Friday, 4 July 2014

Mail Online: Cause Sentimental Crap Brings Us All Together

Adorable, heart-warming etc etc etc...
Everybody's loving those gay dads with child photos - even Mail Online readers.

Message/Moral: Boys, if you want respect in the straight world do as they say, and as they do.

Marry! Breed! Conform! Obey!

PS We start bombing babies in the Gaza Strip again at 12:00 local time.


  1. It is said they took their shirts off in order to achieve maximum bonding with the baby.

    Or did they think that it made them look, teasingly, a cool'm'sexy gay couple in whom male hunkiness collided with gooey tenderness?

    1. Just be sure in your conviction that they did it for their own benefit 'cos they are gay men so must be selfish, posing bastards.

      Any idea that they did it for the good of their son is obviously wrong, most especially because it wouldn't fit in to your homophobic world view.

  2. I did not express any conviction. I asked a question. Do try to get clear on the difference.

    And as for your attribution to me of a "homophobic world view"--oh, don't be so silly. Being sceptical as to why two blokes in a photie took their shirts off is not *the same as* having "a homophobic world view", nor is it *evidence* that I have "a homophobic world view". It is not a necessary condition a non-homophobic world view, that one should believe everything every gay person does is wonderful. And, given that I was writing pro-gay letters to newspapers (not anonymously, like your post) 40+ years ago and going in for organizing that could have prejudiced my job (indeed, my boss stopped giving me male students to tutor at the university at which I worked) I take serious exception to your attribution to me of a homophobic world view.

  3. Still homophobic, now patronising too. Lovely.

    1. Ah, you just call names. You don't reason or argue or anything like that.

      Right. Why don't you try explaining what you think justifies you in attributing to me a homophobic world view? Spell it out. In detail.

      Perhaps your sensitive Witchfinder-General nose 'detects' it, like a whiff of brimstone.

  4. The whole of your first comment, including the rhetorical device in it, is replete with anti-gay stereotypes which you used to slur these guys. Calling you a homophobe for this is therefore accurate description, which is distinct from name calling. You don't have to think all the things gay people do are wonderful, but if you attack them with slurs for it, expect to be called to account.

    Your second comment is an attack on me used as a defence. Your chosen form of attack was to patronise me and to make an appeal to authority. So again, 'patronising' is proper description, not name calling.

    Right. You've had this spelled out twice. It's over to you now. No more from me. If you still don't get it, please ask someone else.

    Oh, and my pseudonym. Like most people, I blog and comment under a user name which is not my given name. Phleum pratense is actually a pun on both my given name, and the size of my penis. It's a joke much appreciated by my friends and lovers, and I wouldn't dream of changing it.