should even be experimented with - it is just too dangerous and too open to abuse by malevolent forces.

And I don't think a straight man would ever consider conversion therapy - even if he lived in a country where 95% of the population were gay men. For the same reason a gay man wouldn't do it in this scenario.

I'm not talking about default settings for individuals though, I'm talking about default settings for the human race. Default settings for individuals can be changed.

Some gay people do try conversion therapy though. I think it's too lazy to just say that they feel pressurised into it by society/religion, etc. They may well have their own reasons which are personal.

by Guest Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:19 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

You might like it, but it doesn't work. My default setting wasn't heterosexuality, nor was it for any other gay person out there.

And the whole point of my second post above was to address the potential trauma ANY conservation therapy might have, and why it really isn't a thing that should even be experimented with - it is just too dangerous and too open to abuse by malevolent forces.

And I don't think a straight man would ever consider conversion therapy - even if he lived in a country where 95% of the population were gay men. For the same reason a gay man wouldn't do it in this scenario.

I'm not talking about default settings for individuals though, I'm talking about default settings for the human race. Default settings for individuals can be changed.

Some gay people do try conversion therapy though. I think it's too lazy to just say that they feel pressurised into it by society/religion, etc. They may well have their own reasons which are personal.

Then as i keep saying provide the evidence for this claim?

Also there is no such thing as a default setting in humans based on sexuality, as what next? Skin colour? Is white the default to you Rags? How about hair colour, eye colour, the sex, etc? What a silly statement to say

by Raggamuffin Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:24 am

It's absurd for people to doubt that heterosexuality is the default setting for the human race. How do they think that it would survive if it wasn't?

by Guest Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:35 am

Raggamuffin wrote:It's absurd for people to doubt that heterosexuality is the default setting for the human race. How do they think that it would survive if it wasn't?

Again where is the bases for your claim, when biologically homosexuality occurs naturally in many species?
There is also now evidence this plays a part to play withiin evolution itself within families

https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/scientists-discover-evolutionary-advantage-homosexual-sex/

by Eilzel Sat Jun 08, 2019 11:19 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I like the word "default". Heterosexuality is the default because that's how the human species continues.

Anyway, we're discussing the reasons that a gay person might wish he/she were not gay. I doubt that "conversion therapy" works and would probably leave someone traumatised to an extent, but that's not really relevant.

Of course a gay man doesn't want sex with a woman (although apparently they can force themselves in some cases), but he might wish that he did want to so that it's statistically easlier for him to find a partner.

How will surrogacy get easier in time? Do you mean that the surrogate mother should lose the rights to her child or something? No matter how much easier it gets, it's never going to be as easy as having the children the heterosexual way. It's going to involve money, legal issues, and also, which one of the gay couple is going to be the biological father? That kind of decision can have repercussions.

You might like it, but it doesn't work. My default setting wasn't heterosexuality, nor was it for any other gay person out there.

And the whole point of my second post above was to address the potential trauma ANY conservation therapy might have, and why it really isn't a thing that should even be experimented with - it is just too dangerous and too open to abuse by malevolent forces.

And I don't think a straight man would ever consider conversion therapy - even if he lived in a country where 95% of the population were gay men. For the same reason a gay man wouldn't do it in this scenario.

I'm not talking about default settings for individuals though, I'm talking about default settings for the human race. Default settings for individuals can be changed.

Some gay people do try conversion therapy though. I think it's too lazy to just say that they feel pressurised into it by society/religion, etc. They may well have their own reasons which are personal.

I think it's either naive or ignorant to think at least 99% if not 100% of gay people who try it aren't doing so for societal/cultural/religious reasons.

And yes heterosexuality is the default setting for most people - obviously - but it is not for those of us who are gay. Saying default implies some kind of maker programming us a certain way - which is nonsensical.

by Syl Sat Jun 08, 2019 1:28 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

I think it was a lot more understandable a couple of generations ago for homosexuals to marry, unless they were prepared to break the law and have openly gay relationships, and ruin their chances of forging a decent career and fitting into society, they didn't have much choice....apart from being alone all their lives.
Thankfully times have changed.

But if they got some woman to marry them, that means they lied to her because they knew they were gay - unless she knew that and didn't mind. Isn't that the same as using a woman for the purpose of being "accepted"? I don't get why people think that's OK.

It was never OK because obviously they lied, to the woman and themselves. Many men and women did marry and try to live a life accepted by society. As has been pointed out, the blame for that must lie partly within the society people lived in.

It should never happen now in a free country, because times, attitudes, laws, and society as a whole is more educated and accepting.

by Guest Sat Jun 08, 2019 1:34 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

But if they got some woman to marry them, that means they lied to her because they knew they were gay - unless she knew that and didn't mind. Isn't that the same as using a woman for the purpose of being "accepted"? I don't get why people think that's OK.

It was never OK because obviously they lied, to the woman and themselves. Many men and women did marry and try to live a life accepted by society. As has been pointed out, the blame for that must lie partly within the society people lived in.

It should never happen now in a free country, because times, attitudes, laws, and society as a whole is more educated and accepting.

But that is emphatically wrong to claim still today, espcially for any Muslim and Jews that grow up within religious families. We already know that a majority of Muslims are hostile to homosexuality in this country. So again many gay Muslims and Jewish homosexuals from orthodox families, will feel trapped to a view to conform within the religious societies they live in. If not then end up constantly being ostracised and even threatened with death.

Sorry, but it is society views and mainly religious homophobia that is 100% to blame for why this happens. As many gay men/women even fear to come to terms with who they are and more so in the past, because of how homosexuality was seen as something wrong. Due to the discrimination and prejudice which still very much exists today, even in the UK. To lay the blame partly at people, who felt trapped by these poor socialtal views, is wrong on every level. As again this would never have happened if homosexuality was fully accepted within society. Hence you are ignoring the root cause of this very prooblem.

by Syl Sat Jun 08, 2019 1:45 pm

phildidge wrote:
Syl wrote:

It was never OK because obviously they lied, to the woman and themselves. Many men and women did marry and try to live a life accepted by society. As has been pointed out, the blame for that must lie partly within the society people lived in.

It should never happen now in a free country, because times, attitudes, laws, and society as a whole is more educated and accepting.

But that is emphatically wrong to claim still today, espcially for any Muslim and Jews that grow up within religious families. We already know that a majority of Muslims are hostile to homosexuality in this country. So again many gay Muslims and Jewish homosexuals, will feel trapped to a view to conform within the religious societies they live in. If not then end up constantly being ostracised and even threatened with death.

Sorry, but it is society views and mainly religious homophobia that is 100% to blamer for why this happens. As many gay men/women even fear to come to terms with who they are and more so in the past, because of how homosexuality was seen as something wrong. Due to the discrimination and prejudice which still very much exists today, even in the UK. To lay the blame partly at people, who felt trapped by these poor socialtal views, is wrong on every level. As again this would never have happened if homosexuality was fully accepted within society. Hence you are ignoring the root cause of this very prooblem.

For a start I said it SHOULD never happen....I didn't say it didn't happen.

Society is partly to blame, to place 100% of the blame outside of the person themselves is implying the person has no free will.
We live in a free country, there is help for people who's families threaten them with death, standing up to bullies is how society changes.

by Guest Sat Jun 08, 2019 1:52 pm

Syl wrote:
phildidge wrote:

But that is emphatically wrong to claim still today, espcially for any Muslim and Jews that grow up within religious families. We already know that a majority of Muslims are hostile to homosexuality in this country. So again many gay Muslims and Jewish homosexuals, will feel trapped to a view to conform within the religious societies they live in. If not then end up constantly being ostracised and even threatened with death.

Sorry, but it is society views and mainly religious homophobia that is 100% to blamer for why this happens. As many gay men/women even fear to come to terms with who they are and more so in the past, because of how homosexuality was seen as something wrong. Due to the discrimination and prejudice which still very much exists today, even in the UK. To lay the blame partly at people, who felt trapped by these poor socialtal views, is wrong on every level. As again this would never have happened if homosexuality was fully accepted within society. Hence you are ignoring the root cause of this very prooblem.

For a start I said it SHOULD never happen....I didn't say it didn't happen.

Society is partly to blame, to place 100% of the blame outside of the person themselves is implying the person has no free will.
We live in a free country, there is help for people who's families threaten them with death, standing up to bullies is how society changes.

1. Society has created a situation that does not happen to hetrosexuals. Hence we do not see hetrosexuals marry into homosexual relationships, based on a fear of who they are, based on how society would treat them or be confused over their sexuality.

2. Hence this only happens to homosexuals, due to the fact there has been for centuries a view to discriminate, even worse criminalise who they are are. Hence society views, religious beliefs and even laws has been the number one factor that has created this.

3. Saying there is help for people, is still basically ignoring how many will still feel scared about their situation or even to come out as gay. Its not so easy to stand up to bullies, when you live within that coommunity, to then have your whole family disown you. Unless you have gone through this, then I am sorry Syl, then you have no idea what you are talking about

by Raggamuffin Sat Jun 08, 2019 1:58 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

But if they got some woman to marry them, that means they lied to her because they knew they were gay - unless she knew that and didn't mind. Isn't that the same as using a woman for the purpose of being "accepted"? I don't get why people think that's OK.

It was never OK because obviously they lied, to the woman and themselves. Many men and women did marry and try to live a life accepted by society. As has been pointed out, the blame for that must lie partly within the society people lived in.

It should never happen now in a free country, because times, attitudes, laws, and society as a whole is more educated and accepting.

I don't see why society should take the blame for a man deceiving a woman and marrying her on false grounds. That's his own responsibility.

by Syl Sat Jun 08, 2019 1:58 pm

phildidge wrote:
Syl wrote:

For a start I said it SHOULD never happen....I didn't say it didn't happen.

Society is partly to blame, to place 100% of the blame outside of the person themselves is implying the person has no free will.
We live in a free country, there is help for people who's families threaten them with death, standing up to bullies is how society changes.

1. Society has created a situation that does not happen to hetrosexuals. Hence we do not see hetrosexuals marry into homosexual relationships, based on a fear of who they are, based on how society would treat them or be confused over their sexuality.

2. Hence this only happens to homosexuals, due to the fact there has been for centuries a view to discriminate, even worse criminalise who they are are. Hence society views, religious beliefs and even laws has been the number one factor that has created this.

3. Saying there is help for people, is still basically ignoring how many will still feel scared about their situation or even to come out as gay. Its not so easy to stand up to bullies, when you live within that coommunity, to then have your whole family disown you. Unless you have gone through this, then I am sorry Syl, then you have no idea what you are talking about

But I dont have to plagiarize anyone elses posts to get my point across do I. Razz

by Guest Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:01 pm

Thought I would give an example of what this is like for you still to guage wha happens, by the very people this happens to and what is the driving factors. Just highlighted a few points from this

I was convinced then that I had to be straight to be happy. As a Modern Orthodox Jew, I was desperate to lead what I thought was a ‘normal’ life - getting married to a ‘good Jewish boy’, having a family - and being accepted by my religious community. While many liberal reform Jewish people accept homosexuality nowadays, some Orthodox Jews still oppose it on the grounds that it is said to be forbidden by religious teachings.

The report was based on an anonymous survey of LGBTQ+ people in the UK, which ran online from July to October 2017 and received more than 108,000 responses. It found that, in the UK, 2% of people who responded to the survey said they had undergone conversion (also known as reparative) therapy in an attempt to ‘cure’ them, and a further 5% had been offered it. Of those who said they'd had conversion therapy, more than half (51%) had received it via a faith group, while 19% said it was via a healthcare professional.

Although I grew up in London in an open-minded family, I didn’t know anyone who identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual. Aged 11, I blurted out to my mum that I fancied a girl my age I knew. But she told me that lots of people fancy the same sex when they’re going through puberty, and I was too young to label myself.

We didn’t discuss it again for years. In my first year of university in 2010, I tried to talk to my parents about my sexuality again but it wasn’t any easier. I had all these feelings pent up inside me and just needed to get it out.

Now, six years later, I’m much happier with who I am - though I find it hard to trust people, and I tend to over-analyse things in relationships. But one positive has come out of this – my parents are now my biggest supporters. My dad, wracked with guilt over how badly the therapy seemed to have affected me, was the first one to tell me to stop it and experiment with the gay world. Having their support gave me the strength to move forward with my life.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/59cf7968-437d-4475-8c85-3146fc018e0c

You can read the article in full, but its very clear how and what the problem here that is driving this
Luckily in the end her parents were supportive

by Guest Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:05 pm

Syl wrote:
phildidge wrote:

1. Society has created a situation that does not happen to hetrosexuals. Hence we do not see hetrosexuals marry into homosexual relationships, based on a fear of who they are, based on how society would treat them or be confused over their sexuality.

2. Hence this only happens to homosexuals, due to the fact there has been for centuries a view to discriminate, even worse criminalise who they are are. Hence society views, religious beliefs and even laws has been the number one factor that has created this.

3. Saying there is help for people, is still basically ignoring how many will still feel scared about their situation or even to come out as gay. Its not so easy to stand up to bullies, when you live within that coommunity, to then have your whole family disown you. Unless you have gone through this, then I am sorry Syl, then you have no idea what you are talking about

But I dont have to plagiarize anyone elses posts to get my point across do I.

Neither did I plagerise any posts and see you have been let out of your play pen again

I see your post was on the first paage on the 3rd June, after reading your childish reply this morning. Of which I was not even in the country when you made that view as part of a number of posts you made. I then replied on the 4th on the second page in regards to the poor claims on Cass and the views of Eddie and Andy, on viewing people in a poor way. The first post I replied to you on and on the actual topic. Was on the third page on the 5th June to posts you had made that day. So I certainly never replied to all your posts and never even read the ones you made on the first two pages. Even though you lied claiming I replied to all your posts.

Happy that you thought of this before me, but two people can independently come up with the same point of view. As seen though you want to make the debate a farce again acting like a toddler. Not even concerned if you dont believe me, as I know Ben and Eddie will.

by Syl Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:20 pm

You protest to much.

Yesterday I replied to Eizels post with....
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.

You butted in with.....Glad you got there in the end

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

Dont worry, unlike you I dont demand apologies over every little thing, and they do say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Wink

by Syl Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:22 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

It was never OK because obviously they lied, to the woman and themselves. Many men and women did marry and try to live a life accepted by society. As has been pointed out, the blame for that must lie partly within the society people lived in.

It should never happen now in a free country, because times, attitudes, laws, and society as a whole is more educated and accepting.

I don't see why society should take the blame for a man deceiving a woman and marrying her on false grounds. That's his own responsibility.

I think we would have had to live in those times to fully understand why people acted the way they did.
A practicing homosexual could be jailed, shunned, beaten up, and just made to feel worthless......no surprise that many covered up their natural sexuality and tried to fit in with societies idea of 'norm'.

by Guest Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:25 pm

Syl wrote:You protest to much.

Yesterday I replied to Eizels post with....
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.

You butted in with.....Glad you got there in the end

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

Dont worry, unlike you I dont demand apologies over every little thing, and they do say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Well when people accuse someone with a deliberate attempt at trying to create and start a problem, as you did. Never even asking me first, simple accusing me, without any evidence. Then you dont really care about the debate. I have no idea why Ben and eddie took up thiis point the second time I spoke of this. I had even brought this up the previous page and nobody said anything then. It shows people clearly do not read all posts and maybe because the second one was short and stood out they noticed this more. I certainly did not plagerise you and again happy you came up with this first, even though we both thought of this point

You have argued when I joined the debate with you, that she was not being homophobic on this issue and I amd Eilzel reasond otherwise. So why should you deserve an apology, when its you making the accusation without fondation and then think its funny to do so. The reality is Eilzel and I said very much the same thing, and if you were not at odds with me, you would have also agreed with me. Instead of digging your heels in. I certainly do not think i am right on everything and often admit when I am wrong. It seems to you to be some sort of game and to be honest its become utterly boring. Hence move on

by Raggamuffin Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:25 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't see why society should take the blame for a man deceiving a woman and marrying her on false grounds. That's his own responsibility.

I think we would have had to live in those times to fully understand why people acted the way they did.
A practicing homosexual could be jailed, shunned, beaten up, and just made to feel worthless......no surprise that many covered up their natural sexuality and tried to fit in with societies idea of 'norm'.

They could have stayed single - it was their choice to lie to someone and pretend to be something they're not. My sympathy is with the women/men they lied to.

by Guest Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:28 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

I think we would have had to live in those times to fully understand why people acted the way they did.
A practicing homosexual could be jailed, shunned, beaten up, and just made to feel worthless......no surprise that many covered up their natural sexuality and tried to fit in with societies idea of 'norm'.

They could have stayed single - it was their choice to lie to someone and pretend to be something they're not. My sympathy is with the women/men they lied to.

All I can say is wow and that shows a reall failure to understand what many homosexuals actually go through. I am sure none have gone out to hurt the people they ended up marrying and if you read the article I posted earlier on this page. You would see this to be true and that many loved their hetrosexual wives and husbands

by Vintage Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:32 pm

Society has always viewed certain behaviours as unacceptable and gradually times change, attitudes change but as I keep saying not everyone will agree with the changes, that's people for you.
Divorce was absolutely unacceptable especially for women at one time, they would be ostracised by family and society many ending up on the streets completely destitute, women's bodies were recovered from a particular part of the Thames. The same with women having children out of wedlock - no matter the circumstances. It tends to be the more religiously inclined who have the most problem with actions outside a particular societal norm but exclusively.
Times are changing society is now more accepting than its been for a very long time at least in a good many countries but I doubt that absolutely everyone will be on board with the changes for some time.

by Syl Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:36 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

I think we would have had to live in those times to fully understand why people acted the way they did.
A practicing homosexual could be jailed, shunned, beaten up, and just made to feel worthless......no surprise that many covered up their natural sexuality and tried to fit in with societies idea of 'norm'.

They could have stayed single - it was their choice to lie to someone and pretend to be something they're not. My sympathy is with the women/men they lied to.

They suffered too without a doubt.
The ripple effect of something like this affects many lives.

by Guest Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:37 pm

Vintage wrote:Society has always viewed certain behaviours as unacceptable and gradually times change, attitudes change but as I keep saying not everyone will agree with the changes, that's people for you.
Divorce was absolutely unacceptable especially for women at one time, they would be ostracised by family and society many ending up on the streets completely destitute, women's bodies were recovered from a particular part of the Thames. The same with women having children out of wedlock - no matter the circumstances. It tends to be the more religiously inclined who have the most problem with actions outside a particular societal norm but exclusively.
Times are changing society is now more accepting than its been for a very long time at least in a good many countries but I doubt that absolutely everyone will be on board with the changes for some time.

All good points, but in the case of homosexuality, it was once very much acceptible within many societies, until the advent of the Abrahamic religions. So we have seen something go from being acceptioble to not acceptible, to acceptible and the danger there, is it could happen again. Though less likley unless religious theocratical views take hold in more places than they already do. Allthe places that criminialize homosexuality are religious countries. The view that needs to be gotten across is that homosexuality between two consenting adults effects nobody else and never will. Hence why no such laws should stand in the way of two consenting adults in love

by Syl Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:43 pm

Vintage wrote:Society has always viewed certain behaviours as unacceptable and gradually times change, attitudes change but as I keep saying not everyone will agree with the changes, that's people for you.
Divorce was absolutely unacceptable especially for women at one time, they would be ostracised by family and society many ending up on the streets completely destitute, women's bodies were recovered from a particular part of the Thames. The same with women having children out of wedlock - no matter the circumstances. It tends to be the more religiously inclined who have the most problem with actions outside a particular societal norm but exclusively.
Times are changing society is now more accepting than its been for a very long time at least in a good many countries but I doubt that absolutely everyone will be on board with the changes for some time.

There is an old film starring Dirk Bogarde and Sylvia Sims called VICTIM. It was really ahead of it's time, portraying a gay married man (Bogarde) who is infatuated with a younger man, and the pain and upset it causes his wife and their lives.
Bogarde was a homosexual himself, so given the times, it was a very courageous move on his part to take that role.

by Raggamuffin Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:44 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

They could have stayed single - it was their choice to lie to someone and pretend to be something they're not. My sympathy is with the women/men they lied to.

They suffered too without a doubt.
The ripple effect of something like this affects many lives.

The actions of those gay people who married women and lied to them affected their lives. You're still talking as if they had no choice.

by Guest Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:48 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

They suffered too without a doubt.
The ripple effect of something like this affects many lives.

The actions of those gay people who married women and lied to them affected their lives. You're still talking as if they had no choice.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/understanding-the-erotic-code/201604/can-someone-be-homosexual-and-not-gay

by Syl Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:50 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

They suffered too without a doubt.
The ripple effect of something like this affects many lives.

The actions of those gay people who married women and lied to them affected their lives. You're still talking as if they had no choice.

I have already said they have free will, but unlike you I do have empathy for people who act in a certain way because of outside influences.
Less so now because society backs them but 50 years ago in GB it was a very different world.

by Guest Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:53 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

The actions of those gay people who married women and lied to them affected their lives. You're still talking as if they had no choice.

I have already said they have free will, but unlike you I do have empathy for people who act in a certain way because of outside influences.
Less so now because society backs them but 50 years ago in GB it was a very different world.

Why less so, when as seen many still within religious families go through this? Are you actually using empathtic intelligence or going off how its is now better for more homosexuals than it was before? That is a dangereous precedent to take on this when again. There is still a number, they feel trapped by the families and religious groups they live in. Henc you are not taking on baoard their individual situation and placing this on a whole society situatiion. Just because things have become better a a whole in society. Does not mean it has individually for a number of homosexuals who do feel tapped in religious families, societies. I would have thought the recent Muslim protests on education on homosexuality, may have opened your eyes to this still being an issue within parts of our society

by Syl Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:55 pm

phildidge wrote:
Syl wrote:

I have already said they have free will, but unlike you I do have empathy for people who act in a certain way because of outside influences.
Less so now because society backs them but 50 years ago in GB it was a very different world.

Why less so, when as seen many still within religious families go through this? Are you actually using empathtic intelligence or going off how its is now better for more homosexuals than it was before? That is a dangereous precident to take on this when again. There is still a number, they feel trapped by the families and religious groups they live in. Just because things have become better a a whole in society. Does not mean it has individually for a number of homosexuals who do feel tapped in religious families, societies

Less so for the reasons I have already given.
I went round in circles with you yesterday, I wont be doing it again today.

by Guest Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:57 pm

Syl wrote:
phildidge wrote:

Why less so, when as seen many still within religious families go through this? Are you actually using empathtic intelligence or going off how its is now better for more homosexuals than it was before? That is a dangereous precident to take on this when again. There is still a number, they feel trapped by the families and religious groups they live in. Just because things have become better a a whole in society. Does not mean it has individually for a number of homosexuals who do feel tapped in religious families, societies

Less so for the reasons I have already given.
I went round in circles with you yesterday, I wont be doing it again today.

You are welcome to do so and not listen. The view around the recent protests should at least open your eyes. That even though society as a whole now approves of homosexuality, in pockets of this country this is simple not the case and these problems still exists. Hence to go off looking at the whole picture to then say you have less empathy. Is never looking at the individual cases, and taking the view from a whole. Again that is a really poor way to look at what an individual may go through

by Vintage Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:03 pm

Homosexuality is not the only thing to become unacceptable though is it, the examples I gave were once totally acceptable in past societies too before becoming unacceptable.

by Raggamuffin Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:07 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

The actions of those gay people who married women and lied to them affected their lives. You're still talking as if they had no choice.

I have already said they have free will, but unlike you I do have empathy for people who act in a certain way because of outside influences.
Less so now because society backs them but 50 years ago in GB it was a very different world.

Unlike me, you clearly have no empathy for the spouses of these people. Absolving people from responsibility for their own actions is not the way to go IMO - that's what raving lefties do.

by Guest Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:07 pm

Vintage wrote:Homosexuality is not the only thing to become unacceptable though is it, the examples I gave were once totally acceptable in past societies too before becoming unacceptable.

What does that prove Vintage? When we are talking about the well being of people? Things once accepted and now and seen wrong today are based on the same principle of the well being and equality of people. Homosexuality does not effect anyone else when two consenting adults are in love. Hence the pointg on how society has advanced is based around the well being and equality of people. Again time and again you will find its religious or hateful political values that are at the core of problems. We have gone through over 3,000 years of Abrahamic religious control andf its still continuing today based off books written only by men. If religions had of being written by women on religious beliefs. I doubt we would have ever seen the vile poor views that we see today with religion. As at least women by evolution have a nuture natural attidude towards people

by Guest Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:09 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

I have already said they have free will, but unlike you I do have empathy for people who act in a certain way because of outside influences.
Less so now because society backs them but 50 years ago in GB it was a very different world.

Unlike me, you clearly have no empathy for the spouses of these people. Absolving people from responsibility for their own actions is not the way to go IMO - that's what raving lefties do.

Well i acompletely disagree she does not. Even worse youare tring to paint people that they must not have sympathy for both sides. If they express empathy for homosexuals going through this. In fact I have plenty of sympathy for hetrosexual people ending up in said relationships that poor societal views created in the first place. In this instance you are making a poor claim on Syl, which she never made. Its simple you insinuating so, not based off anything Syl even said

by Syl Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:10 pm

Vintage wrote:Society has always viewed certain behaviours as unacceptable and gradually times change, attitudes change but as I keep saying not everyone will agree with the changes, that's people for you.
Divorce was absolutely unacceptable especially for women at one time, they would be ostracised by family and society many ending up on the streets completely destitute, women's bodies were recovered from a particular part of the Thames. The same with women having children out of wedlock - no matter the circumstances. It tends to be the more religiously inclined who have the most problem with actions outside a particular societal norm but exclusively.
Times are changing society is now more accepting than its been for a very long time at least in a good many countries but I doubt that absolutely everyone will be on board with the changes for some time.

Religion for the indigenous population in the UK is far less important now than for past generations. That imo has had a huge bearing on society and the law.

by Syl Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:16 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

I have already said they have free will, but unlike you I do have empathy for people who act in a certain way because of outside influences.
Less so now because society backs them but 50 years ago in GB it was a very different world.

Unlike me, you clearly have no empathy for the spouses of these people. Absolving people from responsibility for their own actions is not the way to go IMO - that's what raving lefties do.

I do have empathy for the spouses, where have I said I dont?
I cant think of anything much worse in a marriage than to discover the man, or woman you married is gay.

by Eilzel Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:21 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

The actions of those gay people who married women and lied to them affected their lives. You're still talking as if they had no choice.

I have already said they have free will, but unlike you I do have empathy for people who act in a certain way because of outside influences.
Less so now because society backs them but 50 years ago in GB it was a very different world.

Unlike me, you clearly have no empathy for the spouses of these people. Absolving people from responsibility for their own actions is not the way to go IMO - that's what raving lefties do.

Empathising and having sympathy for BOTH parties in this is situation is not difficult to understand.

by Syl Sat Jun 08, 2019 3:33 pm

Rags, if you watch that old film 'Victim', from what I can remember of it, it gave a real insight into the dilemma back then when practicing homosexuality was illegal, and why some people did indeed act in the way they did when trying to supress their natural sexuality.
I watched it on TV years ago, it had a lasting effect on me as some films do.

by Sponsored content