Real Queer Heroes

[MetaSexual2]

Yesterday in Moscow about 30 activists were roughed up and arrested by riot police for having a peaceful gay rights protest. A far-right/orthodox church counter protest was allowed to go on without disturbance. The mayor of Moscow has said that homosexuality is "satanic" and officially sanctions the ongoing persecutions.

Peter Tatchell, a British gay rights and human rights activist was among the protestors. He was also there for a pride parade in 2007 and severely beaten by far right groups in the open in front of police. Tatchell has also locked himself to Zimbabwean dictator Mugabe's limo in a human rights protest. Despite holding pro-Palestinian position has with regard to the occupation, he has repeatedly stirred up controversy by telling the Palestinian leadership they need to stop persecuting homosexuals. His contributions to the fight for equal treatment of queers and minorities in Britain are innumerable and have had a long lasting effect.

Lest we in the west take our rights for granted, we should recognise that most of the world is not free. I salute all those who are out there trying to change that.

[Long Duck Dong]

hero or idiot.....

if he gets hurt or killed, there will be a stink kicked up...but they put themselves in a risky situation knowing the dangers and risks

yes I accept they are protesting about gay rights etc....and yes I will accept that people will voice their support for that..... but the fact remains one of personal responsibility

it is a bit like a person that holds a fire work in their hand and lights it.... then cries about the dangers of them and the risks and wants compensation ..... and ignores the fact they held the bloody thing

now I am gonna really dig my coffin with this remark.... all the people talking about how he is doing a good job and how he is a voice for prosecuted gays around the world... where are they... and what excuse do they have for not adding their voice.... and how many of them actually would not go there cos of the risk to their own personal safety and say what sort of fool risks that.... then will say, goddammit, he was killed for standing up for human / gay rights... there should have been more voices with his

[bityme]

now I am gonna really dig my coffin with this remark.... all the people talking about how he is doing a good job and how he is a voice for prosecuted gays around the world... where are they... and what excuse do they have for not adding their voice.... and how many of them actually would not go there cos of the risk to their own personal safety and say what sort of fool risks that.... then will say, goddammit, he was killed for standing up for human / gay rights... there should have been more voices with his

Voices can be added in many different ways. The manner selected often depends on the other responsibilities one has taken on, as well as their willingness to place themselves at risk. Individuals like Tatchell make livelihood by placing themselves in harms way. He's not working a 9 to 5 job to support his travels. So some of the unseen and unheard are providing the support for his action.

Some of us are good at marching in the parade, others are good at organizing, a few are good at raising the money, many contribute, and the majority are spectators. I would venture to say that whatever their role, everyone, at one time or another, chastises themselves for not doing more.

Hero or idiot? I don't know. In Viet Nam, we had a saying: "A hero was just somebody so dumb that they could not recognize the danger."

[MetaSexual2]

hero or idiot.....


This type of cynicism is detrimental to the cause of human rights globally and your analogies are poorly chosen. A better analogy is like a man who walks into a burning fire to save another, fully aware of the dangers to his life, but prepared to do so because he values the outcome more. Tatchell knows what he is risking and has had great success in over 35 years of campaigning bringing real change to the treatment of minorities and gay people.

So why dig your own grave deeper by not supporting his actions?

[rissababynta]

This type of cynicism is detrimental to the cause of human rights globally and your analogies are poorly chosen. A better analogy is like a man who walks into a burning fire to save another, fully aware of the dangers to his life, but prepared to do so because he values the outcome more. Tatchell knows what he is risking and has had great success in over 35 years of campaigning bringing real change to the treatment of minorities and gay people.

So why dig your own grave deeper by not supporting his actions?

LDD, as much as I normally agree with you, and I did a bit here as well, I do believe that this is a better analogy :-P

[SWCube]

then will say, goddammit, he was killed for standing up for human / gay rights... there should have been more voices with his

As was previously posted, people support the movement in different ways, but sometimes all a person has to do is look over to another person and say, "Hey, did you hear about what this person is doing in Europe?" Personally, I had never heard of this person but feel better knowing there is someone as dedicated to the cause to do such things. Cheers to the OP for spreading the word and adding to the voices!

[MetaSexual2]

Thanks for that SWCube.

I highlighted Tatchell, as he has done lots of good work, but he gets to go free because of his status and British consular pressure. Good on him for going back for another beating and using his status to draw attention to the problems in Russia. Lets also not forget those poor Russian campaigners who are probably still sitting in jail and being subjected to who knows what kind of treatment. They have no voice whatsoever in the political machinery of Russia and so this was one of their few chances to get their message out to the wider world.

[Long Duck Dong]

This type of cynicism is detrimental to the cause of human rights globally and your analogies are poorly chosen. A better analogy is like a man who walks into a burning fire to save another, fully aware of the dangers to his life, but prepared to do so because he values the outcome more. Tatchell knows what he is risking and has had great success in over 35 years of campaigning bringing real change to the treatment of minorities and gay people.

So why dig your own grave deeper by not supporting his actions?

if I speak the truth... its cynicism and detrimental to the cause of human rights ???????

a better analogy is a man that walks into a burning fire to save another ??? ROFLMAO.....sorry.... a man that does that.... has no agenda, like if I get burned, it draws attention to the plight of people that are burnt in fires and avoided by main stream society cos they have burn scars....

I know about protest.... I helped fight for the rights of nz'ers to have the civil union... a freedom of marriage bill that applied to all nz'ers..... am I a hero ??? no..... did I face threats of violence, beatings, threats against my life ???? yes... even in nz, there were threats of violence, fire bombing of houses, even a public threat by a church to over take the goverment.....am I a hero.....no.....

he is a man that travelled overseas to voice his opinion..... but what of the people that LIVE there, the ones that could disappear and the world would not care, could lose their jobs, their families, their lives.... where are their names... who are they...... ?????

they are the true heroes.... as they do not have their names mentioned, they are not flying around the world, getting attention, they are the people.... that NEVER GOT MENTIONED...... and thats my point.... you focus on one man and call him a hero..... and ignore the shoulders that support him as they walk beside him......

the heroes are the ones that can't come home...... they are home....

[MetaSexual2]

if I speak the truth...
The truth is a slippery thing, but in this case its pretty clear-cut... and you are not speaking it. Cynicism that does not reflect reality certainly is damaging, especially when it comes from a member of the community whose rights are being infringed. The acknowledgement of good works in a culture is crucial to the ethical development of that culture.



a better analogy is a man that walks into a burning fire to save another ??? ROFLMAO.....sorry.... a man that does that.... has no agenda, like if I get burned, it draws attention to the plight of people that are burnt in fires and avoided by main stream society cos they have burn scars....
Your reasoning is pretty shoddy here. Yes, the man who walks into the fire does have an agenda, it is to save another human life. Whether or not he gets burned doesn't alter the heroism of the act.


I know about protest....
Then why do you not acknowledge your own work and the work of others?


he is a man that travelled overseas to voice his opinion..... but what of the people that LIVE there...... ?????

You are just restating what I already said. I wasn't speaking just about Tatchell in the OP, however he went out of his way to acknowledge their sacrifice and its one of the reasons he came back for another beating. His arrest made sure that the protest made a much more significant impact by making global news, and that is not an insignificant thing. His presence allowed their's to be acknowledged by a much wider community.

[Long Duck Dong]

I hate people that slice and dice quotes.....but I will answer

truth is but a opinion.... I am asking if he is a hero or a idiot.... the perception of the reader, can decide the answer of that..... I never said, he was a hero or a idiot..... you decided he was a hero... therefore my statement was wrong.... but in fact I was asking a question.....

a man walks into a fire... with a assumption... and no idea of truth.... there are a lot of variables in my statement.... they could be seeking to rescue somebody that is not in the fire, already dead, even temp insane... we assume the intention.... we do not know the intention

indeed, I do not acknowledge my own voice.... as my voice is one of many.... and I stand as one of many..... hence I do not credit one above the many, or give labels freely.... but society likes the heroes...so they create them..... and ignore the nameless.....

its not him getting arrested that brought it to the global awareness....it was him making sure that the attention was on him so that he could get arrested and make the headlines that got it to global awareness.......

now if I was to say, he broke the law over there... leave him in jail to do the crime... I would be labelled a asshole.... and I would not care.... you do the crime, you do the time, you know the risks..... but he is safe, cos of the political support..... and that is immediately a case of go break laws in other countries and we will bail you out, to do it again...... and then he is a hero ???

he has proved nothing, saved nobody, created a shit storm in a tea cup... and when he is bailed out, the people left behind, will have to deal with the shit... and more cause he made the powers that be, look bad.... but thats ok... cos the world knows that the mayor of georgia could be homo phobic... is that really worth the cause to the people left behind..... does that really make him a hero ?????

[MetaSexual2]

The point of slicing and dicing quotes is to answer points individually, but you don't seem to like critical analysis so I will just say that if you look through each of the statements you have made you will find a number of inconsistencies, obfuscations, and uses of circular logic. It makes it very hard to have a meaningful and honest discussion if you use these types of tactics.

Truth may be partially subjective, but not wholly so. The points you are trying to make are so far from reality they are not tenable. Tatchell nor the other protesters broke any laws (the Russian authorities actually violated their own laws), he helped the Russian protesters achieve their objectives, and generally did the world a service by highlighting the lack of human rights within Russia. Consistent pressure of this type has brought about real change in the treatment of human rights issues around the world.

[BrotherJack]

Please note that I am not replying to anyone in particular and please also note, that I am already expecting to be shot down, because I am not bisexual or homosexual.

Tatchell is no hero and never has been. His ''agenda'' started out as a very political one, way back in the days when he wanted to be a Member of Parliament, representing the Labour Party.

This man found no great following here, his adopted country and so decided to make himself well known in other countries and therefore getting in the news back in the UK.

He may well have campaigned for some good basic freedoms for people, but were these for all, or just for homosexuals and bisexuals? True freedom fighters, will fight for the rights of all and if necessary, be willing to give their lives, enmasse or as individuals.

I remember some years back, Tatchell would get involved in everything he possibly could, because the mainstream fighters for civil rights, didn't need him and his type of crusading style.

I remember when a certain area of London, infact it is called Sloane Square, a wealthy residential London square of very old properties was being plagued by homosexuals....many, many homosexuals, meeting in the communal Sloane Square garden, for sex.

The residents did not want this happening, just as many people in residential areas do not like to be ''invaded'' by teams of prostitutes, kerb crawlers stopping and bothering women, who are most certainly not prostitutes.

Up popped Tatchell, demanding that homosexuals had the right to have sex in public in the Sloane Square garden. He even went on to suggest that several high bushes/shrubbery could be planted, making an enclosed space, so that no one would see the activities.

He didn't succeed.

When there was talk of the age of consent, for homosexual activity for men, being lowered, I remember him being interviewed about the subject (Tatchell always appears at such times). He thought that the age lowering would not go far enough, for he did not see why it should not be legal for boys of 14 to be indulging in homosexual relations with older men! Legally!

This man is no hero! He picks his subjects carefully and puts himself in the firing line. There are other, far more worthy people, who are fighting for the rights of ALL people and ALL of the time. From what I have seen of Tatchell over the years, he has one real interest......Tatchell and not the causes, he suddenly attaches himself to.

LDD is right in a lot of what he says and truly the world should be cynical of the Tatchell types, whatever their sexuality. Far more is achieved by the ''little'' people in quiet and private and in peaceful negotiation. Tatchell and his ilk....whatever their sexuality...just love the drama and being in the public eye. He knows he will come home. Those he leaves behind, may not!!!

And the reference to ''little'' people, is not meant as an insult. it refers to those, who do not have financial backing and are able to make their crusading into a career.

[BrotherJack]

By the way, maybe a better title for this thread would be ''Real heroes and heroines, whatever their sexuality, race, colour, creed and political persuasion'' Although this is a site predominantly for bisexuals, the world is inhabited by ''people'' and people from all walks of life!

[softfruit]

Is this a troll I see before me? Just for now I'll play along...

No Jack, we won't lay into you because you are "not bisexual or homosexual", we'll shoot you down because you're pouring out homophobic and biphobic bile, prejudice and nonsense, and you're advocating stances that would allow the culture of homophobic and biphobic harassment and marginalisation that many of us have grown up with or live with to carry on unchecked.

I'm no great friend of Tatchell, who yes, is very self-publicist in his approach, and a big long way to the right of me politically. But even I can't pretend his actions have always been narrowly sectarian (how much better could Zimbabwe be by now had the British Government had the courage to follow through on Tatchell's actions) or of lesser value than those whose working for social change has taken a different form is to show your cluelessness about how political pressure and lobbying works. For example, Ian McKellen would never have been invited to 10 Downing Street for tea without Tatchell being a face of the more hardline alternative they wanted to keep out.

Finally o'course, the age of consent stuff is a revealingly bigoted thing to say; what age you set it at is completely arbitrary and even just within the EU varies widely including ages lower than 14.

[BrotherJack]

Is this a troll I see before me? Just for now I'll play along...

No Jack, we won't lay into you because you are "not bisexual or homosexual", we'll shoot you down because you're pouring out homophobic and biphobic bile, prejudice and nonsense, and you're advocating stances that would allow the culture of homophobic and biphobic harassment and marginalisation that many of us have grown up with or live with to carry on unchecked.

I'm no great friend of Tatchell, who yes, is very self-publicist in his approach, and a big long way to the right of me politically. But even I can't pretend his actions have always been narrowly sectarian (how much better could Zimbabwe be by now had the British Government had the courage to follow through on Tatchell's actions) or of lesser value than those whose working for social change has taken a different form is to show your cluelessness about how political pressure and lobbying works. For example, Ian McKellen would never have been invited to 10 Downing Street for tea without Tatchell being a face of the more hardline alternative they wanted to keep out.

Finally o'course, the age of consent stuff is a revealingly bigoted thing to say; what age you set it at is completely arbitrary and even just within the EU varies widely including ages lower than 14.


I am neither biphobic nor homophobic!!!! A phobia is a fear and I have nothing to fear, where bisexuality or homosexuality are concerned.!!! I would say that you are the one being phobic!!

''we'll shoot you down because you're pouring out homophobic and biphobic bile, prejudice and nonsense, and you're advocating stances that would allow the culture of homophobic and biphobic harassment and marginalisation''

This is absolute rubbish....and not what I was talking about. Please tell me what I am supposed to be advocating??? I really would like to know!! Is it because I pointed out that Tatchell wanted....in a public place.....men to be allowed to have sex with one another. Why is not approvong of such a thing, biphobic or homophobic????

People have complained, in recent years of walking on Hampstead Heath, in family groups or as people on their own and coming across men openly engaged in sexual relations. Why do you think it is wrong to be against such things. These people would have felt just the same had they come across heterosexuals indulging in such behaviour.

The present Labour Government decided to make it legal for people to have sex in Public Toilets, as long as the sex took place inside a cubicle. I saw many people interviewed on television news programmes and also read articles in newspapers. , including non heterosexual citizens..... meaning I can't remember if they were bisexual or homosexual...or a mixture and most people were horrified at this change in official Government policy. People see Public conveniences, as a place to rid themselves of bodily waste matter, not a place for encountering people having sex.

I guess I must also be Prostutephobic too, as I mentioned how the inhabitants of a residential area don't usually like being ''invaded'' by women standing on street corners and kerb crawlers pulling up and propositioning quite innocent members of the female community.

The inhabitants of Sloane Square were not being homophobic or biphobic, when they did not want men having sex, in public, in the Sloane Square garden. They would have felt the same way about heterosexuals doing the same thing.

It is a fact that Tatchell made comments about boys as young as 14 being allowed...legally allowed, to have sex with older males......I saw the interview. His comments did not go down well with the homosexual community and I guess the same response would have been received from the bisexual community.

You are really so naive, if you believe the words of a man like Tatchell would cause a well respected actor like Sir Ian McKellen to have been invited to Downing Street....and without that, he would never have got through the door. Ian McKellen is not the first well known actor, who has been known to be homosexual or bisexual and be welcomed in political and courtly surroundings.

As for Zimbabwe (and Yes, I did know Tatchell was from Zimbabwe), if Tatchell has been trying to attract attention to what has been going on there....he hasn't had much success. The BBC, which is banned from Zimbabwe, has reported the beatings, murders, starvation etc, over and over again......Attaching oneself to a tyrant's limousine, is a stunt and soon forgotten!!

By the way...it's not just the British Government, who have turned away and almost ignored Zimbabwe, but all the countries of the Commonwealth and countries outside of this organisation. Tatchell's attempts to attract any attention are not needed....not in a singular protest. Action has to be taken by the many....and that doesn't always work...remember the protests against the Iraq war. They did a hell of a lot of good to change the mind of a Prime Minister intent on war......and not an American President's poodle, either.

I do understand about political lobbying and the British Constitution!! I studied it as a subject, to public examination level and got a grade 'A.' So do not try to patronise me!!

When it comes to the age of consent in other Economic Union countries........the UK is not other Economic Union countries and I was talking about this country. My comments were not bigoted ones. I happen to be a mother!!........Read on!!!

As far as 14 year old boys are concerned.....I am the mother of two grown sons and so have known them through many stages of maturity....including the age of 14. A boy of 14 is still a child and needs to be protected. What is allowed in other countries is not important. The UK is a sovereign state and I was talking about the laws of one country!!

The only time I vomit bile...is when I have a stomach bug and have not eaten. Do not accuse me of being afraid or having a phobia about bisexuality of homosexuality. I most certainly do not.

By the way....if Tatchell....who originally wanted to be a Labour Member of Parliament, is to the right of you politically, what are you? Not that it matters....except for the fact that I have never heard of Tatchell being suddenly converted and now being a Conservative or Liberal Democrat!

But we did have a Prime Minister, in Tony Blair, who was reported, as having said, when he was at Oxford University, that he wanted to be Prime Minister and he didn't mind which political party it was with!!!

One other thing....You won't shoot me down......I wear bullet proof armour!

[BrotherJack]

[QUOTE=softfruit;130947]Is this a troll I see before me? Just for now I'll play along...

And please tell me this....Why am I a Troll....just because I state something which you do not like, or agree with??? I don't give a damn about Tatchell's sexuality. I would have made the same comments, if he was heterosexual!!!!!

[MetaSexual2]

There is absolutely no record of the Tatchell Sloane Square incident you speak of, and so I believe you probably made it up. As such its a most likely a red herring, and not relevant to this discussion unless you can provide some evidence that it did. The bit about Labour and public toilets is also completely fictional, they tried to make the laws governing public sex even more restrictive than they already are. You are clearly twisting the age of consent issue into something its not and attempting to use it to demonise gay men.

As for acting like a troll, nearly every post you've made here seems meant to provoke or harass and it seems like you have a general distaste for members of the queer community. Why are you participating in this forum if its not for those reasons?

[BrotherJack]

There is absolutely no record of the Tatchell Sloane Square incident you speak of, and so I believe you probably made it up. As such its a most likely a red herring, and not relevant to this discussion unless you can provide some evidence that it did. The bit about Labour and public toilets is also completely fictional, they tried to make the laws governing public sex even more restrictive than they already are. You are clearly twisting the age of consent issue into something its not and attempting to use it to demonise gay men.

As for acting like a troll, nearly every post you've made here seems meant to provoke or harass and it seems like you have a general distaste for members of the queer community. Why are you participating in this forum if its not for those reasons?

How dare you accuse me of making up an item of news and an interview with Tatchell, which I watched and listened to. Unlike some people I know, I do not go in for lying and telling tall stories. I do not lie. I have no need to. How dare you accuse me of being a liar. I most certainly am not.

If the thread is about ''Real Queer Heroes'' then any aspect of a mentioned person's behaviour, is worth commenting upon. I commented upon two incidents, which I remember. Just because one of those is not ''officially documented,'' does not make it any less true.

The other item, concerning Public Conveniences. If I got it wrong, then I will admit to it....any time....because I am a truthful and honest person. At the time this item was in the news, it was definitely reported that the Government was to un-outlaw sex in Public Toilets, if the act took place within a cubicle.

I don't invent stories. I will leave that up to someone I know and who is only too good at spinning yarns.

How is the age of consent, not relevant? If Tatchell was speaking about such an item, again in one of his many interviews, why is it not worth bringing up. How is mentioning it, trying to demonise gay or bisexual men. I know gay people and I treat them with the same respect I would do anyone else. They are people first and foremost. Sexuality is not in my mind when I am talking to the decent people I know.

''As for acting like a troll, nearly every post you've made here seems meant to provoke or harass and it seems like you have a general distaste for members of the queer community. Why are you participating in this forum if its not for those reasons?''

Where have I stated that I have a general distaste for the bisexual community? I don't use the word ''queer'' and never will. I was brought up to believe it was an offensive term. Even if you may use it, I don't see it in common usage in the chat room or within the forum threads. I will not use that term. If not calling bisexuals by that name makes me have a ''general distaste of members of the queer community,'' then that is your problem....not mine. I respect people for what they are inside....within their hearts and souls and how they treat others.

I would suggest that like other heterosexuals who come to this site, I am just reacting as a human being, to things which are said and things which have been written. Please inform me, where I show my distate for individuals who may be bisexual. I'm an individual and I happen to be heterosexual. So what??

Also, am I supposed to be some shrinking English rose?? Am I supposed to tread on feathers and not occasionally, on broken glass. If you read my post again...you will see that I state that my views about Tatchell would be exactly the same, be he bisexual, homosexual or heterosexual.

I have opinions. I air them. I have been known to take people to task and let's face the fact, that just because someone states that they are bisexual, when coming onto this site, it doesn't mean that they are.

I originally came here for a very different reason, than the reason I sometimes come back now. Now I just come to the chat room to chat to people...that's right...people. I have spoken to many people here in private and received more compassion than from other places. So don't tell me that I have this general distaste for bisexuality.

I respect ''people''......I love my fellow human beings. I am also a person with opinions and I live in the real world.....a world where people air their opinions. Like I said in my second post on this thread......heroes and heroines....for all of us.....should come from every walk of life, every race, creed, colour and sexuality.

Just do not call me a liar......because I do not lie!!!!!!!

[MetaSexual2]

How dare you accuse me of making up an item of news and an interview with Tatchell, which I watched and listened to...

An incident like this would have surely been reported in multiple news sources. When was it? What channel did you see it on? When I say there is no record, I mean none, and there are always records of these things. If you truly believe you saw it, is it possible you confused a few different news stories and somehow imagined Tatchell being involved in them? The story you gave us is pretty elaborate (talking about Sloane Sq being "plagued by homosexuals" !!!), so its hard to accept that you aren't simply making them up to either satisfy your prejudices or deliberately mislead others.

You also seem to have confused Britain with Holland, because the public toilet controversy happened there, not here. There was something of this nature in Amsterdam, but this did not involve Tatchell or Labour.

Both cases are completely irrelevant to the discussion here, because you have misattributed both incidents to people who weren't involved in them, and have nothing to do with what we were talking about. If you aren't fabricating news items, then you seem to be very confused about what you actually saw.

In general, the pattern of disinformation you are presenting is typical of people who try to skew a discussion using half-truths and omissions. You don't have to be blunt about it for your prejudices to still be obvious to others. If you don't want to be treated as a troll, stop acting like one.

[BrotherJack]

An incident like this would have surely been reported in multiple news sources. When was it? What channel did you see it on? When I say there is no record, I mean none, and there are always records of these things. If you truly believe you saw it, is it possible you confused a few different news stories and somehow imagined Tatchell being involved in them? The story you gave us is pretty elaborate (talking about Sloane Sq being "plagued by homosexuals" !!!), so its hard to accept that you aren't simply making them up to either satisfy your prejudices or deliberately mislead others.

You also seem to have confused Britain with Holland, because the public toilet controversy happened there, not here. There was something of this nature in Amsterdam, but this did not involve Tatchell or Labour.

Both cases are completely irrelevant to the discussion here, because you have misattributed both incidents to people who weren't involved in them, and have nothing to do with what we were talking about. If you aren't fabricating news items, then you seem to be very confused about what you actually saw.

In general, the pattern of disinformation you are presenting is typical of people who try to skew a discussion using half-truths and omissions. You don't have to be blunt about it for your prejudices to still be obvious to others. If you don't want to be treated as a troll, stop acting like one.

''An incident like this would have surely been reported in multiple news sources. When was it? What channel did you see it on? When I say there is no record, I mean none, and there are always records of these things. If you truly believe you saw it, is it possible you confused a few different news stories and somehow imagined Tatchell being involved in them? The story you gave us is pretty elaborate (talking about Sloane Sq being "plagued by homosexuals" !!!), so its hard to accept that you aren't simply making them up to either satisfy your prejudices or deliberately mislead others.''

Guess what???...I don't keep a log book of how many news items I have seen, or how long ago they were. The item was not recent, but nor was it in the dim and distant past. The news item also included an interview with either the Duke or Duchess of Westminster. They own most of the land in London....at least that sort of land.

I am not in the habit of becoming confused about my facts!!! So please do not insult me, by trying to suggest this. I find it laughable, that you should even suggest that I have mixed together quite a few news items I have seen and then attached Mr Tatchell to them.

I did not say that Sloane Square had been plagued by homosexuals, at least not in the way you are suggesting. It was something that was causing the residents a problem. You may not think that they should have any right to feel as if they had a problem, but this they did.

''so its hard to accept that you aren't simply making them up to either satisfy your prejudices or deliberately mislead others.''

Once again....you insult me and make assumptions about me. Please do not try to tell me what I think or believe and how dare you, once again, insult me further, by trying to suggest that I am trying to mislead people.

Are you trying to tell me that because I am heterosexual, I cannot possibly have a valid view point. If so, then you do your fellow bisexuals, a great disservice. This is not some private island, club or enclave. It is a public forum and I added my views. I was not rude and I did not insult. Please do not insult me!!!

''You also seem to have confused Britain with Holland, because the public toilet controversy happened there, not here. There was something of this nature in Amsterdam, but this did not involve Tatchell or Labour.''

I am not confusing the UK with Holland. I have never even heard of their being any such controversy in Holland. We have had a Labout Government for the past 12 years. I think you would have been 23 when they were voted into office.....or as is said in the study of the British Constitution...the Conservative Party were voted out of office!

''Both cases are completely irrelevant to the discussion here, because you have misattributed both incidents to people who weren't involved in them, and have nothing to do with what we were talking about. If you aren't fabricating news items, then you seem to be very confused about what you actually saw.''

I was posting about Tatchell. You must be very fond of the fellow, to keep defending him so and insulting me. The thread is about ''Real Queer Heroes'' and I was pointing out that I do not believe him to be a heroe of any sort. Therefore whatever I, personally post...is relevant. Don't tell me that it isn't!!!

I do not fabricate stories. I have had to suffer at the hands of someone who does that and I have no time for liars. Do not insult me. I am not confused....so please do not keep telling me that I am. You are an extremely arrogant person to keep saying such things.

And, pray tell me....who decides what is relevant or irrelevant to a dicussion??

''In general, the pattern of disinformation you are presenting is typical of people who try to skew a discussion using half-truths and omissions. You don't have to be blunt about it for your prejudices to still be obvious to others. If you don't want to be treated as a troll, stop acting like one.''

Once again....another paragraph of insults. I have not put forward any disinformation and I have most certainly not tried to use half truths.

I would very much like you to tell me and others, just what my prejudices are...the ones which are so obvious.

It seems that in your eyes...anyone who does not agree with you or with anyone else on the forum, must be a Troll. This is depsicable behaviour and from someone I suppose would like the site to think of as an intelligent, tolerant person.

Disgraceful!!

[BrotherJack]

Oh....I would like to correct myself and admit that I did get something wrong.........Tatchell's place of birth.......Australia...not Zimbabwe.

I'm not going to trawl through years of news items. I do have a real time life to lead and a very stressful one (and No, that does not cloud my thinking). I know what I saw and I know what I remember.

Just don't tell me that I am confused, trying to mislead or anything of that ilk!! I'm not a liar and I don't need to tell stories. I'm not suffering from dementia, so my memories about certain things are quite clear.

And don't tell me what my prejudices are, because you have absolutely no idea what I believe in, or what I think is wrong, or right or moral......except for lying. I abhor liars!

[Doggiestyle]

:bigrin: Dammmmmmmm Meta Sexual 2. You screwed up and lit a fuse that cannot be put out. All we can do now is wait and let the "big bang" theory play it's self out. :yikes2:

Sorry for all the trouble you caused yourself. :rolleyes: Your friend, :doggie:..............:bipride:

[MetaSexual2]

BJ - The events you stated above did not happen in reality, but were presented as truly happening. Therefore they are either deliberate fabrications or they are delusions. This is not an insult, this is simply the way things are. You have repeatedly said you are not a liar. If this is so, it leaves us with only one conclusion.

DS - What trouble? ;)

[BrotherJack]

BJ - The events you stated above did not happen in reality, but were presented as truly happening. Therefore they are either deliberate fabrications or they are delusions. This is not an insult, this is simply the way things are. You have repeatedly said you are not a liar. If this is so, it leaves us with only one conclusion.

DS - What trouble? ;)


''Read my lips''.......or you'd be able to if this was web cam contact. I am not stupid and I do not imagine things. I saw the news items I mentioned and they are not deliberate fabrications or delusions. You have insulted my integrity and I can assure you that the people I know tell me that I am a person with integrity and someone to be trusted. I consider that an honour, when people feel that way about one. It is not ''simply the way things are,'' and I am not wrong. I don't like Tatchell and never have, but it has nothing to do with his sexuality. It has nothing to do with him being an Autralian either...or a man....or anything else...apart from the fact that I think he jumps on every goddamn bandwagon he can.

I'm not a liar and never have been. In the past three years I have had to suffer someone lying to me and it's not a nice feeling.

Why do you say ''it leaves us with only one conclusion''.......if you are writing this as as an individual???.....and what is that conclusion?? You may think that this is fun.....trying to shoot down or insult me...and I have my own ideas as to why that should be......but I have been polite....I have posted in a serious manner. Do not mock me.

You have also not addressed my question to you, about what my ''prejudices,'' are. Perhaps you would do me the courtesy of answering. I posted my opinion. I have a right to have my opinion, just as you have and your last comment to Doggiestyle was childish and one should expect more maturity from a man of your age.

[MetaSexual2]

BJ - The events you spoke of never happened. This isn't a matter of opinion, its a plain fact which anyone can go check for themselves.

The fabrication of an incident in which people are "plagued by homosexuals" and twisting age of consent issues by framing them with the statement that its about allowing "... boys of 14 to be indulging in homosexual relations with older men" belie a prejudice so obvious that I don't think we have to explain it.

The enjoyment of seeing truth win out over falsehood is not an immature impulse.

[Long Duck Dong]

brotherjack..... catch this

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Peter_Tatchell?t=3.

n 1996 Tatchell led an OutRage! campaign to reduce the age of consent to 14 to adjust for studies which showed nearly half of all young people - gay and straight - had their first sexual experiences prior to 16 years old and to counter them from being "treated as criminals by the law". [33] The campaign positioned there should be no prosecution at all if the difference between the ages of the sexual partners was no more than three years - and providing it is backed up by earlier, more effective sex education in schools. [33] He was quoted in the OutRage! press release as saying "Young people have a right to accept or reject sex, according to what they feel is appropriate for them". [34] Leo McKinstry, in The Sun called it "a perverts' charter". [35] Tatchell in the Irish Independent on 10 March 2008 repeated his call for a lower age of consent to end the criminalisation of young people engaged in consenting sex and to remove the legal obstacles to upfront sex education, condom provision and safer sex advice. In the early 1990s, he supported a relaxation in the then strict laws against pornography, arguing that porn can have some social benefits, and he has criticised the body-shame phobia against nudism, suggesting that nudity is natural and may even be healthy for society. This was in keeping with explicit safer-sex materials including two books Tatchell later wrote on the subject.

[BrotherJack]

BJ - The events you spoke of never happened. This isn't a matter of opinion, its a plain fact which anyone can go check for themselves.

The fabrication of an incident in which people are "plagued by homosexuals" and twisting age of consent issues by framing them with the statement that its about allowing "... boys of 14 to be indulging in homosexual relations with older men" belie a prejudice so obvious that I don't think we have to explain it.

The enjoyment of seeing truth win out over falsehood is not an immature impulse.

YES THEY DID!!!!

I do not fabricate incidents or scenarios in my life. I will leave that to people who are much more able to feel that lying, as a way of life, is an OK thing to do!!!

If I express myself in the English language to which you have become unnacustomed to hearing or reading, that is your misfortune and not mine.

To the people living in Sloane Square, encountering males engaged in sexual activity, in what was a garden, and on a regular basis, did become to fell like ''being plagued.'' To be ''plagued,'' also means to be troubled, anoyed, inundated,....etc etc etc.....One can think of many different directions the word could go in.

''twisting age of consent issues by framing them with the statement that its about allowing "... boys of 14 to be indulging in homosexual relations with older men" belie a prejudice so obvious that I don't think we have to explain it''

So....how am I twisting age of consent issues, when I write about an interview with Tatchell, where he talked about the age of consent being reduced to 14. What is the prejudice, which is apparently so obvious. Dare you not speak it's name, incase I accuse you of libellous words.

You are expecting me to explain myself....so why should I not expect you to explain yours.

I'm no coward and I am also no hater of people. You are just trying to make more of my original post, than had been intended.....an opinion and a remembering of certain things Tatchell has said in interviews. If I really wanted to invent stories, I think I could do a lot better than invent one, where Tatchell made a suggestion, that a shrubbery enclave could be planted in a London, communal garden in a square!!!

I'm heterosexual....so what!!! You're bisexual....so what!!! My opinions on certain aspects of heterosexual sexual behaviour and some of the people who would think it OK for children to indulge in certain behaviour...or that adults should act in a certain way....can be just as outspoken. What is it you want......the heterosexual, shrinking violet, to go and sit in the corner and not say a word!!! Cos...gee...that's not how this woman operates!!!

I have a very good memory! I am an inteligent person! I don't lie and I don't make up stories. I have read the 250 plus fantasy stories written in posts, on this very site, by someone I know well. They are enough in the way of fairy tales, to sicken me...because I don't like liars!

State what my prejudices are.......I think it's called put up or shut up. I'm not in fear of anything you may write, but I guess that is because I am an honourable person!!!

''The enjoyment of seeing truth win out over falsehood is not an immature impulse.''

I don't deal in falsehood!!! I live in the real world. I have raised three children and I have had to care about and worry about them, as a parent does. Strangely enough, they seem to have turned out to be pretty decent people, who would not walk by, on the other side of the road, should they see someone needing help. They also know that the truth is what sets us free and without the truth, we are all nothing.

[BrotherJack]

brotherjack..... catch this

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Peter_Tatchell?t=3.

n 1996 Tatchell led an OutRage! campaign to reduce the age of consent to 14 to adjust for studies which showed nearly half of all young people - gay and straight - had their first sexual experiences prior to 16 years old and to counter them from being "treated as criminals by the law". [33] The campaign positioned there should be no prosecution at all if the difference between the ages of the sexual partners was no more than three years - and providing it is backed up by earlier, more effective sex education in schools. [33] He was quoted in the OutRage! press release as saying "Young people have a right to accept or reject sex, according to what they feel is appropriate for them". [34] Leo McKinstry, in The Sun called it "a perverts' charter". [35] Tatchell in the Irish Independent on 10 March 2008 repeated his call for a lower age of consent to end the criminalisation of young people engaged in consenting sex and to remove the legal obstacles to upfront sex education, condom provision and safer sex advice. In the early 1990s, he supported a relaxation in the then strict laws against pornography, arguing that porn can have some social benefits, and he has criticised the body-shame phobia against nudism, suggesting that nudity is natural and may even be healthy for society. This was in keeping with explicit safer-sex materials including two books Tatchell later wrote on the subject.


Not sure if you wrote this as a support to what i had said, or the opposite. Looking at the link and the list of so many different things Tatchell has been involved in, it makes me even more convinced, that he likes to jump upon almost any band wagon.

I don't read the Irish Independent....I'm not Irish!...and I would most certainly, never read a tabloid newspaper uch as The Sun. It's not a news paper. It's a page three girl paper, usually full of a crock of shit.

It's very easy for someone like Tatchell to go on about sexual rights of 14 year old boys......but has he ever been a parent. He may have been a 14 year old at some point, but he has not raised children, of wither sex.

There are some people in the UK who still believe that the homosexual age of consent, for males, should not have been lowered, because boys mature later than females. Please don't tell me that they don't, because it's a well known fact that they do......and no......I ain't gonna produce any written proof!! It's something most people, generally agree upon. I don't know whether or not I agreed with the age of consent being lowered.......but I certainly believe that it cannot be lowered beyond 16 and I'm not even sure if 16 is old enough with most boys. I guess it depends upon the individual.

A 14 year old is a child, no matter how sensible or mature the individual may be and they have to be protected. If you decriminalise one thing, then where does it stop? Worth thinking about!

[softfruit]

See, I was going to write something long that would have started with

Gosh, so you're saying the age of consent probably shouldn't have been lowered. Now, let's be honest here and call it equalised since that helps remind us that the people who were against that equalisation didn't give a fig when young people actually start having sex and were really trying to prevent young men from getting access to information and support so they could make informed choices about their bodies.

So, you're saying the age of consent should not have been equalised because boys at 16 are not mature enough to know whether they want to have sex with another 16 year old boy, but are mature enough to make babies with all the rest-of-their-life commitment that entails.

And then I might have gone into a whole thread about how the peddlers of hatred, bigotry and prejudice are so fond of this idea that teenage lads of legal age would immediately jump into bed with older men, not other teenagers, even though who is it they fancy again? Oh yes, they fancy other teenagers...

But then I noticed the way that none of the replies from BrotherJack in the thread recognised or responded to any substantive points made to hir, and realised: long postings, spurious tangents, random homophobia and biphobia -- this is such an obvious TROLL.


...yer out.

[softfruit]

So back to the original thread:


Thanks for that SWCube.

I highlighted Tatchell, as he has done lots of good work, but he gets to go free because of his status and British consular pressure. Good on him for going back for another beating and using his status to draw attention to the problems in Russia. Lets also not forget those poor Russian campaigners who are probably still sitting in jail and being subjected to who knows what kind of treatment. They have no voice whatsoever in the political machinery of Russia and so this was one of their few chances to get their message out to the wider world.

Quite. But the benefit of people like Peter going there, or the various MEPs like Marco Cappatto who have done the same thing, is that the international media will pay much more attention and so more international pressure is brought to bear to effect change. Given how hard it was just a few years ago to get a gay pride march in the UK reported in the UK press, the focus that has been brought on the issues of LGBT equality abroad is impressive.

So I guess I just nominated Marco Cappatto, Italian Radical Party MEP, as another hero on the same basis: and so far as I know, he ain't even queer! :flag4:

[Long Duck Dong]

it was neutral, brotherjack....just a lil back up that I found while looking for something else

I was trying to find some info about the AMBLA ( american man boy love association ) and their push to have the age of consent lowered in nz to allow for men to sleep with younger boys, ...it was a fav for a friend for their uni projection...and I found that....so i thought that it would help ya ......

my first reaction was simply, * jesus fucking christ, lets let the kids be kids and grow up....not push them to have sex.... *

I do understand that some boys are aware of their sexuality around that age and safe in their knowledge, but others are curious.... need to experiment... but having the age of consent at 16 or what eva it is... can give them added protection under the law......should things go wrong.....

I did notice in reading about peter tatchell, that it would appear that he was outed while trying to become a MP, and joining with outrage was a way to * fight back *.....

personally, I do not beleive that all homosexuals, have to be homosexual rights supporting....we should be free to decide our own choices, without the pressure of if you are bi, you must be pro bi, if you are les, you must be pro les, if you are gay, you must be pro gay....and again, looking at peter tatchell, I formed the opinion, that he was not out to bring people out of the closet, but working to take down people he believed, should be pro gay, since they may have been gay behind closed doors

again, I am of the opinion that if people are out, they are out, if they are not, they are not..... but if we move to bring them out... its for our own personal self gratification.... and we can destroy people in the process

but that gets forgotten if peter tatchell flies overseas to stir up issues and get punched in the face.... cos that makes him a hero........ in some peoples eyes

[BrotherJack]

See, I was going to write something long that would have started with

Gosh, so you're saying the age of consent probably shouldn't have been lowered. Now, let's be honest here and call it equalised since that helps remind us that the people who were against that equalisation didn't give a fig when young people actually start having sex and were really trying to prevent young men from getting access to information and support so they could make informed choices about their bodies.

So, you're saying the age of consent should not have been equalised because boys at 16 are not mature enough to know whether they want to have sex with another 16 year old boy, but are mature enough to make babies with all the rest-of-their-life commitment that entails.

And then I might have gone into a whole thread about how the peddlers of hatred, bigotry and prejudice are so fond of this idea that teenage lads of legal age would immediately jump into bed with older men, not other teenagers, even though who is it they fancy again? Oh yes, they fancy other teenagers...

But then I noticed the way that none of the replies from BrotherJack in the thread recognised or responded to any substantive points made to hir, and realised: long postings, spurious tangents, random homophobia and biphobia -- this is such an obvious TROLL.


...yer out.


What is it you want? Someone to agree with you and post the way you would like people to post? Is that it?

I don't agree with anyone....just to make everything find and dandy and cosy, because that is not a truthful and honourable way to go about things.

What I have moticed on this forum, is that if anyone dares to argue with what some see as right and truthful and their opinion and shouldn't be challenged, then one is called a troll. I am not a troll, which is a very Internet and rather boring and immature term in itself.

I am a human being....I am heterosexual (got a problem with that?????.....because I see lots of heterophobia in your writings), I am a mother and I am intelligent enough to take an interest in the world around me. I have views...which I air....should I hide them and therefore become less of a thinking and feeling person.

Well should I???????????????

''Gosh, so you're saying the age of consent probably shouldn't have been lowered. Now, let's be honest here and call it equalised since that helps remind us that the people who were against that equalisation didn't give a fig when young people actually start having sex and were really trying to prevent young men from getting access to information and support so they could make informed choices about their bodies.''

I did not say that the age of consent shouldn't have been lowered! D onot put words into my mouth, that I did not utter!! I was not talking about females, where the age of consent has been, for many many decades 16. I was talking about boys! Therefore I did not refer to the age of consent being equalised.

Don't tell me what to post, or how to express myself. I am not you and would never dream of doing the same thing to you. How you word your posts is up to you, but do not put words, or ideas, or feelings, or beliefs, into my posts, which I have not expressed myself.

Who are you...or any of us to say that those who fought against the lowering of the age of consent, for males, did not give a damn. Are you privy to their thoughts? Some people may have been genuine in their concern, some may have gone along with religious or political thinking and some may have been people, a little like Tatchell, who just wanted to get into the fray, so that they would become more well known.

''didn't give a fig when young people actually start having sex and were really trying to prevent young men from getting access to information and support so they could make informed choices about their bodies.''

I think that this statement, is an insult to all the people who were genuinely concerned about young people. Very genuinely concerned. It's almost as if you are saying that ''whatever we want, we should have.'' Life doesn't work like that and laws cannot be passed, with just a click of the fingers. This decision...to lower the age of consent for males, was not a subject to be taken lightly. All views had to be heard...the for and the against.

''So, you're saying the age of consent should not have been equalised because boys at 16 are not mature enough to know whether they want to have sex with another 16 year old boy, but are mature enough to make babies with all the rest-of-their-life commitment that entails.''

I did not say that the age of consent for males should not have been lowered.....

Many young men and women will experiment with same sex relationships and go on to lead comepletely heterosexual lives. It has nothing to do with whether or not boys of 16 are mature enough to make the decision, that they do actually understand what their sexuality is. Many may know what their sexuality is and others may be very confused. This is not a case of things being in black and white......

Yes....a 16 year old can....with the help of a girl......create a baby and have a life long commitment. Sometimes the two people will actually stay together and I know many such cases....but all too often the state has to support these young people. It's easy for most couples to make a baby.......looking after that child....raising it in a stable environment....a totally different matter!!

''And then I might have gone into a whole thread about how the peddlers of hatred, bigotry and prejudice are so fond of this idea that teenage lads of legal age would immediately jump into bed with older men, not other teenagers, even though who is it they fancy again? Oh yes, they fancy other teenagers...''

Where have I peddled hatred, bigotry and prejudice. I have done no such thing. Just because I do not share your enthusiasm for someone like Peter Tatchell, does not mean I am a bigot, or full of hatred and prejudice.

I have spoken to many people in private in the chat room...very intelligent people and I have states the sort of person I am. I would fight for anyone to have the right to live how they wish, worship how they wish, disbelieve what they wish, as long as those things did not harm others in any way.

I find the last part of your paragraph ludicrous. We have laws to protect the innocent and those who cannot look after themselves properly. We need those laws. Nothing was mentioned any particular age group jumping into bed with one another, or fancying one another.

I am not going to post....what you want to hear. I will post what I think and believe...or have an opinion about.

''But then I noticed the way that none of the replies from BrotherJack in the thread recognised or responded to any substantive points made to hir, and realised: long postings, spurious tangents, random homophobia and biphobia -- this is such an obvious TROLL.''

Once again...I will state....I post what I want...not what others would wish me to post.

If my posts are too long for you....don't read them! I write....I write a lot. I am not going to precis everything, just for you!

Inform me of my ''spurious tangents''

Inform me where I was homophobic!

Inform me where I was biphobic!

You accuse me of being a troll, because I dare to think for myself and write what I want to write. How dare you!

This is a public forum where all sexualities are supposed to be welcome. I have not insulted anyone. I have not called anyone rude names. Yet yo and Metasexual, have both insulted me and accused me of things I have not done. How dare you!

[Long Duck Dong]

I better make my stance of age of consent clear......

in NZ, its 16 for males and females, equally....in a country where you can drive legally at 15, drink and vote at 18, leave home with parental consent at 16, marry at 16 with parental consent..... and have a kid at 13-14 and really screw up the rest of your life and get government benefit payments at 18..( 16 if you are not living at home )

gay teens face less risk of pregnancy, but more risk of society outcasting....as teens and peer pressure is a volatile mix, and thats not adding in the parental reactions that can be so severe for the kids

now imagine a child coming out at 14 as gay or getting caught in bed with another teen, in a home with homo phobic parents....

in nz, a teen at 16 can get a benefit for teens at risk, not living at home....a teen of 14 doesn't have that... and yes i know of a couple of teens thrown out of home for various reasons, with no means of support.....

when we play games with teens lives, we could be setting them up for issues that could affect the rest of their lives... adversely for some..... but when people like peter tatchell advocate the lowering of the age of consent to 14..... are they looking at the support network for teens that would be at risk...and I am not talking about sex ed or lgbt support groups..... I am talking about at home, in the family home.... with the parents and the rest of the family.... where the issue of homophobia is a possiblity and very real.....and could tear a family apart....

the same risk exists regardless of the age of consent.... and so does sexual curiosity.....and yes so do the risks..... but its teens lives that are in our hands..... we need to stop playing mr hero of the LGBT community and look and listen to the people affected by issues like this.... the teens....

[MetaSexual2]

I better make my stance of age of consent clear......

LDD - the position you are taking here is about as clear as mud. Consent issues are not about LBGT teen support networks or coming out at all, and they are not specific to the queer community. Painting it in this light is a tactic frequently used by homophobic groups to generate fear of homosexual behaviour in teens. It also has very little to do with the topic of the thread.

Children or teens can "come out" at any age regardless of sexual activity, and it is perfectly legal for them to do so. If families withdraw support because of this, there is a discussion about legal rights to be had, but that is completely separate to the consent issue.

Arguing for lowering the age of IS about deciding when we think the "norm" is in terms of a teenager's reasoning ability to decide when they can consent to sex (particularly with other teens of a similar age). The mental development of teens is highly variable from individual to individual, and so this is a very tricky business.

Saying that our opinion of Tatchell should be less because he argued for a slightly lower age of consent (for all teens, not just queer teens) doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[MetaSexual2]

Another addition to the list of people doing good things within the queer community... Michael Guest. The first openly gay ambassador in the US State Dept who resigned in 2007 in protest of Sec. Rice's stance on benefits for employees with same-sex partners. Guest was part of Obama's transition team , and was at the point of the spear for arguing for equalising of benefits within State.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/04/michael-guest/

[Long Duck Dong]

LDD - the position you are taking here is about as clear as mud. Consent issues are not about LBGT teen support networks or coming out at all, and they are not specific to the queer community. Painting it in this light is a tactic frequently used by homophobic groups to generate fear of homosexual behaviour in teens. It also has very little to do with the topic of the thread.

Children or teens can "come out" at any age regardless of sexual activity, and it is perfectly legal for them to do so. If families withdraw support because of this, there is a discussion about legal rights to be had, but that is completely separate to the consent issue.

Arguing for lowering the age of IS about deciding when we think the "norm" is in terms of a teenager's reasoning ability to decide when they can consent to sex (particularly with other teens of a similar age). The mental development of teens is highly variable from individual to individual, and so this is a very tricky business.

Saying that our opinion of Tatchell should be less because he argued for a slightly lower age of consent (for all teens, not just queer teens) doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

pardon ???????? where did I say it was specific to the gay community ....
....oh I never...... I was refering to the issue..... that peter tatchell was addressing..... the age of consent and the gay teens..... cos its peter tatchell that wanted the legal age of consent dropped for gay sex .....
you know peter tatchell ??? he is your hero and I was addressing something he said

I was making the point that we are quick to refer to gay pride, LGBT support etc etc.... but the real issue for teens is teens themselves and peer pressure, plus a teens parents and their reactions........and in the event that it all turns to shit.....when is the support for the teen..??? and why is peter tatchell not addressing that aspect of issues for teens, instead of focusing on lowering the legal age of consent for sex......


we all know that there is the issue of teen pregnancy.... lowering the age of consent, will not change that.... it will just make it legal for 14 year olds to have sex, if it was a equal rule across the board.... but again... where is the support

peter tatchell is a hero for the LGBT for going over seas to get punched in the face ......

what about the heros that work tirelessly without praise or thanks, helping the LGBT and straight teens pick up the pieces..... the ones that are too busy helping others, to stand on the front line in foreign countries......I am talking about the heroes that never get mentioned cos nobody knows about them.... yet they are the ones we all need to know about...cos they are the ones that help the lost teens.....

nods yeah... the LGBT teens, that believe in the message we send to them about its good to be out and proud, in the face of teens and peer pressure, and possible family rejection....... and we hold up a couple of names as LGBT heroes ....... and where are the names of the support and help groups.. that are the true heroes, ...its all good to bring things to the international lime light.... but what is the name of the LGBT support group that going to aid the protestors...???? what is the name of your local teen support group and network ???????

that is my point....... and yeah... its based around lowering the age of consent for teens.....and something that peter tatchell never addressed

[MetaSexual2]

LDD - I think you are nitpicking this to death and you still aren't making your points very clearly...

pardon ???????? where did I say it was specific to the gay community ....
....oh I never...... I was refering to the issue..... that peter tatchell was addressing..... the age of consent and the gay teens..... cos its peter tatchell that wanted the legal age of consent dropped for gay sex .....
you know peter tatchell ??? he is your hero and I was addressing something he said

The Tatchell position on consent was not specific to gay teens, it was about ALL teens. The interviews and position papers are all still out there to be read, and their message is very clear. You seem to want to imply that what he said was specific to gay teens, and it simply wasn't.

The rest of your post seems to be suggesting that because OutRage! and Tatchell haven't made LBGT teen support their focus that we should judge the rest of their efforts unworthy of praise. By all means, please highlight those you think worthy of accolades rather than attempting to tear down others who also deserve praise.

[Long Duck Dong]

point one..... I never said that its isolated to gay teens....and I said that clearly..... peter tatchell refered to gay teens....IE remarked about gay teens.....I said we refer to LGBT teens, I did not say peter tatchell or outrage refered to lgbt teens....
outrage ??? I never refered to outrage in regards to teens.... I refered to peter tatchell.... I swear I refered to peter tatchell..... I am positive I said peter tatchell..... * checks back *... i did, I did, I said peter tatchell......I did not say outrage.....

I am known as a person that is neutral and often refer to people as a complete... not lgbt and the others.... hence I view teens as teens.... not lgbt teens and the others....




worthy of accolades ??? the unsung heroes, the nameless faceless people that work the youth support groups ( for all teens.... thats ALL ... as in EVERYBODY, not all as in gay only or lgbt ).,... they are the heroes, the true heroes.... they are saving countless lives, providing endless tissues and shoulders...etc etc etc...... sure I can not name them.... cos they are the nameless....... while peter tatchell is making his name by getting punched in the face....... the name less and face less true heroes, have no face.... as they are out there, comforting and supporting the LGBT / straight teens and community.... and making the largest impact that can be made..... that is the heroes I admire...... the ones that help clean up the mess....... not the ones that fly over seas to get punched in the face.....

peter tatchell wanted the legal age of consent changed..... but why is he not standing beside the teens that he was so vocal about...... and supporting the teens that need somebody ( like peter tatchell ) that is not afraid of a punch in the face, to rise the issue of the LGBT community.....

instead, he is in same foreign country, while many many people actually work hard to support the LGBT / heterosexual community

just to clear this up.....I am refering to the LGBT / heterosexual community as a whole...and equal..... teens, parents, families........ and no outrage is not mentioned in that..... ......... just to clear that bit up... cos I appear to be confusing you a lil....