The Air Farce shoot themselves in the foot again!

Six_and_a_Half

Lantern Swinger
I think it unfair to blame Ling for his recent outburst of homophobia. The blame actually rests on the shoulders of such people as this Flight Lieutenant, who has abused the system in place to help him. But it is not only one person, there are those characters who persistently ram their sexuality down our throats, and hence present a negative image of homosexuality. But to voice any concern about the growing percentage of homosexuals is construed is homophobic, this issue is not addressed, when really the issue is not the percentage of the population who bat for the other side, but the percentage of the population who are arrogant.

This is the same with the case of racism. There is in Great Britain, a growing racist sentiment against Islam. But is this really a great surprise when one considers that the Al-Queda terrorists are muslims fighting a holy jihad? Then the very real possibility that Islamic laws may now be enforced in pre-dominant muslim areas in Great Britain un-nerves and worries us. Muslims therefore become victimised and discriminated against by the Christian majority, which suits Al-Queda's recruitment perfectly, because it provides a base of hateful, resentful and angry muslims.

I put it to you all that we all are sub-conciously homophobic, because it is different to what we ourselves would consider the norm, and I also ask it is therefore wrong to assume, that the actions of homosexuals portrayed in the daily press and the public media do add to that sub-concious homophobia which will boils and bubbles pent-up in the recesses of our minds, which will like a volcano explode in a furious and vociferous eruption of anger and hatred?

And then! And then, the person at fault is not the homosexuals who have been raising the temperature of our magma, but indeed the very individual who could no longer hold back against the pressure beating within, and who is now denounced as a homophobe, a word that can possibly be as discriminative enough as queer.
 

Shakey

War Hero
Peter said:
those characters who persistently ram their sexuality down our throats.

Good pun.

Anyway, how can you be racist against a religion?

And what's this subconscious thing you're on about? Can you offer an operational definition?
 

Six_and_a_Half

Lantern Swinger
By sub-concious I mean below the level of concious thought. You do not realise that you are thinking it, but you do. A classic example would be the Oedipus Rex syndrome.

Sigmeund Freud said that in the case of all male childhood, at some age, there is a concious thought by the Son desiring a sexual experience with the Mother. However, we are so sub-conciously repelled by this that our minds instantly dismiss the thought and repress it, so we can never recall ever thinking this, but sub-conciously, the memory is still there.

It can explain difficult relations with the Father, who we are sub-conciously jealous of, and during those teenage years we rebel against his authority.

I hope this explaination is well enough.
 
Peter said:
By sub-concious I mean below the level of concious thought. You do not realise that you are thinking it, but you do. A classic example would be the Oedipus Rex syndrome.

Sigmeund Freud said that in the case of all male childhood, at some age, there is a concious thought by the Son desiring a sexual experience with the Mother. However, we are so sub-conciously repelled by this that our minds instantly dismiss the thought and repress it, so we can never recall ever thinking this, but sub-conciously, the memory is still there.

It can explain difficult relations with the Father, who we are sub-conciously jealous of, and during those teenage years we rebel against his authority.

I hope this explaination is well enough.
So homos are weak minded individuals who can't keep their repellant desires under wraps, ah, I get it now. Cheers.
 
Peter said:
I think it unfair to blame Ling for his recent outburst of homophobia. The blame actually rests on the shoulders of such people as this Flight Lieutenant, who has abused the system in place to help him. But it is not only one person, there are those characters who persistently ram their sexuality down our throats, and hence present a negative image of homosexuality. But to voice any concern about the growing percentage of homosexuals is construed is homophobic, this issue is not addressed, when really the issue is not the percentage of the population who bat for the other side, but the percentage of the population who are arrogant.

This is the same with the case of racism. There is in Great Britain, a growing racist sentiment against Islam. But is this really a great surprise when one considers that the Al-Queda terrorists are muslims fighting a holy jihad? Then the very real possibility that Islamic laws may now be enforced in pre-dominant muslim areas in Great Britain un-nerves and worries us. Muslims therefore become victimised and discriminated against by the Christian majority, which suits Al-Queda's recruitment perfectly, because it provides a base of hateful, resentful and angry muslims.

I put it to you all that we all are sub-conciously homophobic, because it is different to what we ourselves would consider the norm, and I also ask it is therefore wrong to assume, that the actions of homosexuals portrayed in the daily press and the public media do add to that sub-concious homophobia which will boils and bubbles pent-up in the recesses of our minds, which will like a volcano explode in a furious and vociferous eruption of anger and hatred?

And then! And then, the person at fault is not the homosexuals who have been raising the temperature of our magma, but indeed the very individual who could no longer hold back against the pressure beating within, and who is now denounced as a homophobe, a word that can possibly be as discriminative enough as queer.

Got lost part way through, that is worse than some of the stuff I write.
 

Six_and_a_Half

Lantern Swinger
Lingyai said:
So homos are weak minded individuals who can't keep their repellant desires under wraps, ah, I get it now. Cheers.

Not quite what I was trying to get at, but an interesting thought. Especially as Freud also suggested that during our childhood development we transgressed through several fixations. ****, oral was another, I forget the rest. Sometimes, a child remains stuck on one fixation, and this can shape his character an awful lot. Although Freud did not argue that these fixations could be sexual.

But by your statement, Ling, am I right in asking that you argue that we are all sub-conciously homosexual, but the concious thought is dismissed and repressed by the majority, except these homosexuals who actively practice it?

I would argue against that, because the very nature of the requirement of one male and one female to reproduce would produce a sub-concious attraction to the opposite sex. Two men can not naturally procreate together, hence we are not sub-conciously homosexual.
 
Peter said:
Lingyai said:
So homos are weak minded individuals who can't keep their repellant desires under wraps, ah, I get it now. Cheers.

Not quite what I was trying to get at, but an interesting thought. Especially as Freud also suggested that during our childhood development we transgressed through several fixations. ****, oral was another, I forget the rest. Sometimes, a child remains stuck on one fixation, and this can shape his character an awful lot. Although Freud did not argue that these fixations could be sexual.

But by your statement, Ling, am I right in asking that you argue that we are all sub-conciously homosexual, but the concious thought is dismissed and repressed by the majority, except these homosexuals who actively practice it?

I would argue against that, because the very nature of the requirement of one male and one female to reproduce would produce a sub-concious attraction to the opposite sex. Two men can not naturally procreate together, hence we are not sub-conciously homosexual.
You know the times when you get angry at work or in traffic and you think to yourself how easy it would be to just kill the person who is annoying you, one swift punch in the throat and it's all over. But we don't because we know it is not right. Queers know it is wrong to do the two headed goat with other men, but some malfunction in their right and wrong mechanism means that they do it anyway.
 
Junglie said:
Not sure how to make it a hyperlink, but check out the Sun today. God Bless the Crabs!!!

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2002590909,00.html

Bloody Officers! He's a disgrace. He's the sort of person who gives papers like the Sun the opportunity to vent their underlying antigay sentiments! Why the hell wasn't he Courts Marshalled years ago - or if he was really suffering from discrimianation because of his sexuality as he alledges he could have been moved, or if he really couldn't fit in he should have resigned or been granted a compassionate discharge two years ago. In my view he is using his sexuality as an excuse! :mad: :mad: :mad:

Had he really been traumatised he would NOT have been doing a job on the side. He reminds me of our old friend the PornoPadre... Lets be honest here, straights behave like this too, in a different way, but probably don't get reported because their stories would not arouse the same level of indignation as when the malefactor belongs to a still largely disliked minority.
 
Lingyai said:
Peter said:
Lingyai said:
So homos are weak minded individuals who can't keep their repellant desires under wraps, ah, I get it now. Cheers.

Not quite what I was trying to get at, but an interesting thought. Especially as Freud also suggested that during our childhood development we transgressed through several fixations. ****, oral was another, I forget the rest. Sometimes, a child remains stuck on one fixation, and this can shape his character an awful lot. Although Freud did not argue that these fixations could be sexual.

But by your statement, Ling, am I right in asking that you argue that we are all sub-conciously homosexual, but the concious thought is dismissed and repressed by the majority, except these homosexuals who actively practice it?

I would argue against that, because the very nature of the requirement of one male and one female to reproduce would produce a sub-concious attraction to the opposite sex. Two men can not naturally procreate together, hence we are not sub-conciously homosexual.
You know the times when you get angry at work or in traffic and you think to yourself how easy it would be to just kill the person who is annoying you, one swift punch in the throat and it's all over. But we don't because we know it is not right. Queers know it is wrong to do the two headed goat with other men, but some malfunction in their right and wrong mechanism means that they do it anyway.

Dear me... what utter nonsence! Gays are simply sexually aroused/attracted to those of the same gender as themselves in the same way straights are aroused/attracted to someone of the opposite gender. It's as simple as that. WHY this should arise I don't know. Biologically from a reproductive perspective it's certainly no more dysfunctional as the strange heterosexual habit of using contraceptives when having sex! As for knowing it's wrong: when you have sex Lingy, I presume neither you or the person you've been having sex with (Mrs.Lingy) have ever entertained using any form of contraception whatsoever? If you have then you have a moral problem of equivalent magnitude. :roll:

Silly boy! :grin:
 
Top