Trousers off for Women
May 26th, 2010, in News, by Patung
The wearing of trousers, jeans, or any tight clothing becomes illegal for women in West Aceh.
West Aceh (Aceh Barat) regency in the province of Aceh in trailblazing fashion has become the first administrative area to ban Muslim women from wearing any type of tight clothing, specifically jeans/pants/trousers.
Criminal
While in other parts of Aceh, where Islamic sharia law is fitfully and gradually being introduced, women are only required to at least cover their head hair and not to flaunt their womanly shapes, West Aceh has seized the day in specifically banning jeans.
Caught
Roadblocks and patrols will be carried out, with the local government preparing 20,000 long flowing skirts to be distributed to women caught in violation of the law. Offenders will be required to change into the skirts on the spot, with their jeans being confiscated.
Offenders will also have their names taken down, and on their third offence will be taken into detention.
Under the new law, coming into force on 26th May 2010, shops and traders will also be forbidden from selling women’s jeans and trousers.
Regent Ramli Mansyur admits the regulation is controversial, but that it is a necessary part of the application of Islamic law.
As a leader I have to implement this law because in the hereafter I will be held responsible for my actions on Earth, and I will be held responsible by society.
He says, in a democratic spirit, that all elements of society support the new law, in majority terms. okezone
265 Comments on “Trousers off for Women”
-
Odinius says:
Ross said,
Except to illustrate your hang-ups against anti-communism
Isn’t anti-communism, by its nature, a hang-up about communism? You’re engaging in mental gymnastics, Ross.
…and by the way, there’s a gulf of difference between not liking something and actively trying to stop its practice by others. If you can find a point where Oigal said that evangelical Christians shouldn’t be allowed to practice their faith freely, then I’ll accept that it’s a similar prejudice to the one you’re displaying towards homosexuals.
-
Ross says:
Aaah, a calm critic! A welcome change from Oigal’s histrionics. Well, Odinius, he certainly needs you to come onto the field, as he hasn’t had much sensible to say.
I have already promised to search out and post some homo info for Oigal besok, so don’t really want to rake though Oigal’s inumerable rants against traditionalist Christians. What I said was that he was bigotedly against them, and as such resembled the FPI.
As for prejudice, not sure I accept that epithet. Yes, I find homo activity awful to behold and think their ‘agenda’ is unwholesome, but that is no more prejudice than for example it would be prejudice for a socialist to regard flourishing free enterprise as worrisome.
I’m not pre-judging them, because their behaviour, their intentions, and their hopes for society are pretty obvious. I’m speaking up against them.
But it’s up to you. A matter of perspective.
Time to prepare for the footie. Viva Australia! Goodnight. -
Sorry, Odinius, I missed your point about anti-communism. You could say that anti-communism is a ‘hang-up’ against communism, tho I’d say it was a wise man’s assessment of a real threat.
The phenomenon of ‘anti-anti-communism’ was recognised years ago as a distinct political entity, usually found in America among those who objected to the rooting out of enemy agents by serious investigation. -
Plenty of communists have been peaceful people willing to work within a free democratic system. By contrast, many anti-communists have not been. So I see little reason to deduce that one or the other should be treated as a threat in the abstract. The bar for me is set by actions. If a given individual or group works to subvert the democratic order, then that’s one thing. If they don’t, then that’s another.
By contrast, anti-communism is the idea that, no matter the particular conditions at hand, x is “bad” and y is defined against x. Because it’s an abstracted, negatively-defined and totalizing prejudice, anti-communism is a hang-up, as much as anything is. But as long as it’s just an opinion, then that’s all it is.
If it goes so far as to espouse the idea that the various ideologies that fall under the umbrella of “communism” should be illegal–even when they do not seek to subvert the democratic order of the state–then it’s something worse than a hang-up.
-
Well, I’m waiting for Aussie to play Germany, so I shall have another quickie.
I’m not sure how you can say that people who give their support to Communism are harmless or peaceful. Sure, those who were part of that awful system and realsied its evil could become forces for good, folks like Imre Nagy in Hungary or even Yeltsin in Russia, card-carrying reds all their years but with enough humanity to find their way out of the web.
But in free countries, only very dim-witted people would sign up for CP membership, or else very purposefully wicked people. In Canada, Britain, Western Europe and the USA the populations were literate and had acess to full inof on what Communists do when they get power. Thus some starry-eyed students might join as a form of youthful nose-thumbing, but all those serious party activists were totalitarian hypocrites, eager to bring down the freedom which allowed them to do so.
They were also ipso facto traitors, as Canada recognised when the CP was banned; because Hitler and Stalin made their pact, Communists all over the West refused to support the war effort. Until the Evil Empire came under German attack, when of course they switched and did all they could to beat Germany -not for patriotism or liberty, but to further the USSR’s cause.
This is a long way from Women’s Trousers, but quite fun. Now seriously, goodnight! -
Swagman says:
Jesus was a communist 🙂
Well, I suppose, at the very least a socialist …. definitely not a capitalist!
-
Given that Jesus was sour on money lending, and since money lending is the crucial mechanism sustaining capitalism, I’d say you’re right on that half of the equation.
Not sure he’d be a socialist, though. The New Testament has a lot of “care for the poor, sick and infirm” passages, but isn’t exactly a treatise on social classes and the necessity for class struggle…
-
By the way, Ross,
This:
because Hitler and Stalin made their pact, Communists all over the West refused to support the war effort. Until the Evil Empire came under German attack, when of course they switched and did all they could to beat Germany -not for patriotism or liberty, but to further the USSR’s cause.
…is only true of Comintern-controlled groups.
-
Wake Up, Oigal. Hope you are feeling less grumpy today.
Here’s the first of two items I thought might brighten your day.Challenging Homophobia in Schools: A Critical Review
By Chris Kempling M.Ed. M.A. R.C.C.
December 31, 2000
(Mr. Kempling was hounded out of his job by pro-queer pollies and union hacks for offering serious and well-researched critiques of what was happening in British Columbia schools. This is just a small extract, but enlightening. Though probably not to Oigal, who doesn’t want to be enlightened.)
Myth 15, that the majority of pedophiles are gay, is one research confirms as false, but primarily because there are so many more heterosexuals than homosexuals. In fact, the incidence of homosexual and bisexual pedophiles is far higher than their incidence in the general population. A meta-analysis of 19 separate studies exploring the ratio of heterosexual-to-homosexual molestation of children found that those who practice homosexuality are 12 times more likely than heterosexuals to sexually assault a child, and bisexuals were 16 times as likely to do the same (Cameron, 1985).
This statistic is also supported by data in the Report to Members of the B.C. College of Teachers. The issues from 1990-1996 were examined with permission by the author in October 1997. In this period 54 teachers were disciplined for sexual misconduct with children. For female teachers, four were disciplined: three were same sex incidents, while the gender of the fourth victim was not identified. For male teachers, 33 were heterosexual offenses, 13 were homosexual, and four were not identified. Thus, out of a total of 49 cases were the gender of the victim was identified, 16 were same sex offenses (33%), or approximately 15 times their incidence in the general population (using Laumann, 1994 for incidence data).
This data is further supported by two studies of adult sex offenders (Freund et al, 1984; Freund & Watson, Spring 1992). In the 1984 study, Freund, a psychiatrist at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto, found that the pedophilic predilection was more likely to be found in those of homosexual orientation, and that they had the highest rate of recidivism. Freund examined the offense records of 457 sex offenders in his second study. It showed that the proportional prevalence of homosexual offenders was 36% (13 times their incidence in the population).
Other researchers have noted that 23% of gay men and 6% of lesbians admitted to sexual interaction with youth under the age of 16, when the respondent was aged 20 or older (Jay and Young, 1979). Abel et al (1987), in an intriguing and original study of non-incarcerated sex offenders, found that male pedophiles admitted to an astonishing average of 150.2 victims. The figure for heterosexual pedophiles was 19.8. While heterosexuals do commit most of the pedophilic offenses, I have yet to see anyone from the gay movement acknowledge their extreme over-representation in pedophile populations, or for the deplorable number of children they victimize. -
6/5/2002
Homosexuals Disproportionately Linked to Child Sex Abuse, Study Says
By
“The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls,” writes Family Research Council analyst Timothy Dailey in a new report.
“Gay” advocates routinely attempt to deny the homosexual-pedophile connection by claiming that “pedophiles who molest boys cannot be considered homosexual if that individual has at any time been married or sexually involved with women,” Dailey writes.
Moreover, men who sexually exploit young boys “all too often lead their victims into homosexuality and pedophilia,” according to the paper. “The evidence indicates that a high percentage of homosexuals and pedophiles were themselves sexually abused as children.”
To bolster the latter claim, Dailey cites a 2001 Archives of Sexual Behavior study that revealed that 46 percent of the homosexual men surveyed and 22 percent of lesbians surveyed “reported having been molested by a person of the same gender.” That compares to 7 percent of heterosexual men and 1 percent of heterosexual women who reported past same-sex abuse.
‘GAY’ VITRIOL
Homosexual militants led by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) reacted to the FRC report with a mixture of venom and ad hominem attacks.
“The American people must recognize this so-called report for what it truly is: nothing more than hateful, pathetic, and misleading propaganda that has little to no basis in fact,” NGLTF Executive Director Lorri Jean said in a statement. “Its solitary goal is to create an atmosphere of hate while capitalizing on tragic events unfolding within the Catholic Church. The gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender [GLBT] community will not stand idly by while foot soldiers for religious fanatics wrap their tool of discrimination in the guise of scientific inquiry.”
Jean said, “It is astounding that an organization that claims to promote Christian values can with such hostility and willfulness spread lies about a group of people.” She then asserted that FRC would be to blame for future violence against homosexuals:
This is more than offensive; it’s dangerous. If there is one instance of discrimination or worse, a hate-motivated crime against any member of the GLBT community because of the FRC’s histrionic misinformation, the responsibility is squarely on their shoulders and consciences.
SLOPPY DIATRIBE
The Task Force release got some facts wrong. For example, it cited a 1999 FRC report that it called “Homosexual Activists Work is to Normalize Sex with Boys” [sic]. The booklet’s actual title was, “Homosexual Activists Work to Lower the Age of Sexual Consent,” written by Robert Knight (now director of the Culture & Family Institute) and Frank York, now a writer for the Traditional Values Coalition.
The Task Force also wrongly cited a 1989 study by researcher Kurt Freund, in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy: “contrary to the blatant misrepresentations by FRC, Freund’s report actually finds that ‘homosexuals are no more likely than heterosexuals to be attracted to children.’”
That quotation was actually by Dailey himself, as part of a footnote explaining the limitations of Freund’s and other researchers’ methodology. Here is Footnote 17 from the FRC paper:
17. Kurt Freund, et al., “Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference,” [Journal of Sex Research 26 (February 1989)] p. 107. In this and previous studies, Freund claims that homosexuals are no more likely than heterosexuals to be attracted to children (p. 115). However, Silverthorn, et al., mentions the limitations of studies by Freund and others: “Studies of homosexual male preferences are also limited… . The Freund et al. (1973) study was possibly compromised because the homosexual men used in the study were selected to be sexually attracted to adults, but not teenaged, males. The Bailey et al. (1994) study was limited in that it did not present participants with objective stimuli but simply asked participants to report what age of sexual partner they preferred … the Jankowiak et al. (1992) study … was limited in two ways: the homosexual male participants had a limited age range of ‘middle-aged professionals’ and the stimuli presented to participants were also of a limited age range (‘university to middle-aged’).” Silverthorn attempted to correct these deficiencies, and in his study found that homosexuals “preferred younger partners than those who preferred female partners” — including those as young as fifteen. Zebulon A. Silverthorne & Vernon L. Quinsey, “Sexual Partner Age Preferences of Homosexual and Heterosexual Men and Women,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 29 (February 2000): 67–76. -
Now before you respond, Oigal, I’m about to use my dukun-like second sight, and predict what yo’ll say….
——————–
‘Squawk…yawn…laugh…lieve it ahy, mate, you caaan’t be serius…you spekt me ta axcept info from peeple I don’t like/agree with/ believe in Gawd. No way, Jose. On yer bike, dahn’t let te bar-door hit ya on da way out.’
—————–
Maybe I’m being slightly harsh on your spelling and inaccurate on your accent, but that’ll be the gist of it. So unless you do better, I’ll leave you to your silence on incest and bellowing on sodomy, and turn to the more interesting posts of Odinius et al.
It is not nearly as sordid as having to shovel facts about sodomy off the internet onto an ingrate’s plate.Jesus was surey a monarchist. Render unto Caesar, etc.
Yes, he was all for good works, but not about forcing people to engage in them by means of taxation. Good works have no moral merit if they are coerced, surely. -
deta says:
No way, Jose. On yer bike, dahn’t let te bar-door hit ya on da way out.’
You’re hilariously nasty. 🙂
I reckon that’ll bloody piss someone off, mate. -
timdog says:
I’m enjoying watching this (and am far too busy) to get properly involved, but what with the endless pedophile-homosexual linking that Ross is still attempting, I have to ask one question…
Ross,
Consider a grown man who sexually abuses eight-year-old girls. He is, it seems, in some way “heterosexual”. Does he therefore share some fundamental characteristics with you who are also (I presume) heterosexual? Does he constitute part of some identifiable group, of which you are also a member? And, perhaps most importantly, does he reflect an undeniable and innate inclination in YOU to molest eight-year-old schoolgirls?
If the answers to those questions are no, well, then you have your answer… -
Timdog, Deta ( thanks, Deta) thinks I can be hilariously nasty. You lack the hilarity.
I like girls over 18 -actually over 28, as it happens.
Your flippancy doesn’t help. The discussion, such as it was, concerns pooves, and their propensity to molest children.
You have two eyes and a nose, which are also properties that – I suppose- belong to practitioners of bestiality.
Does that suggest you are into badgers? Or komodos?
The ‘debate’ was getting daft enough. -
Ross, I think you missed my point.
To reiterate: you – and your “sources” – seem to be of the opinion that “homosexuals” in general have some inherent inclination to engage in pedophilia. Your sole solid “evidence” for this is the idea that, proportionally, there is apparently more sexual abuse of boys than of girls.
This strikes me a potentially a very dubious claim anyway: child sex abuse figures must be rather elusive anyway, and, more importantly, the assumption of the possibility of identifying “proportionality” in those figures is by its very nature also an assumption of an accepted link between homosexuality in general, and the sexual abuse of small boys. You are therby using as “evidence” to prove an opinion, material that relies on the acceptance of that same opinion to mean anything whatsoever in the first place. Which… um… doesn’t work…To lay out again what I layed out in the post above – to make your connection between pedophilia and homosexuality in general, you apparantly believe that a man whose preference is for consenting, sexually mature members of his own gender, belongs to the same sexual cohort as a man whose preference is for small boys.
By that logic, you have no choice but to concede that you belong to exactly the same sexual cohort as a man who enjoys molesting eight-year-old schoolgirls. It’s quite simple.Finally, though it lies at the cheaper end of debates on this topic, I have to say that beleiving in the possibility of being “led” into homosexuality, believing that “gay propoganda” in schools (let’s just prentend for a moment that such an absurd fantasy exists or is on anyone’s agenda) could seriously risk “turning” vast swathes of our planet’s youth, suggests that one’s conception of personal sexuality is of a far more fragile, fluid, easily “corrupted” or “changed” entity than that held by most other happy, comfortable, confident and self-assured adult heterosexuals…
-
Timdog, you are muddying the waters, probably just to keep this debate going.
Heterosexuality is normal. That is how the species continues.
You, as far as I know, are heterosexual. So am I. That means we fancy lassies, as they say in Scotland.
We fancy lasses of different types, probably’ some guys like fat girls, others prefer lissom ladies, gentlemen prefer blondes, I prefer Indonesians.
Some sickos like to bother little children. Not nice. The figures in the material I provided show, subject to rebuttal by scientific arguments, that homos are more likely than normals to prey on kids.As for indoctrination, you must be out of touch with the West, where children are now actively being told in schools to regard sodomite perversion as just as good and acceptable as normal relationships.
Parents are even being denied the right to remove their children from these propaganda exercises.This is monstrous.
I cannnot understand why or how you would seek to defend such a situation, but I’m not going to spend all this soccer evening arguing with you. -
We fancy lasses of different types, probably’ some guys like fat girls, others prefer lissom ladies, gentlemen prefer blondes, I prefer Indonesians.
Some sickos like to bother little children. Not nice. The figures in the material I provided show, subject to rebuttal by scientific arguments, that homos are more likely than normals to prey on kids.Ok, so that is, I think, a statement that you do indeed consider yourself as belonging to the same wider heterosexual sexual cohort as those who like prepubescent girls.
Fine, that’s a legitimate position to take, and one that makes it possible to group pedophiles with a predeliction for little boys in with homosexuals with no interest whatsoever in children.Personally, as a heterosexual, I prefer to compartmentalise kiddy-fiddlers who like girls in box a very long way away from the one in which I place myself (and I imagine most homosexuals feel exactly the same way), but whatever you’re comfortable with, Ross…
Finally, I have close family members and friends working in education in the UK – I suggest that it is you, sir, who is out of touch.
There is, surely even you would concede, a world of difference between an educational environment in which children may be informed that in the society in which they happen to live they may, in the course of their lives, encounter men or women – friends, collegues, family members, people in positions of authority, neighbours, whatever – who happen to be in a partnership/marriage with a member of their own, rather than the opposite sex, and that that’s just fine, and an admittedly rather fetching fantasy in which theatre troups of musclebound men in pink leotards regularly burst into classrooms, whack hardcore gay porn on the OHP, and lead the little ‘uns though rousing choruses of relax and YMCA… mind you, that would be just divine wouldn’t it? -
Yeah, I don’t think pedophilia has much to do with being “gay” or “straight.” It’s psychologically quite a different phenomenon, according to experts.
Here’s the wrapup for laypeople:
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/explaining-pedophilia
And here’s a scholarly example for those with the patience and/or institutional access:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/1/41
Summary:
Objective. To determine if recognizably homosexual adults are frequently accused of the sexual molestation of children.
Design. Chart review of medical records of children evaluated for sexual abuse.
Setting. Child sexual abuse clinic at a regional children’s hospital.
Patients. Patients were 352 children (276 girls and 76 boys) referred to a subspecialty clinic for the evaluation of suspected child sexual abuse. Mean age was 6.1 years (range, 7 months to 17 years).
Data collected. Charts were reviewed to determine the relationships of the children to the alleged offender, the sex of the offender, and whether or not the alleged offender was reported to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual.
Results. Abuse was ruled out in 35 cases. Seventy-four children were allegedly abused by other children and teenagers less than 18 years old. In 9 cases, an offender could not be identified. In the remaining 269 cases, two offenders were identified as being gay or lesbian. In 82% of cases (222/269), the alleged offender was a heterosexual partner of a close relative of the child. Using the data from our study, the 95% confidence limits, of the risk children would identify recognizably homosexual adults as the potential abuser, are from 0% to 3.1%. These limits are within current estimates of the prevalence of homosexuality in the general community.
Conclusions. The children in the group studied were unlikely to have been molested by identifiably gay or lesbian people.
Sorry, Ross, but it appears you’ve got a bit of a numbers problem.
-
Well, Japan made it, with grit and some grace, which is more than you managed, Timdog, with your rather snide sophistry.
———————–
R. – Some sickos like to bother little children. Not nice. The figures in the material I provided show, subject to rebuttal by scientific arguments, that homos are more likely than normals to prey on kids.T. – Ok, so that is, I think, a statement that you do indeed consider yourself as belonging to the same wider heterosexual sexual cohort as those who like prepubescent girls.
—————————————-
The heck it is! You should take a course in Ordinary Logic. Someone being attracted to grown-up women does not get bracketed with pedophiles, in any normal person’s book.What you are comfortable with, timdog, is ‘anything goes.’ We see the results of this in Canada, where polygamists are now pushing to further that agenda, and, as has already been said, incest is the next logical step in the total collapse of the traditional family.
If that’s what you want to see, you should stop hedging and be clear about it.And schools should not be encouraging children to regard cohabiting deviants as deserving ‘parity of esteem’ alongside normal decent couples – that is not ‘just fine!’
Heterosexuals whether formally married or common-law, are behaving as part of the natural order. Homos are not. By all means ignore their practices if they keep them out of the public arena, but don’t pretend they are okay.It is a sad commentary on Western ‘civilisation’ that something which only a generation ago was a criminal offence has been elevated to respectability. It’s your kind of moral relativism that is responsible for this.
-
Oh, so it didn’t mean that?
Well in that case, if pedophiles who like little girls do not belong in the same box as men who like adult women (and I quite agree with that), then I don’t see how you can possibly argue that pedophiles who like little boys do belong in the same box as homosexuals who like adult men and who have no interest whatsoever in children…
And in that case, your “evidence” that there is some kind of a special link between homosexuality and pedophilia collapses utterly…
That’s all I’m taking issue with here Ross… -
You missed the point, which was that there appears to be strong evidence that there is a higher likelihood of pedophilia among homos.
That’s all I’m saying too.
Goodnight all (JohnBoy, Elizabeth, Jim-Bob, Tim-Dog) -
well…
-
Hey madrotter, here’s one for you (and for Ross):
-
I had a nice laugh today from watching this clip…. Just wanna share it with you guys…
-
Oigal says:
Ross, you are boring everyone now. The only thing you were ever asked to do was provide a viable and reputable study or paper on YOUR silly little statement of “Fact”, nothing more and nothing less.
You have time and again failed to do this except for some 16 page rant by a right wing pollie published by a University committed to the over throwing of the teaching of Evolution in public schools and replacing it with creationism, so I hardly find that a reputable place to turn for scientific studies.
Your second attempt is as bad..The Family Research Council has a very particular agenda and once again you have failed to mention that which at best can be considered somewhat dishonest. Let’s just try one:
Timothy Dailey
Dear Doctor Dailey
On the web site http://www.frc.org you reference my work in your article on “Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse”. I am writing you to object to my name and research being associated in any way, shape, or form to lend legitimacy to the views proposed in your paper.
If you are, in fact, familiar with my research, you must realize that my studies have indicated that homosexual males pose less risk of sexual harm to children (both male and female)–from both an absolute and a percentage incidence rate–than heterosexual males. Your statement that “the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners” appears to come from the assumption that if an adult male is attracted to a male child, this adult male’s sexual orientation is ipso facto homosexual.
Since your report, in my view, misrepresents the facts of what we know about this matter from scientific investigation, and does not indicate that my studies on this topic reach conclusions diametrically opposed to yours, I would appreciate your removing any reference to my work in your paper lest it appear to the reader that my research supports your views.
Yours truly,
A. Nicholas Groth, Ph.D.
Oh dear t’would appear that someone has been a bit sneaky…In fact there is reams of stuff on the Family Research Council’s ..ahem..interesting approach to research.
Chris KemplingThe good Doctor Kempling was a Canadian Secondary School Teacher who greatest claim to fame (besides a key note speaker at number of the religious right organisations) is his side line business in a private counselling service that he was advertising in Prince George, which offered therapy for gay men who want to become straight. Hardly a unbiased agenda nor an awe inspiring qaulification.
Sorry Ross, still looking for that study not transcripts of your like minded. Saying it is so does not make it so. As a matter of interest, I tend to be against fundamentalists of any sort be Christian, Islam, Politics. Unfortunately, those organizations are infested with those who think they are the sole arbitrators of what is allowed and is not allowed, in spite of facts and commonsense.
Ross, personally I could care less about your opinions on most things, you are welcome to them. However, if you want to call something a fact then be prepared to back it up. You got your arse handed to you on a factual platter when you ranted on India by another commentator (which was amusing to watch) and yet you do the same here. Old Dogs and Englishmen perhaps?
Finally thanks for the chuckle and to indulge the infantile level of this discussion for you
Maybe I’m being slightly harsh on your spelling and inaccurate on your accent,
A Scot trying to make fun of someones accent…:-) Oh and British Food..thats what one calls a contradiction in terms.
-
Who reduced the debate to an infantile level? The pro-poof pundit who summed up his dialectic skills with the following profound peroration.——–
‘——–
‘Laugh..it must be pretty lonely in your world..lets see no gays (cross-dressing pervs and former heads of FBI, I assume get special pass), no people of the left, absolutely no communists, no immigrants unless personal members of HRH fan club…must be a right ol party at the British League bangers and mash night…’
———————————————
Pure ranting, mate.
Oigal, you are incapable of answering a basic point I raised, which was part and parcel of the first interjection I made on this thread -if you think queers as adults are entitled to do their dirty deeds without complaint from normals, do you apply the same ‘fee-for-all’ line to incest.
Your silence is a mark of admission or cowardice or both.You have been given plenty of material and if you were interested, you could dig more out yourself. But as you said on the Obama thread, why be bothered to read anything that might disturb your prejudices.
I note that you can only respond by ad hominem attacks on the authors. Chris Kempling is a brave guy who suffered badly for his priniciples. A cut above your sort that snipes from behind pseudonyms.
Personal slurs and insults, your standard style. I regret I felt obliged to descend to the same level in response, but what passes for your serious content is so minimal it is not worth answering.
If you feel bound to stick up for perverts, feel free, but try at least to do so without the frothing drivel you mistake for wit. Defend your prejudice with a semblance of logic. or admit you might be wrong.
The Amritsar discussion with timdog made me look at the other side of the argument and acknowledge that he might be right. Far from ‘getting my arse handed’ to me, as you put it with exquisite sophistication.
Enough of ‘arses’ and those sad freaks addicted to them. If you’d trust a homo to educate your children, up to you. I’d outlaw the possibility.Oya…your prejudice against Scots accents and British food – you prefer a lisp and some fruitcake?
-
The pro-poof pundit
:-)…See ya Ross, you ol fraud..Do let me know when you actually find something that backs your silly little claims..
I await with anticipated pleasure for your next factual howler
-
why for me tim dog??? i got NOTHING against gays, nothing at all and i don’t really understand why ross is so hateful against them, i got loads and loads of gay friends male and female who cares what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms, and each one of them would smash a pedophile to pieces given the chance…
Comment on “Trousers off for Women”.
Copyright Indonesia Matters 2006-2025
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact
You’re still ranting, Oigal.
Take a chill-pill.
I’m not here at your beck and call. Some of us live in the real world, not a loony lib universe.
Red herrings? The original post, which led to my very short comment that has provoked your tantrum, was a connection by some Islamists between incest and homosexuality. So it is a legitimate point to raise, and to expect answered.
Twas none other than your frantic self who introduced lots of red herrings, including –
—————
‘ the left, absolutely no communists, no immigrants unless personal members of HRH fan club…must be a right ol party at the British League bangers and mash night.’
——————
What has any of that got to do with it? Except to illustrate your hang-ups against anti-communism, immigration controls, monarchism and traditional Brit food….
……….you’re losing it, Oigal.
Try Lelap and have a good night’s sleep…