: What does any sexual relationship revolve around, Lark?: Sex.
Yes that is the basis of sexuality, the pursuit of sexual gratification, it's the same whatever way your doing it but heterosexuality or the weird varieties of sexuality, sadism, masochism etc. do not have active campaign bases and do not think that they must seriously advocate their lifestyle or seek to promote it until it's bloody sickening.
: As I've said, there are no measureable medical or psychological differences between homosexual and heterosexual relationships.
Yeah, I'm just of to the university Heterosexual club and society, oh yeah, that's right there isnt one!!
: The love between a gay couple is *exactly* the same as that between a straight couple; the *only* difference is the gender of one of the partners and the unlikeliness of reproduction.
Right, I'm not disputing this, however the majority of Gay relationships are based on nothing other than the impulse to sexual gratification, I know there are a lot of heterosexual relationships based on the same thing but I do not believe it is to the same extent, possibly this is because heterosexuality has never been prohibited but, hey, unless I'm wrong homosexuality isnt prohibited anymore either.
Was George Michael seeking a meaningful relationship when he commited an obscene homosexual act in the prescence of the US cop that nicked him?
: Lark, would you say that the defining heterosexual relationship is the drunken one-night-stand?; after all, in any given lifetime, you're likely to have far more one-nighters than you are long-term relationships.
However that is not a fair definition of my sexuality, my sexuality is not the defining point of my life either, I really wish I could say the same for homosexuals, then I'd live my life a little more peacefully.
: : now I refuse to generalise this isnt always the case but this is the message their media projects
: 'their media'? Lark, I can't exactly see you as a regular reader of the Pink Paper.
Yes, their media, the homosexual community is to a certain extent responsible for the virtual appartide they complain of.
: The mass media have, on the whole, a markedly heterosexual slant and a notable homophobic streak.
And the gay media do not organise similarly?
: : and they themselves project with their parades and covorting in public parks at night.
: What you're objecting to is the classic Clapham Common style 'duck into the bushes', yes?
Damn right, there are tracts of public land being flogged off to companies and next to nothing in NI because they have become no go zones for families or heterosexual citizens.
: Try examining *why* people go to Clapham Common.
Well, I'd see the point of that if they didnt have thier clubs, pubs etc. everywhere, or their papers etc. but no they are content to carry on as before perpetuating hatred of themselves and perceptions that homosexual = deviant.
: What is the purpose of going to a nightclub vis-a-vis sex, Lark? You go there to pull.
Well, I've socialised occasionally with friends where going on the pull hasnt featured.
: An unwelcome advance on a woman is likely to get you slapped at worst.
They can do worse than that, I've been there.
: An unwelcome advance on a homophobic man could land you in hospital or the nearest mortuary. Society as it currently stands is homophobic to the point of violence; gays are effectively marginalised; forced into a ghetto. That's what Clapham Common is; a ghetto; a place where gay people can be open about being gay without getting their heads kicked in.
It seems they are not really that keen on leaving the ghetto.
: While I personally would like this not to be the case (I would like to live in a society tolerant of differences), I can recognize that it isn't currently the case. So, if you want to ban public lewdness in places like Clapham Common; consider the analogous heterosexual restriction; shutting down every nightclub in the country.
Dont be stupid, people dont always go to clubs with sexual intent, this is exactly what I'm talking about homosexuality seems to be to be nothing more than frantic pursuit of sexual gratification, sex centricism whatever you wish to call it, it's profounding anti-social and you would prefer to defend it than realise this is a seperate issue than the struggle for a tolerant society.
: If society could permit public displays of homosexual affection, places like Clapham Common would disappear; they would have no further purpose - because you could be gay or straight and no-one would give a toss; even in a nightclub.
I find that hard to believe the Clapham Commons would multiply at an incredible rate, it might get to the stage where heterosexuality was considered odd and seeing as hetero-advocacy is seen as sexism there would be no reversing that process.
: : I would agree with you that socialists should err on the side of caution when it comes to declaring principles beyond social or economic spheres but we are seeking a good society, social order etc., and that requires suggesting to people that their behaviour is a bit selfish at times.
: Exactly what is selfish about love, Lark?
I've really lost you, your content to defend the most alienating and anti-social behaviour as prerequsities to 'liberation' and I suspect like a lot of people here you assume that my advocacy of heterosexuality, which is just a reaction to the prevailance of gay militancy, is sexism or phobic intolerance.
None.
