|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
No Message Body
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
errrrrrrrrr...
The title is interesting..... but the rest is not realy readable.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
Wow. I can't believe these guys are doing this. They all say they don't want to do something that will hurt the family or wife, yet they don't seem to realize that eventually the wife will find out, and she will be devastated. Regardless of orientation, once a man says, "I do," he is bound to his wife. To love her is NOT to go play around with other men. All of the men interviewed for this article are church goers. What do they do with the verse from I Corinthians that says, "Husbands, love your wife as Christ loves the church." Christ gave his life for the church. Can't the gay husband who decides to get married give up sex with other men? If he can't, he shouldn't marry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
As the story goes........
Christ died for our souls....
The "church" was a result of over zealous followers.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
Im not old enough to really say much about this. I think Chris is right. I do know this. Im not gonna marry a girl and lie to her to cover up the fact that Im queer as a three dollar bill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem here isn't that they are married, or that they are gay, but that they lie and deceive, and do not stand for their actions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
January/February Issue of Details magazine
author - Ben Paynter
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Does not the fact that they know beforehand that they are gay and then marry constitute a lie?
Actually several......
One to thenselves and second to their chosen spouse?
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc wrote:
> Does not the fact that they know beforehand that they are gay and then marry constitute a lie?
>
> Actually several......
>
> One to thenselves and second to their chosen spouse?
I don't think it's always quite that simple. I fuly intended to get married when I was 19 (it was a relationship with a slightly younger girl)- because I loved her. If she had not had a miscarriage I think we almost certainly would have got married.
She knew my majority attraction was to other guys. I knew that her sexual preferences were experimental, and included activities that were a bit outside my range. We were very honest about this. But neither of us at that age, and in the setting of the early 1970's, saw that as a barrier ... the emotional connection was definitely there, and - for us- that was what counted.
Interestingly, as I've got older, my views have shifted a bit. My last long-term relationship of some dozen years was with a guy ... and although I would very willingly have married him if it had been possible (in the days before CP in the UK), and although the relationship was physically expressive in terms of hugs 'n cuddles, no sex was involved. But - for both of us, I think - it would have felt wrong to have had sex with anyone else, given what we felt for each other. I knew that his majority orientation was heterosexual (indeed, now, four years after we split, he is married to a woman), but it was never an issue between us.
I think that the variety of ways in which humans can relate is more complex than can be fitted into standard boxes, that for some or many of us "gay" or "straight" are only approximate labels which may refer more to who we find physically attractive rather than reflecting who we can have committed relationships with. Most of all, I think, the capacity of some people to accept partners for *all* of who they are - including sexual orientation that may not be conventional - is often underestimated. I'd like also to think that the level of honesty within committed relationships is also often underestimated ... and, really, I *do* think that people in private may be more honest with each other than this thread has given credit for.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Of course any situation can be fragmented and made very complex but what it all boils down to is being true to ones convictions and when this is not possible (for any of a gazillion excuses) not dragging innocent persons down with the ship.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc wrote:
> Of course any situation can be fragmented and made very complex but what it all boils down to is being true to ones convictions and when this is not possible (for any of a gazillion excuses) not dragging innocent persons down with the ship.
Now that's something I would fully agree with.
NW
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although I visit his site often I very rarely ever voice my opinion here but I am truly amazed at the reaction to this article. If ever there were a place for compassion for other people living with difficult situations, I would have thought this was it. I can understand the lack of compassion on the part of the younger writers here to some extent, since they grew up in an age when different lifestyles were more openly accepted. But for those of us who grew up in the 50’s, 60’s and early 70’s where it was not accepted and even dangerous to be different I would expect more understanding. As you can probably guess I am one of those men who live two different lives.
I am married to a wonderful lady whom I have been with for over twenty-five years. We have three children together. I love her as much as any man can love another person. I would not hurt her for any reason, nor would I ever willingly do anything to bring embarrassment to her or our children. Unfortunately I am a gay man who at the time of our marriage was struggling with family, friends, and society always asking why I was not married? Didn’t I want children? Was I some kind of a faggot?
Well I was just not willing to put up with this kind of scrutiny. I met my wife through a mutual friend, we got along extremely well, and although the sex was not that satisfying for me, I could manage. And lets face it for a young man you really don’t need a whole lot of stimulating to enjoy it. I figured it was not so bad and I could learn to live with it. Well as I get older I find that I do need more stimulation. Something that I just don’t get from being with a woman. There is something about getting hugged from another man that I just don’t get from a woman.
Is this fair to my wife? No, is it fair to me? No, but that is the way it is. My wife and I are best friends I love her she loves me. We are just not sexually compatible. To leave now would serve no purpose. Other than to leave two more people alone and unhappy and for me to have to tell my children that I prefer men to women and risk alienating them. I am just not willing to do that. So I will continue to meet other men when I can, which is not often but enough to keep me going and them also, because almost all the men I have ever been with are married also, and living in the same situation.
For those of you who look to the bible for answers, try to find the passage that explains why god made those of us that are gay, gay? We did not make ourselves this way, he did, and why if he made us this way, did he not put in there a passage for society to let us live as he must have intended for us to.
My intension is not to offend anyone here but to give you some insight from the other side of the story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
You know I have typed and deleted my answer to this about 10 times now.
Yours is a very human and pragmatic reaction to a wholly stressful and difficult situation.
So really I htink sending you a hug is in order.
It doesn't mean you are right, nor that you are wrong. Just that you, but also the other married men reading this need and get a hug
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Timmy and Tony,
Thanks, and hugs, to both of you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
I both agree with you and disgree with you in equal measure.
The situation of being gay and married for whatever reason to a person, however wonderful, of the wrong gender is not quite the same as being married to the right gender.
If married to the right gender then the actual strong physical needs are capable of being fulfilled within the marriage. If married to the wrong gender those needs are wholly incapable of fulfilment within the marriage. And those needs are very real, intense, and very hard to resist.
So infidelity is not simply the "bit on the side" temptations of a correctoy gendered partnership. It has the extra wholly physical compulsion of not being able to have very real needs fulfilled without infidelity.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tony! Guess Im one of the younger generation you are speaking of. Please dont think I dont have compassion for you and others in your situation. I know things have changed a lot in the last 20 years, and I understand why you did what you did. Please dont think im heartless. You knew your orientation, you knew it when you married. when you maried you made a commitment, but it was a commitment to make yourself look "normal" in the eyes of family and friends. Its an awful shame to be put in that possition, but not everything has changed. My mom wonders why I dont date, why I dont bring a girl home for her to meet. she wonders why I dont play football, basketball, etc. all the manly sports. In her eyes Im a geek and a sissy. she has told me this on more than one occasion. In the eyes of my family, grandma, grandpa, cousins, etc. Im a queer, doesnt matter if there is any prof or not. So, am I gonna go out and get a girl and take her on dates and bring her home and act like I like her? NO!! Let them think what they want to. See my family are the rednecks from hell, Ill bide my time till I can leave, and then Im gone and they wont have to worry about the sissy in the family.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
Please never refer to yourself, even when I know you do not believe you are, as a sissy. Such wors cause harm even to our own self image, as we utter them about ourselves.
You may not be sports oriented. You may be gentle. But you are also as tough as you need to be.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Choices are what place us where we are in life. We all make them... We all have to live with them...
Compassion has little to do with living up to the choices we decide to make for ourselves.
Fidelity however or the lack there of affects everyone within our sphere of loved ones.
If a man choses to marry and then discovers a lack of satisfaction (for whatever reason) with the choice can not justify the excersize of extramarital relationships (whether gay or str8) as a right and proper solution.
There is not a separate set of rules for those that have outlived the viability of their choices.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
You can't use the number 8 and a closing parenthesise in conjunction.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've been away this weekend so I have missed out on most of the "married and gay" articles and comments. I can't really add much that hasn't already been said, except to reiterate that if you have pledged to be faithful to someone, in marriage or civil partnership, it makes a mockery of those vows if you then go and dabble with another person -- whether of the same sex or a different one.
Unfortunately it's articles like this which add to the widespread popular view of gay or bisexual people as promiscuous and incapable of long-term committment. Having a different sexuality from other people doesn't make it "all right" to indulge in a little extra-marital hanky-panky. In fact, if it were not for the fact that I knew that for most gay people this view is entirely erroneous -- as evidenced by the good, honourable and faithful people on this board -- then I would almost be tempted to subscribe to some of the views of conservative religious leaders on the sanctity of heterosexual marriage. Perhaps if the Pope himself spent some time in the company of real and faithful homosexual couples then he would be able to cast aside some of his prejudices on the subject. Oh, well, pigs might fly, I suppose.
The only situation in which I would accept marital infidelity is in an entirely "open" relationship where both partners are aware of what is going on and are able to give their informed consent. It goes against the spirit of the marriage vows, and I would be slightly dubious as to what the purpose of the relationship would be, but I am very much of the opinion that people should be allowed to do anything they like provided it does not hurt another person. If it benefits two parties to have something more like an intimate and platonic friendship (with maybe a little sex on the side) than a committed sexual relationship, but remain within wedlock (or equivalent) then I don't see anything wrong with it.
Doing anything without telling your partner the full truth, however, is a real no-no.
Deeeej
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
How the hell can there be a platonic relationship "with maybe a little sex on the side???????????????
This is about the most ludicrous statement I have ever seen in print!
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tony, I see your point. What hit me to be so uncompassionate was that the article, at least, made it look like they think it's perfectly fine to act that way, nothign wrong in it in any way. It is that which I don't accept, the attitude that it's perfectly ok to skitter from the consequences of their actions, cheat on their wives (Mind you, I would have no problem if their wives had no problem with that) and so forth.
I have only compassion for weakness - I have enough of it myself. I lack compassion for the acceptance of weakness as perfectly fine.
Lastly, it would take a great deal for me to start focring my opinion on others. the above was but my opinion, what I think of the situation, and hopefully, how I would not act in such a situation. What others do should as far as possible be their buisness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>How the hell can there be a platonic relationship "with maybe a little sex on the side???????????????
>This is about the most ludicrous statement I have ever seen in print!
Thank you for that considerate and insightful post, Marc.
If you had taken the trouble to contemplate the full sentence, saying that a relationship is "more like an intimate and platonic friendship" does not mean that the relationship is soley platonic. It merely means that the relationship places greater priority on platonic friendship than sexual love.
I do not feel that confusion arising from that one sentence undermines the entire post, which is what you imply by your gratuitous use of profanity, punctuation and hyperbole.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
You're welcome.......
And I did .......
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc,
I can only conclude that I said something in my original post that particularly upset you, or you are in a particularly egregious temper today.
I would appreciate it if you could explain to me what was so offensive. If you have misunderstood the semantics of the post then I would like to set the matter to rights; and if I have said something with which you disagreed please could you let me know why you believe it to be invalid instead of simply branding my opinion "the most ludicrous statement [you] have ever seen in print". I assure you that in no way did I intend to upset you. In fact, I was under the impression that my opinions on the subject are fairly similar to those of several other people on this board. However, you have most successfully succeeded in upsetting me.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Ok, here goes........
If it benefits two parties to have something more [like an intimate and platonic friendship (with maybe a little sex on the side)] than a committed sexual relationship, but remain within wedlock (or equivalent) then I don't see anything wrong with it.
It was this sentence that particularly plucked my feather.....
Please, if you can? Explain to me how a platonic relationship can be platonic with a little sex on the side???
Where I come from, you can not have it both ways...... Either a relationship is sexual or it is platonic.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry, I thought I had already explained that.
I said,
>saying that a relationship is "more like an intimate and platonic friendship" does not mean that the relationship is soley platonic. It merely means that the relationship places greater priority on platonic friendship than sexual love.
A brief lesson in grammar.
Let's assume that "platonic" and "sexual" are opposites.
Now let's leave them for a moment and think of an equivalent example. "Happy" vs. "unhappy". We both know what each of those means (I assume).
Consider these two sentences:
1. "I am happy."
2. "I am more unhappy than I was last year."
Guess what? Both of these can be true! The second sentence doesn't mean that I am currently unhappy. It just means I am not quite as happy as I was a while back. On a scale of happiness of 1 to 10, where 10 is very happy and 1 is very unhappy, it could be that:
Last year I was at 10 on the scale.
This year I am at 9 on the scale.
Therefore I am still happy, but also more unhappy than I was last year.
In the same way, "platonic" and "sexual" can use a sliding scale too!
Going back to my original statement, a relationship "more like an intimate and platonic friendship" doesn't have to be entirely platonic. If 10 is very sexual and 1 is very platonic, then perhaps it's a 7. Still sexual (hence "a little sex on the side"), but also taking on aspects of the platonic (abstinent friendship).
I appreciate that there is a bit of ambiguity as platonic is usually taken as an absolute, but here I don't use it in that sense (hence my use of the comparative: "more"). According to dictionary.com, platonic means:
"Transcending physical desire and tending toward the purely spiritual or ideal: platonic love."
"Tending towards" is a clear indication that the term comes in degrees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deeeej wrote:
> Let's assume that "platonic" and "sexual" are opposites.
No assumtion is necessary...
pla·ton·ic (according to Webster)
Pronunciation: pl&-'tä-nik, plA-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin platonicus, from Greek platOnikos, from PlatOn Plato
2 a : relating to or based on platonic love; also : experiencing or professing platonic love b : of, relating to, or being a relationship marked by the absence of romance or sex
pla·ton·ic (according to Oxford)
2. purely spirtual; not sexual.
(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok guys!! My head is spinning and I am completely confused. ;-D
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Some people have little need for tools such as dictionaries and the like.
After all you can not teach a person that knows everything.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guys Please. I havent gone to college yet so I need a dictionary. This is what the Webster New Lexinton Dictionary says.
Platonic---adj. of, pertaining to or characteristic of Plato or Platonism--of or designating love as Plato described it, a desire for union with the beautiful, ascending in a scale of perfection from human passion to ecstacy in the contemplation of the ideal platonic of or designating love for a person, usually of the opposite sex, that is free of carnal desire.
Im gonna sit on a fence post and say your both right, depending on your intentions when you used the word.
ok, you can beat me up now.;-D
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ok guys, let's leave the sharply honed knives in the locker outside the forum shall we? Lest we tend to forget this is a place of safety and not one to make an attack?
Dictionary definitions and acid attacks (my meaning), are hardly going to make any difference to this. Whether a gay guy (or woman) enters into a marriage contract with a member of the OPPOSITE sex, surely indicates what is more important for them in their life.
It may be that it is purely a front or cover, for their true sexual identity, in which case it's likely to be short-lived, unless their partner did it for similar reasons.
It may be that they truly wanted children, in which case morally it would be better to stick to an apparent 'normal' state of affairs until the fledglings have flown the nest.
It might be that they really didn't want to be gay, and are determined to try and lead a relatively 'normal' life even if it means misery for them.
Perhaps what is more important that the marriage should not happen unless both partners are fully aware of the truth. An ideal situation of course.
However humans, being human will continue to lie to one another and not reveal all they find embarrassing about themselves, so unfortunately it will still happen that one gay partner will likely be married to a straight one, with a dangerous secret between them. Such is life.
Rightly or wrongly? I'm not qualified to judge. Let he who is, cast the first stone. (Apologies for the awful misquote)
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not going to beat you up at all, Brian.
I have no objections to people making constructive criticism. If you disagree with me, by all means let me know! However, the point that Marc made such a fuss about was a matter of grammar and semantics and only a minor part of my original post. I'm not quite sure why he attached such importance to it.
Come to think of it, given the controversial things we have argued about on this board, I think it's rather an honour to have written "the most ludicrous statement [Marc has] ever seen in print". 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deeeej, I like you and Marc both and guess it kinda bothered me to see you two arguing.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... which inevitably means that everyone will end up blaming me. Nothing new there, then!
Let me start by making it clear that I LOVE words; it's been a lifelong interest and I reckon I have on my bookshelves around 300 volumes dealing with philology, etymology, grammar, idiom, dialect and whatever. Words are fun to play with, once you understand them and, as some of you will have realised, I'm really into playing ... !
But back to the matter in hand. Though it isn't by any means a unanimous view, it's certainly true to say that most dictionaries define 'platonic', as an adjective qualifying love, in fairly absolute terms as meaning 'not sexual'. So I agree that Deeej's phrasing is open to criticism if we wish to be pedantic. But why should regularly active members of this community wish to be pedantic in relation to each other? 'Pedantic' has strong pejorative implications; we can disagree, but why should we insult each other?
Looking at what Deeej actually said, the words he used were:
"If it benefits two parties to have something more like an intimate and platonic friendship (with maybe a little sex on the side) than a committed sexual relationship, but remain within wedlock (or equivalent) then I don't see anything wrong with it."
In the context of the post, I understood this to be a reference to the situation in which the relationship between a couple might move towards the platonic, though possibly retaining a sexual element. However, if that WAS the intended meaning, it might have been better to say "with maybe a little sex thrown in"; "on the side", in the context of marital fidelity (which is of course a key element in the thread) does tend to imply some kind of extra-marital activity.
In his subsequent post, Deeej was certainly correct in suggesting that he was entitled to use absolute terms in a comparative sense. Ask anyone to suggest two words which are absolute opposites, and the chances are that a fair number would say "black and white". Then consider the following quotations:
"And her face, at first just ghostly, turned a WHITER shade of pale ..."
"The murmur of conversation faded in the distance and the oppressive silence returned. Now the night seemed BLACKER than ever ..."
So, in summary, although I accept that there was an element of ambiguity in the words Deeej used, what he said cannot on any reasonable basis be described as ludicrous. After all, light can shine in darkness!
Marc, a small apology might be appropriate - but, be warned! I'm competitive by nature, and I may feel the urge to try to post a statement you will find even more ludicrous. I've simply GOT to get the edge over Deeej!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do I detect Moody Blues here?
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... it was Procol Harum!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Opps, My bad. I was thinking Knights in white satin. I got to see Moody Blues perform live at the university here, made me an instant fan, got all their albums.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... it turns you on! But I guess I gotta go now!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
... it was Procol Harum!
Ahem! It was Procul Harum - with a U not an O. I just thought I'd make that clear because I can be soooooo pedantic. (Describing someone as being pedantic is to use pejorative language; but when one describes oneself as being pedantic one is just being honest!)
About the American revolution: When the PM, Lord North, addressed the house about this he said, "Our American colonies are revolting." To which, no doubt, the house responded, "Hear hear!"  )
Australians sometimes note that Britain exported to America their puritans and to Australia their convicts. The Australians think that they got the better deal! 
Brian, they're "Jews", not "Hebrews". (Please note that I am being pedantic again.) Originally a boy was considered to have begun the passage from boyhood to manhood when he had produced at least two hairs on what the rabbinic sages euphemistically called "the lower beard". Later that was averaged out to the age of 13. (For females the age is 12.)
Over and out (for now).
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
