Is there a gay accent in English?

Damian   Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:54 pm GMT
My grandpa is gay too (genetics, you know...). He came out of the closet on his 70th birthday.
scientist   Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:09 pm GMT
I don't have anything against gays, but from a scientific point of view there is as of yet no evidence that homosexuality is genetic.
Just thought I would point that out, since I see people claim this often without any idea of what 'genetic' actually means.
Jasper   Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:25 pm GMT
Scientist, I have a cousin who came out in the 80s and a sister who came out rather recently. We always thought that "we didn't have any in the family" until a rather cursory search in our family tree revealed bachelors in the 1920s "who never married". While this does not meet the definition of scientific proof, it does make you wonder about a possible genetic link.
Beathag   Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:46 pm GMT
>>How is it that everyone seems to have gay friends? Whaaa? I don't know a single gay person and I've only met one or two in my life, and I'm not a hermit or anything.. Where are all these best friends of yours? Maybe I'm just not observant..<<

Well, my very best gay friend was someone I actually grew up with. He came out to me in high school.
And the first person to ever ask me out was a girl in junior high.
As for the rest- ever hear of college? You meet all kinds of people in college :-)
scientist   Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:54 pm GMT
Of course we are free to wonder about it. I think it's quite possible. But the evidence has not been found yet. Until evidence is found, something is hypothetical, no matter how much it looks likely, whether it be a gay gene or a Higg's boson.
Armada   Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:23 pm GMT
<<Scientist, I have a cousin who came out in the 80s and a sister who came out rather recently. We always thought that "we didn't have any in the family" until a rather cursory search in our family tree revealed bachelors in the 1920s "who never married".
>>

Is still suspcious of homosexuality those men who never get married in our today societies? (aside from Catholic priests who are not only gays but pedophiles...) I had a gay friend who dated with girls every now and then and told me that being married and having children would be a too big lie for him. I wonder if many gays still do these things like carrying a double life to promote socially while they satisfy their apetite in the background. I know that homosexuality is more accepted nowadays and so on, but imagine a gay politician for example . Having a heterosexual family is basically a must for his career. Obviously if he is an average person that has an average job and does not have many ambitions, it would be a nonsense to hide something that more or less accepted nowadays. As for the genetic nature of homosexuality, it's true that it is not proven, but i think it is a more than reasonable hypothesis. I don't believe in those who say "I'm gay because I had bad experiences with girls". In the end genes determine practically 90% of what we are (I leave 10% for those who still believe in the "free will").
Damian in Edinburgh   Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:25 pm GMT
The posting made just before "scientist" was the work of an impostor using my name in vain - I assure you that it was not one of my postings. How juvenile can some of these idiots get in their quest for "fun".

Besides I would never refer to either of my grandfathers in the way this individual did.....I reckon this fraudulent posting was the work of an American as I believe the term "grandpa" is used much more often over in America than it is here in the UK....correct me if I am wrong here. Many people here call their Mum or Dad's dad "grand-dad" - that seems to be the fave.

It's our grandmothers who are called by more of a variety of names, all of them affectionate of course...gran, grannie, or even nan. In Scotland here - "granmither" is the formal Scots version, although a simple "gran" is the most common form.

In Welsh speaking Wales grandmothers are often called "nain" which rhymes with the English numeral "nine".

In the days before homosexuality became accepted as just a "normal" variation of genetic human sexuality, and accepted and tolerated much more widely as just another part of life in many societies, men who never married were simply classified as "not being the marrying kind - confirmed bachelors". Likewise, women who never walked down the aisle were often treated with a wee bit less charity and were dismissed as "old maids" or "spinsters". Both words are no longer part of current usage, at least not here in the UK.

On my grandparent's wedding certificate from the mid 1950s he was given the title "bachelor" and she was referred to as "spinster". While bachelor is still in use up to a point,"spinster" most definitely is not....it sounds really archaic and brings all kinds of images to mind...like an old maid spinning yarn on her old spinning jenny. The word "single" is now used for both genders I believe.....I wouldn't know as I've not been married.

On Civil Partnership certificates here in the UK they just insert the names of the two individuals and then all the details of where the ceremony took place and on which date, plus the names of all witnesses and the name of the Registrar conducting it all. All the paperwork beforehand is quite complex though, as you have to provide all sorts of information such as address and confirmation of eligibility (such as proof that you are not actually married to, or in a Civil Partnership,with anyone else, as bigamy is quite a serious offence in the UK. The whole lot is quite costly as well - the legal paperwork plus the ceremony itself can run to over a hundred quid or so at least.

How do I know all this? I have friends who have been through the whole process and I have attended three CP ceremonies - two here in Edinburgh, one in Epsom, Surrey and the forth in Winchester, Hampshire.

If you are in any way homophobic there are certain professions in which you are guaranteed never to last for very long at all - if your prejudice is made known at or even before any interview you are virtually a non-starter ferom the word go. The BBC is one such - any sort of hang up over issues such as that and you will be shown the door pronto. If you make any kind of homophobic comment with the intent of causing "offence or distress" you will be given similar treatment.

In fact, that pretty much covers the entire employment scene in the UK - it is technically illegal to "cause homophobic offence or distress" towards any colleague or else the offended employee can have their employers hauled up before a legal Employment Tribunal, which could well cost them thousands if the case is proved, and the offending homophobe kicked out of a job, which is not a good place to be at the current time.
Damian in Edinburgh   Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:36 pm GMT
***Antimooners, it really is a boring subject (not to invalidate you in any way, Damian.)***

Jasper - I couldn't agree with you more - I'm pissed off with it all, too - I keep saying I won't post anything more on the irrelevant, illegitimate issue of sexuality - gay, straight or swinging both ways - but I always seem to see something I feel I need to respond to.

I shall make a solemn vow right here and now - I wil NOT be posting anything further in this thread nor any other similarly related.

Jasper - no worries - I don't consider myself any way invalidated. ;-)

End of......cheers and guid nicht fae Bonnie Scotland!
Jasper   Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:37 pm GMT
"Is still suspcious of homosexuality those men who never get married in our today societies"

Not nowadays, Armada. But then, times are different.

Besides that, you are missing the point. If it's true that htere are two avowed gay people in a family--one male, one female--it's likely, but not certain, that a passel of "confirmed bachelors" in the same family in the 1920s is also gay.

Scientist: I was getting ready to make scathing remarks about science in general, but I choose to show some restraint. Suffice it to say that science is not some omniscient body of thought to go to for the unvarnished truth, but rather a constantly evolving discipline that is more often wrong than right. Often, it defies common sense.

To give one such example, my father's side of the family drops like flies if they smoke; we're talking about "lung cancer in their 50s. No, there is no scientific evidence that there is a "lung cancer gene" in the family, but common sense dictates that there must be--to everybody except a scientist, that is. Duh!! (This falls into the Forrest Gump category.)
Armada   Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:50 pm GMT
Let's collect things that make men to be viewed with suspicion by heterosexual men . For example:



Very few girlfriends if any

Never married

Likes Madonna, Abba, Eurovision song contest and other strange music

Does not like football-soccer.

Likes to read a lot.

Knows a lot of details on celebrities' lives .

Is 30 years old or more but has good physical shape, better than most of his friends of highschool/college .

Prefers cats over dogs

Does not grab his crotch form time to time

Takes care of his cutis with expensive cosmetic products

Prefers mineral water , nestea , light drinkings to beer
scientist   Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:51 pm GMT
<<
Scientist: I was getting ready to make scathing remarks about science in general, but I choose to show some restraint. Suffice it to say that science is not some omniscient body of thought to go to for the unvarnished truth, but rather a constantly evolving discipline that is more often wrong than right. Often, it defies common sense. >>


"Common sense"
In the past it was "common sense" that the sun revolved around the earth.
Yes, science evolves, by way of objective scrutiny and evidence and delving into what seems obvious and inconsequential.


<<To give one such example, my father's side of the family drops like flies if they smoke; we're talking about "lung cancer in their 50s. No, there is no scientific evidence that there is a "lung cancer gene" in the family, but common sense dictates that there must be--to everybody except a scientist, that is. Duh!! (This falls into the Forrest Gump category.) >>


Uh huh, there must be, mustn't there... don't forget though that you wouldn't even know what a gene was if it weren't for scientists...
Guest   Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:28 am GMT
<No, there is no scientific evidence that there is a "lung cancer gene" in the family, but common sense dictates that there must be>

Common sense would be wrong, without more data. A tendency to smoke heavily might (for example) be connected with a second factor common to all those paternal relatives.
Jasper   Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:29 am GMT
"In the past it was "common sense" that the sun revolved around the earth"

Very selective of you, don't you thinK?

There's another approach: we could look at all the incidences of when "Granny was right all along", in spite of the prevailing scientific attitudes of the day...;)
Uriel   Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:33 am GMT
<<Then you must be working at the local newspaper or a small scale porn studio. >>

LOL -- no such luck! I work at a hospital. But those would be exciting alternatives -- I'll keep an eye on the want ads. ;P

As for effeminate men being the --ahem--"omega" (actually called being the "bottom" if they prefer to catch rather than pitch), well, you might think that and it would certainly sound plausible, but it's not really true in real life. Sometimes they are the "top" partner instead. The sexual role doesn't really seem to be all that predicated on personality or temperament. Which makes sense if you look at heterosexual relationships for a minute -- all women are technically bottoms by default, but that doesn't necessarily make them the submissive partner. Plenty of women are aggressive in bed, and decision-makers and breadwinners in the relationship. Who penetrates who doesn't seem to make much difference in the interpersonal dynamics. Or at least that's been my experience. (Gay men who prefer to be the catcher yet call the shots during sex are said to be "topping from the bottom" so there you go -- things are always more complicated in real life than stereotypes suggest. And it is also common for them to take turns playing each role, although most profess a preference.)
scientist   Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:44 am GMT
<<There's another approach: we could look at all the incidences of when "Granny was right all along", in spite of the prevailing scientific attitudes of the day...;) >>



Granny?! My Granny was a strong Christian who, though I never asked her, surely thought homosexuality was an abomination and believed that the earth was 6000 years old. Guess Granny is wrong and ignorant sometimes too.
Anyway, obviousness doesn't mean you don't need evidence. Evidence leads to deeper understanding. You may laugh but mathematicians prove things as obvious as 1+1=2, and these questions lead to deeper, fundamental results with far-reaching consequences.