The Real Maroonblood Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 Peter Tatchell certainly had a gay time in Belfast winding them up about King Billy being a poof. http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/uk/39William-of-Orange-was-gay39.4330576.jp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gorgie kev Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 Peter Tatchell certainly had a gay time in Belfast winding them up about King Billy being a poof.http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/uk/39William-of-Orange-was-gay39.4330576.jp Peter Tatchell takes it up the erse and he clearly talks out of it as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Macaroons Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 haha the first comment/post underneath the headline is a scream Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberjambo Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 haha the first comment/post underneath the headline is a scream Made me laugh, as did #4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Say What Again Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 #6 has a fair point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovecraft Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 Pretty well known that Billy liked the willy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosanostra Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 He loved a good "prod" apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toggie88 Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tynie1874 Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 Peter Tatchell certainly had a gay time in Belfast winding them up about King Billy being a poof.http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/uk/39William-of-Orange-was-gay39.4330576.jp Would this be the same Peter Tatchell who called for the gay age on consent toi be lowered to 14, if so why not refer to him as a paedophile, rather than a gay rights activist? who is this W***** am gonna smack um in the mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Grimes Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 I'm lost. Why the outrage from the Orangemen? I thought that was why they had their Pride marches every year... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Harris Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 Pretty well known that Billy liked the willy. it is now that the OP has told us at least 4 times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tynie1874 Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 I'm lost. Why the outrage from the Orangemen? I thought that was why they had their Pride marches every year... i think he was using it as a gain against gay people , basically saying being gay is right but IT IS WRONG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosanostra Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 Would this be the same Peter Tatchell who called for the gay age on consent toi be lowered to 14, if so why not refer to him as a paedophile, rather than a gay rights activist? who is this W***** am gonna smack um in the mouth. What he actually said was that age of consent should be equal for heterosexual and homosexuals and should be lowered to the age of 14 as it is in many other countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosanostra Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 i think he was using it as a gain against gay people , basically saying being gay is right but IT IS WRONG. What's wrong with being gay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tynie1874 Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 What he actually said was that age of consent should be equal for heterosexual and homosexuals and should be lowered to the age of 14 as it is in many other countries. but that would see 14-15 year old stupid lassies going out with men alot lot older? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Grimes Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 i think he was using it as a gain against gay people , basically saying being gay is right but IT IS WRONG. i'll ignore that cos you're just a young fella. you'll grow up in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosanostra Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 but that would see 14-15 year old stupid lassies going out with men alot lot older? Not entirely sure what the legalities would be, why not go read what the guy said yourself instead of misrepresenting him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Grimes Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 but that would see 14-15 year old stupid lassies going out with men alot lot older? it could do, tho a lot of other countries have the lower ages of consent only between people around a couple of years close to each other. so a 16 yr old might be allowed to sleep with a 14 yr old, but a 26 yr old wouldn't. makes some sense certainly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tynie1874 Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 but thats just wrong, the lassie would have not progressed i'm presuming she would be a twig, i know people 16-17 who have gon out with people upto the age of 27 would u class that ok? the consent these days i think doesn't really matter, why ? because alot of people my age and younger are going it, look at the lass 14 years old had a bairn when she was 11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Grimes Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 i know people 16-17 who have gon out with people upto the age of 27 would u class that ok? not really, but that's the law as it stands. see my answer above for a possibly better solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tynie1874 Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 what about , 2 people are 15 boy and girl one is turning 16 in say, 1 month and the other in like 4 months the boy turns 16 first it is then illegal to have sex? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the North Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 It's well documented that King Billy was gay and had a string of young male 'friends'. Can't understand why Unionists are getting so upset about it tbh - you would think that in this day and age nobody would find being gay offensive. Unless of course they were a bunch of reactionary, outdated bigots - something Ulster Unionists could never be accused of, surely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysthereinspirit Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 Who really cares if William of Orifice liked it up the bum. Boys will do boys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tynie1874 Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 still riles me that the unwashed/smelltic/cheltic/ MOD EDIT use this against us loyalists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chumpsteak Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 Maybe that famous song gives such an impression... "Hullo! hullo! We are the Batty Boys" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heartgarfunkel Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 Magic, not only was the rampantly gay William of Orange's army full of R.C. mercenaries at the Boyne, as, conversely, James VII's army was replete with Protestant mercenaries, but the Pope celebrated the news of the Boyne with a fireworks display at the Vatican! There is at last some merit in these history-ignoring loyalists - they are non homophobic sexual libertarians celebrating an early exponent of gay love. Good on them. And how these polyester clad schemesters still jerk and pirouette about the streets with their flutes and drums and King Billy tattoos! Andy Goram loves it all these days, and William would have loved that sort of thing in his private chambers in the 1690s! Class:dribble: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 It's well documented that King Billy was gay and had a string of young male 'friends'. Can't understand why Unionists are getting so upset about it tbh - you would think that in this day and age nobody would find being gay offensive. Unless of course they were a bunch of reactionary, outdated bigots - something Ulster Unionists could never be accused of, surely. Actually, Iris Robinson should argue that it is consistent with her view - "Hate the sin, love the sinner". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heartgarfunkel Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 Actually, Iris Robinson should argue that it is consistent with her view - "Hate the sin, love the sinner". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Harris Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 It's well documented that King Billy was gay and had a string of young male 'friends'. Can't understand why Unionists are getting so upset about it tbh - you would think that in this day and age nobody would find being gay offensive. Unless of course they were a bunch of reactionary, outdated bigots - something Ulster Unionists could never be accused of, surely. on the contrary it is not well documented, if it was there wouldn't be such a dispute among historians. The evidence for amounts to rapid promotions for apparently favoured men and the fact that his queen never conceived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Root Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 on the contrary it is not well documented, if it was there wouldn't be such a dispute among historians. The evidence for amounts to rapid promotions for apparently favoured men and the fact that his queen never conceived. I think I've worked out why Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Thor Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 Some of the comments underneath the article are quality there's a distinct lack of the paisley road west HSC on this thread. Has Peter Tatchell touched a raw nerve? ooooh matron! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovecraft Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 He was a gay midget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 He was a gay midget. So was Bonnie Prince Charlie! Does royal in-breeding encourage homosexuality? Maybe John Barrowman should investigate that one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovecraft Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 So was Bonnie Prince Charlie! Does royal in-breeding encourage homosexuality? Maybe John Barrowman should investigate that one! Barrowman has a gaydar bigger than SETI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Say What Again Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 He was a gay midget. Arise King Mickey Weir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovecraft Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 So was Bonnie Prince Charlie! Does royal in-breeding encourage homosexuality? Maybe John Barrowman should investigate that one! I think it was the fashion to bat for both teams in those days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovecraft Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 Arise King Mickey Weir Just not arise very much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heartgarfunkel Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 "Grand old Derek's Balls" sing along now.... "...the ass my father wore" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 "Grand old Derek's Balls" sing along now.... "...the ass my father wore" Maybe Build My Gallows is a reference to sado-masochistic bondage?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 on the contrary it is not well documented, if it was there wouldn't be such a dispute among historians. The evidence for amounts to rapid promotions for apparently favoured men and the fact that his queen never conceived. As one of my history lecturers told me last year, "For a historian to write a succesful book all he needs to do is take a well held view and twist the evidence a little to book a opposing contraversal view then you have a succesful book. And people will then argue against it and create a bigger buzz about the book." Historians love to speculate about historical figures and kings and try to point them out as homosexual. And though some were (I'm a pretty sure Edward II was, though makes his death of a red hot poker up his rectum seem like some failed sexual experement.) I have heard some historians suggest Richard I was gay due to the fact that just before leaving on the third crusade he slept in a bed with the french king. However this is more likely to be done as a sign of friendship rather than a night of passion. Also the thinking that they did not concive fails to take into account the idea of infertile kings. In this day we take it for granted that if we have a problem we can get treatment or help to concieve but back them it was different and I think they would hide the fact of an infertitle king as it would be damaging to the kingdom. As for Peter Tatchell it seems to me he is a man who wants to be punched. He likes provoking the most violent people possible and knows how to hit a nerve. Think he is an attention seeker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the North Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 As one of my history lecturers told me last year, "For a historian to write a succesful book all he needs to do is take a well held view and twist the evidence a little to book a opposing contraversal view then you have a succesful book. And people will then argue against it and create a bigger buzz about the book." Historians love to speculate about historical figures and kings and try to point them out as homosexual. And though some were (I'm a pretty sure Edward II was, though makes his death of a red hot poker up his rectum seem like some failed sexual experement.) I have heard some historians suggest Richard I was gay due to the fact that just before leaving on the third crusade he slept in a bed with the french king. However this is more likely to be done as a sign of friendship rather than a night of passion. Also the thinking that they did not concive fails to take into account the idea of infertile kings. In this day we take it for granted that if we have a problem we can get treatment or help to concieve but back them it was different and I think they would hide the fact of an infertitle king as it would be damaging to the kingdom. As for Peter Tatchell it seems to me he is a man who wants to be punched. He likes provoking the most violent people possible and knows how to hit a nerve. Think he is an attention seeker. To be fair, Peter Tatchell only made his remarks in response to a DUP politician who claimed homosexuality was an abomination. Its amazing how many people seem keen to refute what are fairly widely known 'facts' about King William's homosexuality. Who cares if he was? Most of the evidence suggests he was, and the only people that seem to be upset by it are the DUP and their ilk. Good. Personally, I find the idea of a load of bigots getting all hot under the collar about this most amusing. Well done Peter Tatchell, and indeed well done Billy for his backdoor shenanigans in the first place - you go girl! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 To be fair, Peter Tatchell only made his remarks in response to a DUP politician who claimed homosexuality was an abomination. Its amazing how many people seem keen to refute what are fairly widely known 'facts' about King William's homosexuality. Who cares if he was? Most of the evidence suggests he was, and the only people that seem to be upset by it are the DUP and their ilk. Good. Personally, I find the idea of a load of bigots getting all hot under the collar about this most amusing. Well done Peter Tatchell, and indeed well done Billy for his backdoor shenanigans in the first place - you go girl! Ah that is fair enough then. Did not know thats why he said it. I have heard these facts about William but then again I have never really studied him in history. And for me I dont really care about what sexualty a historial person, what is more interesting is their effect on history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Harris Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 To be fair, Peter Tatchell only made his remarks in response to a DUP politician who claimed homosexuality was an abomination. Its amazing how many people seem keen to refute what are fairly widely known 'facts' about King William's homosexuality. Who cares if he was? Most of the evidence suggests he was, and the only people that seem to be upset by it are the DUP and their ilk. Good. Personally, I find the idea of a load of bigots getting all hot under the collar about this most amusing. Well done Peter Tatchell, and indeed well done Billy for his backdoor shenanigans in the first place - you go girl! personally I couldn't care less what William III got up to, he means absolutely nothing to me. But simply on a factual point, it is not something that can be conclusively stated. He may have been, but he might not have been too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the North Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 Ah that is fair enough then. Did not know thats why he said it. I have heard these facts about William but then again I have never really studied him in history. And for me I dont really care about what sexualty a historial person, what is more interesting is their effect on history. King William did indeed have a massive, massive impact on the future of this country. I am sure he would be horrified that he had become the poster boy for a bunch of buckie swilling hun bigot neds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 King William did indeed have a massive, massive impact on the future of this country. I am sure he would be horrified that he had become the poster boy for a bunch of buckie swilling hun bigot neds. That's a little bit of a sweeping generalisation! People in Ireland, North and South, have a very fine recollection of history. Those people who "hail" the Dutchman tend to hail what he stood for, viz. the Glorious Revolution and Civil and Religious Liberty. Of course, it is also true that a lot of the same people will then overlook the Penal Laws passed by the Dublin parliament after the Treaty of Limerick in 1691 but by then, William was a bit busy with other things, such as arranging the massacre at Glencoe and forming the Bank of England. But yes, it is sad if the DUP are getting worked up about whether he was gay or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovecraft Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 Tatchell is legend for winding them up. He pretty much done a Borat on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosanostra Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 King William did indeed have a massive, massive impact on the future of this country. I am sure he would be horrified that he had become the poster boy for a bunch of buckie swilling hun bigot neds. Don't forget the gay pride activists, i'm sure he would have thought they were fabulous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovecraft Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 Don't forget the gay pride activists, i'm sure he would have thought they were fabulous. I thought the first gay pride march was just mimicking the orange pride marching season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosanostra Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 I thought the first gay pride march was just mimicking the orange pride marching season? And to this day, they march gaily through the streets, beating their little drums and showing their pride in their love of the boaby, just as their hero Willy did so many years before. That's devotion for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest S.U.S.S. Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 It's well documented that King Billy was gay and had a string of young male 'friends'. Can't understand why Unionists are getting so upset about it tbh - you would think that in this day and age nobody would find being gay offensive. Unless of course they were a bunch of reactionary, outdated bigots - something Ulster Unionists could never be accused of, surely. Do you ever take a day off trolling or trying to start bother on here? Its getting harder to find a post of yours that doesnt mention the word bigot. Wonder why that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5,099
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.