You what Owen?

Steven’s story is all too revealing about a silent health crisis afflicting gay men. The words “health crisis” in conjunction with “gay men” normally conjures up the HIV catastrophe that decimated the gay and bisexual community in the 1980s. In the developed world, HIV is no longer the death sentence it once was, although the treatment can cause health complications, and in the UK an estimated 6,500 men who have sex with men live with undiagnosed infections. A far greater menace is mental distress – impossible to disentangle from a society riddled with homophobia – and the drug and alcohol abuse that can follow.

This is all because of us cis, hetero types?

It’s an issue covered by the former Attitude editor Matthew Todd in his utterly brilliant – and disturbing – recent book Straight Jacket. He identifies a number of problems that most gay men, if they were honest, would at least recognise: “Disproportionately high levels of depression, self-harm and suicide; not uncommon problems with emotional intimacy … and now a small but significant subculture of men who are using, some injecting, seriously dangerous drugs, which despite accusations of hysteria from the gatekeepers of the gay PR machine, are killing too many people.” He lists a disturbing number of gay friends, acquaintances and people in the public eye who struggled with addictions and took their own lives.

I have a feeling that this thesis needs examination.

One question would be, well, is this rate of whatever higher among gay men than single men? Are we, as with the promiscuity question, just talking about what men are like without the calming constraints of women?

A second would be that, as we are always told, prejudice against lesbians is as prevalent as prejudice against gay men. Do lesbians suffer the same rate of whatever as gay men?

I’m perfectly willing to accept that the rates are indeed higher for gay men. But I’d like to see the causality examined just a little more before we go all Heinz Kiosk on this.

48 thoughts on “You what Owen?”

  1. Bloke in Germany in England

    there are at best half a dozen legitimate “left wing” concerns left*. if Owen repeated his sermons on that rotation, even his feeble minded readership would see the game is up.

    one of the nice things about being in England is you can get the print edition and know what tim will be writing about the next day.

    *: essentially what the graun does is react to the dwindling number of real victim groups by applying its saccharine “concern” to the current in groups, Many of which others have already noted are rather aggressors than victims.

  2. Isn’t this a case of he read a book written by one if his mates and he agreed with everything in it and so vomited up a column?

  3. He identifies a number of problems that most gay men, if they were honest, would at least recognise: “Disproportionately high levels of depression, self-harm and suicide; not uncommon problems with emotional intimac

    So gay men are mentally ill? Isn’t this what the hardcore Christians have been saying all along?

  4. “…a small but significant subculture of men who are using, some injecting, seriously dangerous drugs, which despite accusations of hysteria from the gatekeepers of the gay PR machine, are killing too many people.”

    Just as feminists told mothers they could ‘have it all’ without consequences, did we see the identity politics crowd doing the same here with risky behaviour..?

  5. All things are grist to the evil mill of CM. If gays had larger death rates amongst their pet goldfish this would be labelled as the wicked white, straight patriarchy’s fault.

    The issue is how to destroy CM and root it out of society.

    That it is iniquitous we already know.

  6. Could the power of gay victimhood be on the wane? The problems according to this snippet seem to be either innate or self-inflicted and not to be laid at the door of the heartless hinterland of normality.

    Maybe victimhood brand extension could be achieved by coupling other unsual proclivities from the alphabet soup of oddness to plain vanilla gayness?

  7. Single young men, no dependents, living in the most advanced society in human history. Top of the human tree by any sane standards, but we left them behind many years ago.

    The hysteria must be maintained. If it ends, what are Owen Jones and his friends for?

  8. Heinz Kiosk

    I discovered (sadly, only after his death) that the great Michael Wharton lived just down the road from me. Oh for the days when the Telegraph was a proper newspaper.

    We are all guilty, he added, before anyone could stop him.

  9. There comes a time when the only way to deal with petulant whining man-children like Owen is to give them a good stiff beating. Pity his parents did not do it when he was young – when he was caught wearing his mother’s knickers for example.

  10. Chris Miller

    Amen to that – Still some worthwhile commentators in the Business section but the Opinion is frankly shocking. I imagine the rotations of Wharton in his grave now might well be causing seismic shifts – the collapse of the paper in a mere decade is truly terrifying.

  11. Tim N,

    > So gay men are mentally ill?

    From the numbers given, we can only deduce that some of them are mentally ill, not all.

    The standard argument is that their mental health is best served by allowing them free expression of their beliefs/desires, rather than bottling it up or denying it. From Owen’s article we learn that they still have issues; but we can’t determine whether their mental health would have been better or worse if they’d remained “in the closet”.

  12. Following his pathetic display of petulance on Sky News following the shooting in Orlando I think his days of influence are coming to an end. He behaved as befitted his appearance, like a recalcitrant 15 year old. As per BF I think he could use a wake up call. While they are still there, it is surely an idea to launch a Dark Web fundraiser to abduct him and send him into IS territory. He might have a greater perspective on the UK’s ‘rampant homophobia’ if he were to see real anti-gay activity….

  13. Yeah Owen doesn’t point out that the CM sex is hedonism incarnate and every one involved and not involved is fully aware it isn’t good for you long term. But that’s pretty forgiveable because its so obvious. I don’t want to be reading articles telling us short term pleasures can lead to long term pains. So articles instead about roosting consequences are more interesting if they delve into the factors that lead to such a lifestyle choice. As tim said the problem is that Owen missed some other potential ones and so instead of enlightened informative journalism we still get the sense of campaigning preachy journalism.

  14. The standard argument is that their mental health is best served by allowing them free expression of their beliefs/desires, rather than bottling it up or denying it.

    I think the standard argument – except, it seems, among religious nutcases and Guardian journalists – is that gay men are no more mentally ill than straight men. True, the lifestyle they choose might lead to mental illness, but it’s not the homesexuality which is the root cause.

  15. A second would be that, as we are always told, prejudice against lesbians is as prevalent as prejudice against gay men.

    Reminding me of that joke: if you are asked how you view Lesbian relationships do not answer “in HD”

  16. What;s the betting the mother is some bat shit crazy CM Scum (tm Ecks) who was desperate to have a non-cis child?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3859618/You-caused-son-great-harm-insisting-raising-girl-Boy-seven-sent-live-father-mother-raised-daughter.html

    Boy, seven, is sent to live with father after his mother raised him as her daughter
    “He said the mother had been ‘absolutely convinced’ that the youngster ‘perceived himself as a girl’ and was determined that he should be a girl”

  17. “This is all because of us cis, hetero types?”

    No. It’s because of homophobic authoritarian bullies. Not all cis, hetero types are homophobic, authoritarian bullies, any more than all homosexuals/etc. are ‘cultural Marxist’ authoritarian bullies. Very few of either category are, actually. But it only takes a few bullies to do a whole lot of damage.

    If you don’t like being blamed for evil acts just because you’re straight/cis, why would you blame others for the same sort of act just because they’re gay/trans? The issue is authoritarians, of all stripes; anyone who thinks they’ve got the right to tell other people how they ought to live and think. Any other categories are irrelevant.

    “So gay men are mentally ill? Isn’t this what the hardcore Christians have been saying all along?”

    This is a bit like saying that because the victims of bullies are often depressed and suicidal, that they’re ‘mentally ill’. Or that the victims of poisoners are ‘physically ill’. Technically true, but not the complete story.

    Anyway, isn’t it well known that hardcore Christians are mentally ill? Delusions are generally considered a symptom of mental illness – seems a pretty cut-and-dried diagnosis. (A delusion is a belief that is held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.)

    Of course, you’d have to be a pretty nasty person to point out the motes in others’ eyes in this way – not the sort of image Christians like to project of themselves.

    “He said the mother had been ‘absolutely convinced’ that the youngster ‘perceived himself as a girl’ and was determined that he should be a girl”

    The article doesn’t say anything at all about why she thought so.

    But do feel free to make it up.

  18. Bloke in Costa Rica

    Andrew C is right. Jones should be told to fuck off the moment it looks like his mouth is about to open. And I’m not sure that sending him to IS-held territory would really do much good. They might just adopt him for one of their harems. Better to cut off his access to UK funds and dump him out the back of a taxi in the middle of Maracaibo one evening. Let him experience the joys of Bolivarian Socialism first hand.

  19. Piss off NiV.

    Is every gay on the planet a victim of persecution such that their minds are sceued by the horror of it all?

    In your fucked-up reality it would seem so.

    Forcing a child of below 7 (barely old enough to register the idea) to try and change sex cos Mommy is a CM freak sounds authoritarian to me.

    Still waiting to hear how many jihadi your powers of rhetoric and personal example have turned to the cause of good.

    Try your luck as a friendly persuasion sex-changer with some of the 30+ children that are now being imported. Make sure you take a camera tho’. I would enjoy watching them beat the shit out of you. Albeit a rather a long job.

  20. “Is every gay on the planet a victim of persecution such that their minds are sceued by the horror of it all?”

    No.

    Does every cis-hetero-white-guy on the planet feel oppressed by the feminazis and their ‘Cultural Marxism’, and endlessly whinge about how they’re now abused for expressing politically incorrect opinions or refusing to bake gay cakes? Obviously not. Normal cis-hetero-white-guys have more important things to worry about. Therefore it would be totally stupid for us to blame every cis-hetero-white-guy for us having to listen to your ravings.

    Your moaning about ‘Cultural Marxism’ is just like their moaning about ‘The Patriarchy’. Authoritarians are all the same under the surface.

  21. >So gay men are mentally ill? Isn’t this what the hardcore Christians have been saying all along?

    But aren’t the Christians saying that they’re gay because they’re mentally ill, whereas the reality seems to be that it’s the other way around, they’re mentally ill because they’re gay?

    “Are we, as with the promiscuity question, just talking about what men are like without the calming constraints of women”

    Essentially, yes. It’s also partly due to the pressures of societal disapproval, I don’t dispute that, but such disapproval is pretty small these days.

  22. So Much For Subtlety

    Tim Newman – “I think the standard argument – except, it seems, among religious nutcases and Guardian journalists – is that gay men are no more mentally ill than straight men. True, the lifestyle they choose might lead to mental illness, but it’s not the homesexuality which is the root cause.”

    The standard argument is based on a Texas turkey shoot – here are a lot of high level functioning gay people. Thus gays are no more mentally ill than the rest of us. This is not particularly scientific.

    In the end, the American Psychiatric Association did not do some new science and decide Gay people weren’t mentally ill. They were bullied into it when they started to be physically assaulted at their conference by Gay activists. Well into the 1980s most psychiatrists continued to report that they thought Gay people were mentally ill. They probably still do.

    After all Freud makes no sense if you think homosexuality is a valid lifestyle choice.

  23. So Much For Subtlety

    NiV – “No. It’s because of homophobic authoritarian bullies.”

    That is a statement of religious-type belief. Not a valid or even interesting scientific proposition. There is no evidence at all that Gay children are being bullied in large numbers or that this makes them unhappy. Suicide rates, in fact, suggest that homosexual teens are happier than heterosexual ones.

    “The issue is authoritarians, of all stripes; anyone who thinks they’ve got the right to tell other people how they ought to live and think. Any other categories are irrelevant.”

    And the number of heterosexuals doing this is roughly zero. The number of Gay activists doing this is roughly all of them. It is not the heterosexuals who are driving Gay businesses out of the market. It is not heterosexuals who are insisting on the minute policing of language and even gestures. It is not heterosexuals who are driving people out of their jobs – and even trying to get them jailed. It is not heterosexuals who insist on controlling the school curricula in order to educate-out their enemies.

    By all means, let us blame authoritarians. That is to say, the Gay community and its spokesmen.

    “This is a bit like saying that because the victims of bullies are often depressed and suicidal, that they’re ‘mentally ill’.”

    Again a statement of religious belief. There being no evidence at all Gays are victims of anything.

    NiV – “Does every cis-hetero-white-guy on the planet feel oppressed by the feminazis and their ‘Cultural Marxism’”

    Not yet. They will get there. Because every cis-hetero-White guy on the planet is their enemy and they are out to get him. It is only a matter of time.

  24. “The standard argument is based on a Texas turkey shoot – here are a lot of high level functioning gay people. Thus gays are no more mentally ill than the rest of us. This is not particularly scientific.”

    Looks pretty scientific to me.

    Hypothesis: gays are mentally ill because they’re gay. Prediction: even if gays live in a tolerant society with no bullying, they’ll still be mentally ill. Observation: they’re not. Conclusion: the hypothesis is false.

    “In the end, the American Psychiatric Association did not do some new science and decide Gay people weren’t mentally ill. They were bullied into it when they started to be physically assaulted at their conference by Gay activists.”

    Rot. They changed the diagnosis when they redefined mental illness to mean mental conditions that effectively disabled a person in everyday life, rather than simply not matching some template of ‘normal’ defined by society (i.e. authoritarianism).

    Everyone is different – nobody is an exact match to the ‘average’ in all regards. Psychiatrists simply realised that picking some of these variant characteristics as acceptable and others not was an arbitrary function of culture, which itself was always changing.

    “There is no evidence at all that Gay children are being bullied in large numbers or that this makes them unhappy.”

    That’s about the most deranged statement I’ve seen in months! When I was a kid, every kid who showed even the least *hint* of gayness (even when they were unambiguously hetero) got bullied unmercifully and continuously about it for years on end. Certain people went “gay-bashing” for fun and kicks. It was normal. It made the victims *extremely* unhappy, which is why the vast majority of gay kids did everything they could to hide it, and kept it all a deep, dark secret.

    Anyone who thinks that being bullied doesn’t make the subject unhappy has to be some sort of sociopath, unable to empathise with the pain of others, or a bully themselves and engaged in a particularly sickening form of self-justification.

    “And the number of heterosexuals doing this is roughly zero.”

    The population here is self-selecting, but we’ve got plenty here. Why should you think it was that unusual in society generally?

    ” It is not heterosexuals who are insisting on the minute policing of language and even gestures. It is not heterosexuals who are driving people out of their jobs – and even trying to get them jailed.”

    The last successful blasphemy prosecution in the UK was as recent as 1977 – Mary Whitehouse vs Denis Lemon and Gay News for publishing a poem about Jesus being gay. I’ve discussed Alan Turing before.

    For the past couple of thousand years, heterosexuals *have indeed* been policing language, and trying to get people jailed or fired for homosexuality and other beliefs. Those ‘hardcore Christians’ someone mentioned used to burn people at the stake for heretical beliefs. They only stopped because of those liberals (many of them also heterosexual and/or religious) making it socially unacceptable.

    While the previous generation of authoritarians are now in the minority and declining fast, they’re not gone yet, and nor have the last traces of their attitudes. Things are a lot better than they were, but gay and trans people still have to be unreasonably careful, and will still face a hostile reception from a significant proportion of the population.

    There’s a new generation of authoritarians now, who have taken the other side of that conflict. They’re exploiting the general sympathy the population has for the victims of the previous generation of authoritarians to justify and excuse their own authoritarian bashing of them. Yes, that’s bad. Yes, I oppose them and want to stop them, because the precedents set will come back to bite the rest of us. But I can’t say I have much sympathy in this case, because the people now being persecuted are the same ones who previously persecuted the gays in exactly the same way. It’s a case of the snakes biting the scorpions in the former scorpion pit. I don’t want it to become a snake-pit, either, but I really have to laugh at the scorpions complaining at how dreadfully unfair it all is!

    You’re basically complaining about not being allowed to persecute gays any more – classifying them as ‘mentally ill’ and so subject to involuntary treatment to ‘cure’ them. That trope has got a particularly detestable history…

    I’ll defend to the death your right to say it, but you’re definitely not one of those on the side of liberty here.

  25. Not going to fisk your crap NiV cos I’m sick of your 3 million word cowpats.
    Although the new “Authoritarians crack Authoritarians ” malarkey has IMHO the potential to make it all the way to the Bullshit Hall of Fame.

    Still waiting to hear about the Jihadis.

  26. So Much For Subtlety

    NiV – “Looks pretty scientific to me.”

    No because it does not matter if you can find six Gay men who function well. In the same way it does not matter if you can find six Kenyan prostitutes who seem immune from HIV. At least it does not tell you anything about the mean.

    “Hypothesis: gays are mentally ill because they’re gay. Prediction: even if gays live in a tolerant society with no bullying, they’ll still be mentally ill. Observation: they’re not. Conclusion: the hypothesis is false.”

    Sorry but the whole point of this article is that they are. They do not live in a society that persecutes them. Indeed they live in a society that lauds them and makes more accommodation than is rational. But they still display signs of mental illness. In fact they seem to have gotten worse. Thus the hypothesis seems pretty true.

    “Rot. They changed the diagnosis when they redefined mental illness to mean mental conditions that effectively disabled a person in everyday life, rather than simply not matching some template of ‘normal’ defined by society (i.e. authoritarianism).”

    No. They removed homosexuality when their conference was foolishly held in San Francisco and speakers were assaulted. They were bullied in to it. The rest is a post-facto rationalisation.

    “Psychiatrists simply realised that picking some of these variant characteristics as acceptable and others not was an arbitrary function of culture, which itself was always changing.”

    A not very convincing post-facto rationalisation too.

    “When I was a kid, every kid who showed even the least *hint* of gayness (even when they were unambiguously hetero) got bullied unmercifully and continuously about it for years on end.”

    Really? You must have gone to Gay-hating central or something. There is certainly no actual evidence for it. Anecdote being mere anecdote.

    “The population here is self-selecting, but we’ve got plenty here.”

    Really? Where? We have people who disagree with you and so you want to shame them. Nothing more.

    “The last successful blasphemy prosecution in the UK was as recent as 1977 – Mary Whitehouse vs Denis Lemon and Gay News for publishing a poem about Jesus being gay. I’ve discussed Alan Turing before.”

    So roughly no Gay people alive today are old enough to remember the days when heterosexuals upheld standards. As a first order approximation. Those that are, are either dead or too old to be partying. So no influence on those younger Gays who are killing themselves with drugs.

    “For the past couple of thousand years, heterosexuals *have indeed* been policing language, and trying to get people jailed or fired for homosexuality and other beliefs.”

    Good days. So what? No one alive today was alive thousands of years ago. You are changing the subject because you know what I said is true.

    “gay and trans people still have to be unreasonably careful, and will still face a hostile reception from a significant proportion of the population.”

    Oddly enough people always have and always will respond poorly to mental illness. Especially when this is manifested by Drama queens. And more so when it comes in the form of authoritarian bullying from drama queens.

    “Yes, I oppose them and want to stop them”

    In theory. And perhaps in other fora. Not here.

    “You’re basically complaining about not being allowed to persecute gays any more – classifying them as ‘mentally ill’ and so subject to involuntary treatment to ‘cure’ them. That trope has got a particularly detestable history…”

    Actually no, that is not what I am complaining about. As I have said before, either they sit in jail or we do. I prefer that the mentally ill minority does. I have no particular interest in persecuting anyone, but if they pick a fight, they have to lose. Simple as that. And they have picked a fight.

    “I’ll defend to the death your right to say it, but you’re definitely not one of those on the side of liberty here.”

    I do not pretend to be. And yet what little liberty can be saved for the future, will be saved by people like me. Either we fight the mentally ill and their creeping totalitarianism or we go down without a fight.

  27. SMFS: Remember CM. The fight is being picked by leftist shite. Who couldn’t care less about the odd-men/women-out. As witnessed by their import of the lovely RoP whose dream is to send the om/wo on rape or base jumping without a parachute courses.

    NiV is a numpty bleeding heart who has been got at successfully by CM propaganda shite he soaked up with his cornflakes. He is another betrayer and destroyer of every thing worthwhile in the Western Heritage. But hey–he means well.

    Even the Jihadis will agree while they stab the shit out of him.

  28. “No because it does not matter if you can find six Gay men who function well.”

    You think there are only six gay men who function well?!

    A hypothesis can be destroyed by a single counter-example.

    “Sorry but the whole point of this article is that they are.”

    The whole point of the article is to say gays are still bullied, and the evidence is in the higher depression/suicide statistics.

    When gays are not bullied, they’re quite happy and well-adjusted. When straights are not bullied, likewise. And when gays are bullied, or when straights are bullied, they get depressed and suicidal. Therefore, obviously, it’s the bullying that causes the ‘mental illness’, not the gayness.

    (Although the bit about it causing them to take drugs is just rubbish.)

    “They do not live in a society that persecutes them. Indeed they live in a society that lauds them and makes more accommodation than is rational.”

    They live in a society where about 5% of the population still bully them, and where as a result about 50% of the population go out of their way to defend and support them.

    “No. They removed homosexuality when their conference was foolishly held in San Francisco and speakers were assaulted. They were bullied in to it.”

    And no doubt all the other psychiatrists around the world and over the subsequent decades all followed their lead out of sympathy… Sheesh! Of all the deranged conspiracy theories…

    “A not very convincing post-facto rationalisation too.”

    You mean *you’re* not convinced. I’m sorry, but everyone else is.

    “Really? You must have gone to Gay-hating central or something. There is certainly no actual evidence for it.”

    But… but… I thought *this* was gay-hating central? You mean it’s not? All this gay-hate I’m seeing here is normal?

    I find it a particularly remarkable example of obliviousness to claim that there is no gay-hate in the middle of an anti-gay screed.

    But no doubt you’ll claim that you are a mere anecdote yourself, and tell us nothing of the average…

    “Really? Where? We have people who disagree with you and so you want to shame them.”

    The disagreement only occurs because they are an example of what I was talking about.

    “So roughly no Gay people alive today are old enough to remember the days when heterosexuals upheld standards.”

    What?! You think there are no people over the age of 50 left?!

    The youngsters might not remember the days when the homophobes had control of the judiciary, but they meet plenty of older people who do, who grew up in that culture, and still regard it as ‘normality’. That’s what I’m talking about.

    “Good days. So what? No one alive today was alive thousands of years ago. You are changing the subject because you know what I said is true.”

    Nobody today was alive at the *start* of the thousands of years, but plenty were alive at their *end*. I can certainly remember the days when people could lose their jobs if they were discovered to be a homosexual. I can *definitely* remember when it was a subject ripe for bullying!

    “Oddly enough people always have and always will respond poorly to mental illness. Especially when this is manifested by Drama queens. And more so when it comes in the form of authoritarian bullying from drama queens.”

    Yup. Two people holding hands in public. Inflicting this Drama Queen behaviour on the public induced one bunch of lads to scream “Look at the woofters!” at the offenders. I can totally see how the ‘authoritarian bullying’ of that couple holding hands totally justifies those boys ‘responding poorly’.

    “In theory. And perhaps in other fora. Not here.”

    Why not here?

    “Actually no, that is not what I am complaining about. As I have said before, either they sit in jail or we do. I prefer that the mentally ill minority does.”

    The aim of the liberal is that *nobody* sits in jail. The aim of the authoritarian is that only the people who *disagree with them* sit in jail. The difference is pretty clear.

    When they redefine homophobia as a mental illness, and you find yourself classified as part of “the mentally ill minority”, I hope you remember what you just said.

    “I have no particular interest in persecuting anyone, but if they pick a fight, they have to lose. Simple as that. And they have picked a fight.”

    Well, first – your lot started it. (starting with Leviticus 20:13… If you didn’t want a fight with gays, describing them as “an abomination” and sentencing them to death was probably a bad move.)

    And second, you’re still confusing the SJWs with the latest group they’re hiding behind. Most SJWs are not gay, black, disabled, or poor. They’re posh white university students who read the Guardian. They simply use sympathy-inspiring groups as cover for their totalitarian policies. Like environmentalists who use public sympathy for baby polar bears to advocate shutting down industrial society, they’re not actual baby polar bears themselves. Screaming abuse at the baby polar bears and trying to get them all shot, because “they started it”, really won’t help your case.

    Most LGBT people keep their heads down, and just want to be left alone.

    “And yet what little liberty can be saved for the future, will be saved by people like me. Either we fight the mentally ill and their creeping totalitarianism or we go down without a fight.”

    You can’t save liberty by fighting for your own variety of totalitarianism.

    You’re not fighting to save liberty. You’re fighting for your own cultural standards to retain totalitarian control.

    “As witnessed by their import of the lovely RoP whose dream is to send the om/wo on rape or base jumping without a parachute courses.”

    Funny you should mention the RoP – they’re on the same side as you when it comes to the gays… You’d have thought that would be A Bit Of A Clue.

  29. NiV–Despite your hot air, throughout most of history those with a perchant for sticking their dicks up each others arses have done so largely unmolested–apart from an unfortunate few who were careless or unlucky.

    If Killery gets her war and you survive the nukes–and I hope you do–you might live long enough to end up in an underpopulated subsistence agriculture community. The kind most humans have lived in for the last 10000 years.One harvest away from starvation /death with 50+% infant mortality rates. Just so you can discover how long your eternal new age of homosexual tolerance would last.

    That is an awful thing to wish on someone but your nature as a pewling CM stooge–whatever cod “libertarian” rhetoric you dress up your pathetic bleeding heart with–deserves it and far worse.

    Put your moral outrage to work on behalf of the millions murdered by socialism –including huge numbers of homosexuals –and stop helping CM shite by spewing their poison terminology all over the landscape.

    Still waiting to hear about the Jihadis.

  30. With all this migration from country to country it might be a good idea to reserve some place solely for the habitation of gays etc so they can live their life as they want.

  31. So Much For Subtlety

    NiV – “You think there are only six gay men who function well?!”

    I think the Texas sharpshooter fallacy is a fallacy. The fact that someone can find six apparently functioning Gays does not mean that the group as a whole do not have problems.

    “The whole point of the article is to say gays are still bullied, and the evidence is in the higher depression/suicide statistics.”

    Except there is no evidence of bullying. There is lots of evidence of mental illness. Gay teens seem to commit suicide at a lower rate than heterosexual males by the way.

    “When gays are not bullied, they’re quite happy and well-adjusted.”

    They are not bullied now. Yet they are busy killing themselves.

    “They live in a society where about 5% of the population still bully them, and where as a result about 50% of the population go out of their way to defend and support them.”

    And they are still mentally ill. Clearly it is not the “bullying”.

    “And no doubt all the other psychiatrists around the world and over the subsequent decades all followed their lead out of sympathy… Sheesh! Of all the deranged conspiracy theories…”

    It is what the Gay activists who did it say they did. If there is a conspiracy theory it is one supported by the memoirs of the people who did it and the oral history of the period.

    “You mean *you’re* not convinced. I’m sorry, but everyone else is.”

    No they are not. Everyone knows there is something wrong with Gays. An experience of the self-promoting drama that comes from working with one will cure anyone who doesn’t.

    “I find it a particularly remarkable example of obliviousness to claim that there is no gay-hate in the middle of an anti-gay screed.”

    There is not a word of Gay hate in anything I said. It is not hate to say someone has a cold. They just do.

    “The disagreement only occurs because they are an example of what I was talking about.”

    I see no bullying. So the problem seems to be in your mind – and it is a interesting example of the limits of your liberalism and tolerance. Someone disagrees with you and you have to pathologise them.

    “What?! You think there are no people over the age of 50 left?!”

    They remember as 6 year olds?

    “I can certainly remember the days when people could lose their jobs if they were discovered to be a homosexual.”

    You must be quite old then. For the last thirty years or so the only people who have lost their jobs have been people who support legal political campaigns the Pink Storm Troopers take exception to or people who believe what their ancestors have always believed.

    “Two people holding hands in public.”

    And you change the subject yet again .

    “Why not here?”

    Because you have no track record of defending liberal values or tolerance. On the contrary you always defend things like the effort to get J Michael Bailey jailed. A liberal you are not.

    “The aim of the liberal is that *nobody* sits in jail. The aim of the authoritarian is that only the people who *disagree with them* sit in jail. The difference is pretty clear.”

    Except liberalism is dead. No one supports policies that lead to no one sitting in jail. Certainly not the Gay community which wants “discrimination” interpreted in ever stronger ways so that even more people sit in jail.

    “When they redefine homophobia as a mental illness, and you find yourself classified as part of “the mentally ill minority”, I hope you remember what you just said.”

    They haven’t? They are certainly working on it. I oppose the Gay community because they are coming for people like me already. They may not be coming for most of the people here yet. But they will.

    “Well, first – your lot started it. (starting with Leviticus 20:13… If you didn’t want a fight with gays, describing them as “an abomination” and sentencing them to death was probably a bad move.)”

    How am I responsible for a Jewish text that no one takes seriously any more?

    “And second, you’re still confusing the SJWs with the latest group they’re hiding behind.”

    The Gay community is happy to stand in front of the SJW community. They are more or less the same anyway. They will be judged by the company they keep. And not one Gay I know of has defending anyone’s right not to make a wedding cake.

    “Most LGBT people keep their heads down, and just want to be left alone.”

    The polls say otherwise.

    “You can’t save liberty by fighting for your own variety of totalitarianism.”

    That boat has sailed. Everyone weaponised their grudges these days. Gays certainly do. So we could go back to the 1950s which was more tolerant, but it isn’t going to happen. Instead either we destroy them or they destroy us. The Gay community has chosen sides. The only question remains who is going to do what to whom. I prefer them sitting in re-education camps rather than the 90+% of the population that is normal.

    “You’re not fighting to save liberty. You’re fighting for your own cultural standards to retain totalitarian control.”

    Indeed. Liberty is not a option. It is just about damage control.

  32. “I think the Texas sharpshooter fallacy is a fallacy. The fact that someone can find six apparently functioning Gays does not mean that the group as a whole do not have problems.”

    It is a fallacy. If it was possible to find only 6 functioning gays I’d agree that it wasn’t evidence that the group as a whole had no problems.

    What I’m laughing at is the idea that you think there are only 6 functioning gays!

    “Except there is no evidence of bullying.”

    I’ve watched them doing it.

    This is like saying there’s “no evidence” of Muslims harassing women or gays, when you can go and see them doing it any day of the week. Anyone saying anything so patently ridiculous I can only assume isn’t seriously expecting to be believed, they’re just stubbornly refusing to concede the point.

    But since it’s sometimes worthwhile addressing even moronically stupid points, here’s some evidence.

    http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/eu-lgbt-survey-results-at-a-glance_en.pdf

    So, lets see…

    Respondents who felt discriminated against or harassed in the last 12 months on the grounds of sexual orientation – UK 44%

    Respondents who felt discriminated against in the last 12 months when looking for a job and/or at work because of being LGBT – UK 19%

    Respondents who had heard negative comments or seen negative conduct because a schoolmate was perceived to be LGBT during their schooling before the age of 18 – UK 95%

    Respondents who had “always” or “often” hidden or disguised being LGBT during their schooling before the age of 18 – UK 68%

    Respondents who said they were attacked or threatened with violence in the last 12 months partly or completely because they were perceived to be LGBT – EU 6%

    Respondents who said the last incident of violence in the last 12 months happened partly or completely because they were perceived to be LGBT – EU 59%

    Transgender respondents who were attacked or threatened with violence one or more times in the last 12 months – EU Once 34%, Twice 24%, Three times 14%, More 28%

    Respondents who said same-sex couples and different-sex couples holding hands in public is “very widespread” – EU different-sex couples 75%, same-sex 3%

    “There is no evidence of bullying” is right up there with “Islam is a religion of peace” for bare-faced denial of reality.

    “It is what the Gay activists who did it say they did. If there is a conspiracy theory it is one supported by the memoirs of the people who did it and the oral history of the period.”

    I’m sure the gay activists in question did indeed use violence in their protests at this conference. (I don’t approve, any more than I do when anti-nazi protestors use violence.) My point is that doesn’t explain why all the *other* psychiatrists who *didn’t* go to the conference agreed with them, and still do.

    “No they are not. Everyone knows there is something wrong with Gays.”

    There’s nothing wrong with gays. Developing brain modules in the womb respond to hormones with a variable success rate. About 97-99% of the time, the male hormone triggers development of the ‘male’ sexual attraction pattern, but sometimes males get the ‘female’ pattern. Like some women can read maps, and some men are good at language.

    They’re no more ‘mentally ill’ for having the female pattern of sexual attraction than females are. They’re no more ‘mentally ill’ than women who have the more typically male ‘maths geek’ brain module. Any problems they have are primarily due to society’s acceptance of them.

    Because sex-linked features of brain development have success rates in the 90-99% range, and there are a couple dozen such features identified, virtually *everyone* has at least *some* mental features more common in the opposite sex. Only the ones linked to cultural and social taboos have this impact.

    “An experience of the self-promoting drama that comes from working with one will cure anyone who doesn’t.”

    Ah! Is that the problem? You worked with a gay person you didn’t like?

    Well, one of my old managers was gay (I recently went to his wedding) and I worked with him for several years before I even knew. It was never an issue. There was no drama. He was a nice guy, and one of the most well-adjusted people I’ve met. He got hassled about it occasionally, but just shrugged it off.

    Most don’t make an issue of it, and so are invisible. The ones who do therefore tend to have a disproportionate effect on the public perception. I once knew a welsh guy who was an arse about being welsh – I don’t judge all welsh people by that standard, though.

    “It is not hate to say someone has a cold. They just do.”

    It is if they don’t.

    “I see no bullying. So the problem seems to be in your mind”

    Or yours.

    “They remember as 6 year olds?”

    50 years ago would be 1966, so in 1977 they would be 11. Can’t add up, either?

    “You must be quite old then. For the last thirty years or so the only people who have lost their jobs have been people who support legal political campaigns the Pink Storm Troopers take exception to or people who believe what their ancestors have always believed.”

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/30/anti_gay_harassment_missouri_man_cannot_sue_for_sexual_orientation_discrimination.html

    It only became illegal in the UK with the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003. That would be 13 years, and they’d not be bothering to introduce legislation to ban it if it was something that never happened.

    I think anyone over the age of about 23 would remember those times.

    “On the contrary you always defend things like the effort to get J Michael Bailey jailed. A liberal you are not.”

    ??!!!

    What the hell are you talking about?! I don’t recall the topic ever coming up, and having had a quick look at Bailey’s bio, I can’t think of any reason why I would if it did.

    For the record – I’ve got no problem with Bailey, he certainly shouldn’t get fired or jailed for his research or books. (I think the incident with the ‘fucksaw’ is a bit more questionable, on other grounds, but that’s a matter for his employer…) I don’t entirely agree with his conclusions (although they’re more intelligent/plausible than most of the rubbish you see on the subject), but that’s *absolutely* no reason for him to be jailed!

    “Except liberalism is dead.”

    I’m not.

    “They haven’t? They are certainly working on it.”

    Yes, they are. And they’ll succeed if you carry on the way you are.

    ” I oppose the Gay community because they are coming for people like me already. They may not be coming for most of the people here yet. But they will.”

    No, they’re not. The SJWs are coming for you, but the vast majority of the gay community are not. Do you think all women are SJW-style feminists? They may claim to represent women, and some of them are women, but there are a hell of a lot of women who don’t agree with it, don’t like them, and are actually quite keen on men. Imagining that all gays are SJW is as deranged as thinking every single woman is a lesbian feminazi with a degree in ‘women’s studies’ who will attempt to get you jailed for rape if you try to chat her up.

    Like I said, it’s like ignoring environmentalists and hating on the baby polar bears instead.

    You *could* get a few gays to stick up for your side of the argument, and so defuse a lot of the SJW claims to speak for them all. But gays aren’t going to show support for anyone who offers them the level of hostility you do. Gays will look at what people like you write, conclude that the SJWs are totally and 100% *right* about right-wingers being gay-hating dinosaurs, and join the SJW side.

    It’s deliberate. The SJWs look for subjects they know will provoke this sort of reaction from you, and deliberately trigger you into looking a complete fool. They win every time!

    SJWs don’t care a damn about the gays. Up until the gays looked like they were winning the argument in the 1980s, they were generally opposed to them (viz. pink triangles). The gays are just a stalking horse.

    “How am I responsible for a Jewish text that no one takes seriously any more?”

    … apart from those hardcore Christians being cited above.

    “The Gay community is happy to stand in front of the SJW community.”

    Because, as I say, *you* drive them away from wanting to stand in front of us.

    “They will be judged by the company they keep.”

    So are we liberals. That’s why I’m complaining about having to keep company with *you*.

    “And not one Gay I know of has defending anyone’s right not to make a wedding cake.”

    Here’s fucking Peter Tatchell doing just that in the fucking Guardian!

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/01/gay-cake-row-i-changed-my-mind-ashers-bakery-freedom-of-conscience-religion

    You didn’t look very hard, did you?

    “The polls say otherwise.”

    Gays are reckoned to make up 1-3% of the population. That would be at least 600,000 in the UK. There aren’t 600,000 gay SJW campaigners.

    “That boat has sailed. Everyone weaponised their grudges these days”

    If you can’t beat the totalitarians, you had might as well join them, eh?

    OK. You go ahead and fight for your own variety of totalitarianism. Just don’t pretend that’s not what you are.

    “I prefer them sitting in re-education camps rather than the 90+% of the population that is normal.”

    Nobody is “normal” in every single category – they’re using the ‘divide and conquer’ strategy. That’s what Niemöller’s famous “First they came for…” poem was about. They pick on one minority, and you think ‘Doesn’t affect me. I’m not going to endanger myself standing up for them.’ Then they do another, and another. By the time they get around to you, there’s nobody left who has the slightest bit of sympathy for you. Altruism depends on reciprocity – people will only defend others in the expectation of being defended by those others themselves.

    “First they came for the gays, but I wasn’t gay, so I did nothing.” When they come for the homophobes, who will be left to defend you?

  33. @ SMFS & NiV & Mr Ecks
    I do not know what each of you defines as “bullying” but beating up gays just because they are gay is wrong aka evil – and that still occurs even in England.
    Homophobia (translated is “fear of homosexuals”) was understandable in my youth when they were overwhelmingly sexual predators, but the licentious modern society means that most of them do not need to be predators so homophobia is basically obsolete (it should now just be pardophilophobia).

  34. NiV offends because he is a bleeding heart CM creep who tries to lard his crap over with claims of being a libertarian. He is a useful idiot for the left and endorses the thought-crime shite the scummy left peddle.

    I don’t care what gays get up to so long as it is all volunteers and they don’t try to shove their antics in the face of those who want nothing to do with them. The same as any other group. Even the left, They can be as socialist as they like with their own resources so long as they leave alone those who don’t want their garbage. Small chance of that.

  35. “I don’t care what gays get up to so long as it is all volunteers and they don’t try to shove their antics in the face of those who want nothing to do with them. The same as any other group.”

    Depends what you mean by “shove in the face of”. Taken literally, that seems fair enough. But does holding hands in public count as “shoving their antics in the face of” the public? How about kissing in public? Since those are both things gays are still scared to do, because of the reaction of people who don’t like their “antics” shoved in their face (which is how they often put it).

    Of course, if you really meant it about your attitude to them being “the same as any other group” then presumably your attitude to gays kissing and holding hands in public is the same as your attitude to opposite-sex couples doing so. (Is it?) That would be nice.

    So what do you think of the people who don’t like them doing it, and get in their faces about it? They’re presumably not ‘CM scum’, since their old-fashioned brand of political correctness is currently out of fashion with the CMs, so how would you describe them?

  36. It is poor taste and attention-seeking display when hetros are necking in public. Same for all other groups. If people think they are alone and have a reasonable expectation of that being true that is a different thing. They may be wrong about being alone but that is not deliberate attempts to show off or annoy others.

    Those who play tonsil tennis in a crowd certainly deserve a beating to knock the arrogant shite out of them

    Practically speaking and in the interests of avoiding too much violence it is probably best to pass on by. Unless a major beauty spot is in danger of being ruined by the permanent invasion of “look-at-me/us” twats of any sort.

  37. Interesting answer!

    I certainly can’t fault it on discrimination grounds. It’s still not very liberal, though, is it? (Harm Principle, and all that.)

    “They may be wrong about being alone but that is not deliberate attempts to show off or annoy others.”

    You have some very weird ideas about why people kiss. Most people do it because they love one another. ‘Showing off’ or ‘annoying others’ are not generally on the agenda (unless it’s a case of saying “Hey! Look at who I’ve got as *my* girlfriend!” to your mates). People do it to celebrate, to greet one another, to say goodbye, to say “thank you!”

    I guess it’s a matter of individual interpretation. Nevertheless, I think some girl kissing their boyfriend goodbye at the train station might be a bit startled to have you march up and deliver “a beating to knock the arrogant shite out of them”. You must lead an interesting life.

    Nevertheless, your belief about why people kiss is not something I’ve any interest in criticising. Do pass on my sympathies to your wife, though, if you have one. To have never been kissed in public must be a matter of sadness, I think.

    Be well. XXX 🙂

  38. Don’t come it NiV.

    A platform goodbye, quite possibly forever, before going off to the trenches has nothing to do with the tonsil tennis poseur league.

    “Most people do it because they are in love” –well thank you so much for that insight NiV. And of course if she feels like sucking his dick in public–cos they are in love and “feels” is everything and much much more important than self control and what others might want–that’s O K with you. Perhaps they both get off on emptying their bowels on each other–that OK as a public spectacle too? After all people in love will do anything right? And what’s wrong with that?

    You are a pewling bleeding heart and are likely to be one. for the balance of your existence. But cheer up. You will live to witness your CM “values” ground into the dirt while you watch. You won’t find it as much fun as watching the poseurs but perhaps the pain will teach you something.

    Still waiting to hear about the Jihadis.

  39. “You will live to witness your CM “values” ground into the dirt while you watch.”

    Won’t we all? The pain of seeing *yours* overtaken by post-80s Western society evidently hasn’t taught you anything. And you have plenty of company outside the West when it comes to not moving with the times – they don’t learn either. Why would I be any different?

    You come to be known by the ideological company you keep.

    So how about this one then?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/10850212/Iranian-actress-Leila-Hatami-faces-public-flogging.html

    Or this one?

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/man-90-lashes-4-years-prison-kissing-woman-mall-article-1.179771

    Or this boy?

    http://news.asiantown.net/r/18441/saudi-arabia-boy-gets-months-jail-and-lashes-for-kissing-a-girl-in-public

    Whose side are you be on, Mutaween?

  40. Scraping the barrel now NiV.

    These people have committed trivial acts.

    I gave the example of some non-trivial acts–which you studiously ignore like the deceiver you are.

    So is sucking dicks in public if they feel like it acceptable behaviour NiV? Feels is what matters to you isn’t it lover boy? Other people who don’t share your “values” don’t feature on your horizon it seems so answer the question.

    My values haven’t been overtaken by your post 80’s cockrot NiV because said cockrot is Cultural Marxism. Of which you are a stooge and an active promoter of same.

    Still waiting to hear about the Jihadis. And I always will be.

  41. “These people have committed trivial acts.”

    Thank you. That’s the statement I was after.

    Remember, this was in answer to my question “Of course, if you really meant it about your attitude to them being “the same as any other group” then presumably your attitude to gays kissing and holding hands in public is the same as your attitude to opposite-sex couples doing so. (Is it?)”

    To which your reply was: “Those who play tonsil tennis in a crowd certainly deserve a beating to knock the arrogant shite out of them”.

    The muzzies agree – they propose up to 120 lashes, which I think definitely counts as “a beating to knock the arrogant shite out of them”. We likewise agree that the acts being punished are trivial.

    My point was based on the observation (see stats quoted above) that opposite-sex couples holding hands and kissing in public is ‘widespread’ in Western countries, while it is very rare among same-sex couples because they fear society’s reaction. But you have a valid point – both you and the mullahs are evidently not as fussy about who is doing the kissing as Westerners are. It was a bad example for that reason.

    Nevertheless, the examples being compared were the trivial ones of holding hands/kissing – gays are not complaining that they’re not allowed to take a dump on one another in public, nor that hetero couples are but they’re not. They’re complaining that acts that are considered “trivial” in the West for hetero couples are liable to get them into trouble. It was only the trivial activities that are relevant here.

    “So is sucking dicks in public if they feel like it acceptable behaviour NiV?”

    Although it’s not relevant to the discussion, this is a fairly easy one to answer. It’s the same principle as for pornography, recreational drugs, and medical treatment – certain acts are considered potentially harmful or unpleasant, and therefore require informed consent to inflict them on others. Sex, and the portrayal of sex acts, is conventionally one of these, although this is a culturally dependent boundary.

    So if all the bystanders give informed consent (and are capable of giving informed consent), then there’s no problem. If they don’t, then it’s a bit like displaying pornography to the unwilling.

    Where the boundary of what requires *explicit* consent lies isn’t an absolute – it’s for society to decide. The original question I was asking was whether the boundary is or should be the same for same-sex as opposite-sex couples. It’s a separate question whether we apply the standards of Western culture or Islamic culture.

    “My values haven’t been overtaken by your post 80’s cockrot NiV because said cockrot is Cultural Marxism.”

    There are (at least) *three* separate sets of cultural values here.

    There’s the Islamic/pre-1980 Western intolerance for gays (and kissing in public) that has indeed been overtaken. It has lost the war here, and is rapidly losing it in the Islamic world.

    There’s the Western majority culture of liberal tolerance for gays on equal terms with heterosexuals. People are free to not like them, and say so, but it’s illegal to act on those prejudices.

    And there’s the ‘CM’ culture of intolerance for homophobes (especially if they’re rich white men), including intolerance of any opinion or public expression of those opinions.

    You, as a member of the first culture, fail to see any distinction between the other two. Similarly, members of the third culture tend not to be able to see any meaningful difference between the first two.

    Likewise, as a member of the middle ‘post-80s Western’ culture, I don’t see any meaningful difference between cultures 1 and 3. They’re both full of authoritarian bigots.

    The first culture is nearly gone (in the West). There’s maybe 5% hardcore and 20% who lean a bit that way remaining. The second culture dominates. But the adherents of the third culture are trying to use the majority’s disgust for the first culture to move things further towards the third. That would be bad, and that’s what I oppose, and that’s why I argue with you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *