^
Trust Baldick to come in for a crack.
Fuker lives in Boystown and fuks soi dogs for a bit of a laugh .
Dumb fuk.
^
Trust Baldick to come in for a crack.
Fuker lives in Boystown and fuks soi dogs for a bit of a laugh .
Dumb fuk.
Terry, if you do have to cruise gay topics, at least try not to do so on a Saturday night !
It sort of implies your saturday nights aren't as edifying as one might expect from a debonair man about town !
Real men find it necessary to engaged continuously along this subject matter....
I'd be happy if the foreign pervs who avail themselves of the impoverished kids of Patong and Pattaya sex districts were eliminated. Nothing is more repulsive than the large number of foreigners who come and bugger the kids and then return to their home countries ridiculing gays and discriminating against them.
Kindness is spaying and neutering one's companion animals.
I've never heard anyone glorify a bathhouse.
I have heard a significant number of farang men glorify Pattaya or Nana Plaza/Soi Cowboy/Patpong. They rhapsodise over it, change their lives to be able to visit on every holiday, move round the globe to be close to it.
"It's not like home ! There are girls there who aren't like the girls back home! They will have sex with me ! For money!!!!"
I knew one guy who called Pattaya, 'my beloved Patters'.....as if it were his cat.
Didn't take long we're moving away from the topic of men having sex with other men and on to a topic about men paying for sex with a woman.
Far from superficial Gay Friendly Thailand...which is just more useless dialogue dredged up by some gay agenda factory to promote gay topics in the news. You guys just don't get it. The more "in your face," the queer agenda is the more it projects its normalcy in society...Like the Gay marriage issue that carries 0 interest by 99.9% of society globally, yet is forever spread all over the news like its something people actually care about.
Normal people don't go about sticking their dicks in other men's asses now do they folks? Lets take it a bit further, normal men don't go about swallowing other mens dicks and sperm either. On a final note, normal men don't want to "marry," another man.
Face it queer nation is a farce trying to reinforce their abnormal behaviors. You can pass any laws you want, but plugging your buddy isn't normal or acceptable practice in 99.9% of the real world.
Can these people actually state to the reality of the majority, that they are "normal?" Silly fuckers.
Sorry LTNT, lets get away from the subject of Thai women and heterosexual Thai nightlife, and get back to the subject you prefer to focus on this sunday morning, men having sex with men.
Art critic Brian Sewell is in accord with your observation. He thinks that the energy spent on promoting gay marriage could have been expended on a quieter integration into mainstream society....I think he is right.
Brian Sewell: 'Why I’m no convert to gay marriage’
As the first same-sex weddings take place, a leading art critic argues that campaigners for equality have picked the wrong battle
Brian Sewell believes marriage is a sacrament that is not relevant to homosexual couples
By Brian Sewell
I am queer – an old-fashioned term with which I am more comfortable than gay, which seems a silly and unsuitable word for my predicament. I have always been queer – my first enlightenment when I was eight. I have never lied about it, never denied it, but I did learn to dissemble, which is why I think of it as a predicament, a menacing situation.
At school, 70 years ago, it hardly mattered until we were in the Upper Sixth and authority was thrust on some of us, but National Service would have been impossible had the Army known – and it was while I was in the Army that I was made terrifyingly aware of what could happen were I ever foolish enough to be open about my homosexuality. Sixty years ago, on March 24 1954, the 20th century’s most notorious trial for homosexuality concluded with the imprisonment of Lord Montagu, his cousin Michael Pitt-Rivers and his friend Peter Wildeblood.
The offence was, of course, homosexual activity, but the trial was conducted so obviously from the high moral ground of bigotry and prejudice that homosexuality itself was in the dock, reason, common sense and natural justice abandoned, the letter of the law triumphant. The severity of the punishment, however – the notoriety and disgrace that ripped apart family and friends as tough to bear as the months in gaol – had unexpected consequences. It proved to be the tipping point into a long and very slow change in the attitudes of society that, six full decades later and almost to the day, gives homosexual men and lesbian women the legal right to enter into marriages.
It is a right that I deplore. Ridiculing ignorance, false assumption and blind bigotry, I have quietly done my share of campaigning for equality – for equality of opportunity to live my life as I wish, and for other homosexuals to find employment in the Armed Forces and the police, in law, medicine and education, even in the press, some areas of which are as residually homophobic as the football field.
Change has been glacially slow, but it is now possible for men to live together without much arching of eyebrows, and it is almost unremarkable for an MP to be openly queer; even QCs and captains of industry have publicly dipped their toes in the water, and we accept the ordination of queer priests, though squeamishly (and unrealistically) requiring them to be chaste in thought as well as deed.
Thus the recent institution of civil partnerships seemed to be the final necessary reform, giving homosexuals the right to inherit each other’s property, just as may a man and his wife; and if they want a family, there is now no barrier to their adopting children – in the case of homosexual men, so long in error bundled together with paedophiles and pederasts, an astonishing recognition of moral responsibility.
Why, then, do they and lesbians demand the right to marry? Indeed, how many of us have made that demand? One in 20? One in 10? Most of us – and certainly the generations for whom, when they were young, any expression of homosexuality, no matter how trivial, was outside the law and “pretty policemen” (the Met’s own term for them) were sent out to tempt and arrest the unwary – are content with civil partnerships and have not pleaded for gay marriage. But every minority has within it a core of single-issue politicians and protesters who are never satisfied and always ask for more, and homosexuals, both male and female, are no exception.
It is this noisy nucleus that demanded gay marriage and, seeing a handful of votes in it, David Cameron announced his support. Nick Clegg is in favour because he is a Liberal Democrat. Even Tony Blair, a newly devout Roman Catholic, declared his “strong support”. Have they between them one single logical, reasonable or theological argument? Did any one of them consult a quieter voice before they surrendered to the camp hysteria of clowns demanding the right to dress in funny old clothes and have another party?
What is the marriage of two men or two women other than a public declaration of their partnership, a natural, secular and universal institution almost as old as civilisation? What, then, are the differences between marriage and a civil partnership? None, if they take place before a registrar in a register office or other authorised setting; only if Christianity is involved is there any distinction.
Ever since puritanical St Paul was converted two millennia ago, Christian theologians, troubled by the pleasure associated with sexual conjugation, have debated the nature of marriage, eventually, some 1,200 years ago, declaring it to be a Sacrament.
Defined by the Church of England, this country’s established state church, its bishops appointed by royal assent, a sacrament is “an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us, ordained by Christ himself, as a means by which we receive the same [spiritual grace]”. By this token, marriage within the Church of England becomes, above all other considerations, a sacramental ritual.
In Britain, we still have an essentially Christian society. We may not be much given to worshipping in church unless at Christmas, we may not know what distinguishes a Catholic from a Protestant or an Anglican from a non-Conformist, but whether our political views are to the Left or Right, our society is rooted in the Christian tradition that none should sleep, starve or die on the streets, that we all have responsibility for those less able than ourselves, and we hold the conviction that a compassionate welfare state is the mark of a well‑ordered society.
All this is an inheritance from the ancient virtues and philosophical abstractions of Christianity, themselves informed by the Old Testament and by ancient Greece and Rome – justice, fortitude, self-sacrifice, generosity, forgiveness, forbearance, prudence, probity – all neatly codified in the Seven Corporal Works of Mercy and the Seven Sacraments, and greatly expanded in the Catechism of the Book of Common Prayer in response to the question: “What is thy duty towards thy Neighbour?”
In the Works of Mercy we are exhorted to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, harbour the stranger, visit the sick, minister to prisoners and bury the dead – many duties that we now perform through Oxfam and other charitable agencies.
The Seven Sacraments have since the 12th century been rites that are performed or witnessed because we are devout and practising Christians – baptism, confirmation, eucharist, absolution, extreme unction, ordination and matrimony; these punctuate our lives from birth to death, reminding us at intervals of our spiritual nature, though, as with Christians, most have declined into obstinate custom or fallen away altogether.
The conventional marriage between a man and a woman now seems almost always to be an occasion of absurd extravagance, a white dress never to be worn again, toffs’ clothes previously worn by a thousand other sweating men, a white Rolls-Royce or two, food, drink, dancing and embarrassment, but it was not always so.
The service in the Book of Common Prayer imposes a severe spiritual dimension that was, without doubt, intended to constrain man’s sexual behaviour. Three purposes are ordained, of which two immediately make the marriage of two men (or women) preposterous. They are, in this order, the procreation of children, a remedy against fornication and sexual incontinence, and the mutual society, help and comfort of the two persons joined in matrimony.
As the procreation of children is hardly the remit of the homosexual and I have never encountered one (other than a priest) who sought a remedy against fornication, and the civil partnership caters for the mutual society and comfort, why on earth have we had all this ballyhoo about gay marriage?
Since the institution of civil partnerships there has been no impediment to their celebration with a party as extravagant as any wedding, but not all homosexuals are so exhibitionist. Most of us are content with what we now have within the law, and are happy to respect the deeply held belief of sincere, thoughtful and informed Christians for whom marriage is the one sacrament in which we cannot share.
We have wasted our resources on the wrong campaign – the battle still to be won is against prejudice, the most insidious of enemies.
Brian Sewell: 'Why I?m no convert to gay marriage? - Telegraph
Last edited by The Ghost Of The Moog; 25-01-2015 at 12:02 PM.
^More Gay agenda, just served up in a different manner. There's nothing about being Gay that's normal. Its not due to DNA, medical data, half cock births or pronouncements that go something like this: "I was born this way."
Frankly its a perversion nothing less. All perverts would really like normal society to believe that their perverted practice is normal, when even they know its not. Why else would they be trying to convince normal society that it is?
Extreme practices bring out the most extreme practitioners. This "fringe," element will do all it can do, to legitimize their perverted practices. In today's overtly legalese society, access to legal means to achieve even the most vile access to legalization of their disgusting practices.
Laws do not make the practice of perversion normal or acceptable, they simply say, you can do it because the law utilized, stretched to its absolute finite end says so.
Are homosexual practices acceptable to the normal aspects of society globally? Or are homosexual practices simply an abnormal practice within society that normal people pretty much find disgusting, but their government and their laws find these perverted practices to be protected under the guidelines of legal law.
This is not an action of approval, merely an action of a law being rendered and enforced until challenged again.
The Queer Nation wants a universal endorsement of their perversion. Nothing short of that and will use any means to achieve their goals. Being Gay is not normal. It is abnormal. Being a transsexual is not normal, or a Kateoy, nevertheless they exist as do homosexuals...no one is denying their existence or preventing them from practicing their activities in Thailand or for the most part anywhere in the world now are they?
What's the agenda? Conversion, no doubt about it.
Last edited by ltnt; 25-01-2015 at 02:15 PM.
Na mate,
I'm a day time sort of Person, Don't get around at night time, home early and up early.
Besides that lot, I live on Silom, Poov central. Poov's own the night.
I have no intention of getting raped by a Poov who is turned on by my handsomeness.
Thanks for your concern though.
^That's what its all about Terry. Keep it in the peoples face 24/7.
^
Actually I recon they have fuked up with their Queer rantings.
All they do is piss people off and turn people against their sick cause.
Rather shutting the fuk up is the way forward for them.
^"...I want to ask Obama is this what you want to bring to Africa, to get African mens to eat the poo poo?"
Part of the agenda... ridicule...no matter how true or disgusting.
Me thinks some folk protest too much.
^Read the Queer Nation Manifesto online and you'll get the message thaimeme, if not already...Louis Fairicon and the Nation of Islam have nothing on these guys. Even the Black Panther Part is small fries to these Queer Nations manifesto.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)