Hi to everybody...before I begin this post, it's not an invitation for gay bashing. I want to know, along with other people, why gay men and women find it necessary to dress up in bizarre outfits and parade themselves in public? I don't understand why they should wish to do this, because I'm not wholly sure that it is doing them any favours amongst the heterosexual population who have fully accepted that they are part and parcel of our world now and perfectly entitled to live the way they wish...
Does anybody else feel this way or can explain to me why they feel the necessity to do this? It could be classified as fun, but I'm not sure it's having that effect on many people, and could be undoing many of the advances they have made in being accepted as having a life style of their choice.
I'm aware this post could open a can of worms, but I have stressed at the start of this post, it's not an invite to bash gays...it's a legitimate question as far as I am concerned and I hope to get some thoughtful responses.
Posts archive for: 8 July, 2009
-
Gay pride
@ 2009-07-08 – 13:24:06
-
Quangos
@ 2009-07-08 – 11:20:04
So Dave Cameron wants to cut down on Quasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental
Organisations.But how much money will that really save? -- possibly quite a lot.
I remembered and have dug out a TPA report that I read a while back.
There are 1,162 Quangos and Agencies costing £63 Billion in total.
yes, £63B apparently -- much more than I would have guessed at.
Quangos and Agencies employ 714,430 staff.
Here is the papaer: Unseen Government
http://tpa.typepad.com/home/files/080515_structure_of_government_1_unseen_government_amended.pdf -
Trouble Brewing Over Iran
@ 2009-07-08 – 10:49:41
These details shamelessly pillaged from another blog:
http://eastkurd.blog.co.uk/2009/07/08/u-s-military-chief-says-clock-ticking-on-iran-nuke-6470859/">
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The top U.S. military officer warned on Tuesday that time is running out for dialogue with Tehran to avoid either a nuclear-armed Iran or a possible military strike against the Islamic Republic...
Mullen noted that some forecasters believe Iran could be as little as a year away from developing a nuclear bomb...
Vice President Joe Biden said in an interview with ABC's "This Week" program on Sunday that Israel had a sovereign right to act in its best interest in dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions. The comment was seen by some as giving Israel a green light to attack"
This has all been building for some time now, but all the indications seem to be that Israel will shortly attack Iran, with American support.
The logic behind having Nukes has always been that it prevents people from attacking you. If you have a big stick then it's silly for someone to attack you with a little stick because you can use your big stick on them. Following this logic, if Iran had Nukes wouldn't that make future war less likely?
Of course, if Iran did have Nukes it would mean that the USA and Israel wouldn't be able to attack it or try and tell it what to do. They argue that the Iranian leaders are not to be trusted with Nukes because, after all, they are religious fundamendalists. Well excuse me, but couldn't you say that about both Israel and much of the USA too? And which is the only country that has ever Nuked another? Ah yes, it's the USA. Twice.
Tom.
Group avatar
