Crosswords12 mins ago
Are Lesbians More Acceptable Than Gay Men?
186 Answers
This person seems to think so, do you?
http://
/// "Yes, I would condemn him, because I believe that a real man must be a real man," she said. "God created man for procreation, it is the nature. The man for me is the support, the strength of... I won't accept a gay son." ///
/// She was quick to add that her views aren’t at odds with her previous work; lesbians are a more acceptable form of sexuality than gay men, she claims, because women are "aesthetically nicer". ///
http://
/// "Yes, I would condemn him, because I believe that a real man must be a real man," she said. "God created man for procreation, it is the nature. The man for me is the support, the strength of... I won't accept a gay son." ///
/// She was quick to add that her views aren’t at odds with her previous work; lesbians are a more acceptable form of sexuality than gay men, she claims, because women are "aesthetically nicer". ///
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Actually DB I think you are right because for all these years there has only been two genders as acceptable as 'normal'. Now that we are seeing what seems to be more and more third gender humans being born (for whatever reason) I think it really would help for it to be established that a third gender exists. Would taken years for acceptance but it would be a start methinks.
-- answer removed --
'' God created man for procreation, it is the nature.''
What the heck does she suppose God created woman for then? there can be no procreation without them as well.
Unless she means 'Man' in the sense of 'Mankind' which would make her statement even more ludicrous , as it would mean mankind was created for procreation alone which would rule out homosexuality of any form .
She is just a lesbian who additionally hates men.
What the heck does she suppose God created woman for then? there can be no procreation without them as well.
Unless she means 'Man' in the sense of 'Mankind' which would make her statement even more ludicrous , as it would mean mankind was created for procreation alone which would rule out homosexuality of any form .
She is just a lesbian who additionally hates men.
Wiki
Just before the recording of their third studio album "Dangerous and Moving", it was announced that Yulia was pregnant. This led to critics accusing the girls of being "fake", in regards to the impression they were lesbians, although Yulia and Lena have said in the past they are not "together" or "in a relationship".[75] The girls however do support the LGBT community.[76] Lena explained about the lesbian claims, saying that it wasn't "fun playing lesbians anymore."
Just before the recording of their third studio album "Dangerous and Moving", it was announced that Yulia was pregnant. This led to critics accusing the girls of being "fake", in regards to the impression they were lesbians, although Yulia and Lena have said in the past they are not "together" or "in a relationship".[75] The girls however do support the LGBT community.[76] Lena explained about the lesbian claims, saying that it wasn't "fun playing lesbians anymore."
DB...I have said that I would choose a straight child....but only because of the attitudes of some people.....and how warped are those attitudes!
The lesbians in my life/family have no problems and have never had to face the nastiness that the homosexuals do....
I can see now, from some of the posts on here, why that is...and that's a bit sick too.
Dunnitall suggests a third gender....I don't see the need for that....we are male and female and we fancy each other.....fall in love.....have a relationship....make each other happy...surely to god that should be enough without all this.... imagining... shuddering... titillation .... judging.....
I truly don't understand why two people who are caring for each other....being happy....loving and being loved.....should only be able to do so if heterosexuals say it's okay....x
The lesbians in my life/family have no problems and have never had to face the nastiness that the homosexuals do....
I can see now, from some of the posts on here, why that is...and that's a bit sick too.
Dunnitall suggests a third gender....I don't see the need for that....we are male and female and we fancy each other.....fall in love.....have a relationship....make each other happy...surely to god that should be enough without all this.... imagining... shuddering... titillation .... judging.....
I truly don't understand why two people who are caring for each other....being happy....loving and being loved.....should only be able to do so if heterosexuals say it's okay....x
-- answer removed --
divebuddy
I don't think that the comparison to handicapped children really works.
The reason is - if no-one in the world had a problem with gay people, if religious fundamentalists did not preach against them, if gay people were not attacked door being gay, and if gay teenagers didn't feel like freaks of nature (because of the attitudes of others), then being gay would be no more of an issue than being left handed.
All the issues that gay people face are external. This is not true of handicapped children, who would have difficulties even without any external locus of discrimination.
This is not the fault of parents. I can say with some certainty, that in the past people would have been upset at the prospect of having a gay son or daughter, because they knew how hard life would be for them.
As we trundle into the future, that will be less and less of an issue. I strongly suspect that we now have a generation of parents who wouldn't care if one of their kids were gay, as long as they had another to provide them with grandkids.
And as every woman knows, having a gay son is a major advantage as they grow older, because gay men know how to keep their mothers away from chiffon and backlighting.
I don't think that the comparison to handicapped children really works.
The reason is - if no-one in the world had a problem with gay people, if religious fundamentalists did not preach against them, if gay people were not attacked door being gay, and if gay teenagers didn't feel like freaks of nature (because of the attitudes of others), then being gay would be no more of an issue than being left handed.
All the issues that gay people face are external. This is not true of handicapped children, who would have difficulties even without any external locus of discrimination.
This is not the fault of parents. I can say with some certainty, that in the past people would have been upset at the prospect of having a gay son or daughter, because they knew how hard life would be for them.
As we trundle into the future, that will be less and less of an issue. I strongly suspect that we now have a generation of parents who wouldn't care if one of their kids were gay, as long as they had another to provide them with grandkids.
And as every woman knows, having a gay son is a major advantage as they grow older, because gay men know how to keep their mothers away from chiffon and backlighting.
-- answer removed --
gness/divebuddy
The one remaining issue that many (but not necessarily all) parents of gay kids face is the prospect of not having grandkids.
What I meant was, that as long as these parents could see grandkids as being part of their future, the prospect of gay kids would be less of an issue.
Also, I suspect that families where there are (say) two straight kids who are planning families and one gay kid who is not, then the fact that that child is gay is less of a problem for them.
This is only an opinion based on my knowledge of the family dynamics of friends. This is in no way 'an answer', just a theory.
There's something else which has changed over the past few years...gay people (especially gay men) have always been more likely to form very short term relationships. There was never any formal process to define who they were to their partners.
Now with the introduction of Civil Partnerships and marriage equality, we may now see the normalisation of long term gay partnerships/marriage. This will reduce the anxiety that many parents of gay people have - that ultimately, they will be lonely in old age without children and a partner.
Parents want the best for their kids. In the past, being gay was seen as an automatic ticket to a life of unhappiness and unfulfilment.
I'm almost certain that as time goes on, this will be less and less of an issue.
The one remaining issue that many (but not necessarily all) parents of gay kids face is the prospect of not having grandkids.
What I meant was, that as long as these parents could see grandkids as being part of their future, the prospect of gay kids would be less of an issue.
Also, I suspect that families where there are (say) two straight kids who are planning families and one gay kid who is not, then the fact that that child is gay is less of a problem for them.
This is only an opinion based on my knowledge of the family dynamics of friends. This is in no way 'an answer', just a theory.
There's something else which has changed over the past few years...gay people (especially gay men) have always been more likely to form very short term relationships. There was never any formal process to define who they were to their partners.
Now with the introduction of Civil Partnerships and marriage equality, we may now see the normalisation of long term gay partnerships/marriage. This will reduce the anxiety that many parents of gay people have - that ultimately, they will be lonely in old age without children and a partner.
Parents want the best for their kids. In the past, being gay was seen as an automatic ticket to a life of unhappiness and unfulfilment.
I'm almost certain that as time goes on, this will be less and less of an issue.
Wow..... 5 pages...... I'm with Old Geezer.... can I watch and wear plenty Lipstick.... ( For Scientific Research purposes only you realise)... ;0)
Seriously, live and let live, if that's the choice people make then let them carry on as long as they are doing no-one else any harm. I think getting steamed up about some small time celeb making a crass headline in a frankly pointless newspaper is a waste of time.
If my son came home and said he was gay, he'd still be my son.... why would I shun him because of his life choice
Seriously, live and let live, if that's the choice people make then let them carry on as long as they are doing no-one else any harm. I think getting steamed up about some small time celeb making a crass headline in a frankly pointless newspaper is a waste of time.
If my son came home and said he was gay, he'd still be my son.... why would I shun him because of his life choice
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
ChatterBank20 mins ago
Sick Note Culture Being Looked At.......
News59 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.