Your prominent writer/ broadcaster is so proud of being homosexual that he wishes anonymity.Surely if you are going to write such an article decrying the beliefs of others you should at least have the courage to put your name to it.
Perhaps he has choosen to remain anon because of the hatred that is still out there to gay people. I as a gay man have no problem to free speech, but not when it is so one sided, and when it incites, I do. If we lived in a society that still does not discrimnate,verbally abuse, phsically abuse or murders gay people, and I am sure not even the relgious camps condon this, then he might of glady and proudly signed his name
Our author is unable to disclose their identity as their primary writing/ broadcasting work requires them to remain impartial on such matters.
Perhaps he didn’t want to be ID’d because he didn’t want anyone to know who was advocating the kind of Nazified gulag he promotes. My skin crawls at the kind of pre-civilised ghetto he is advocating when he says that a democratic tradition requires “that any negative feelings they have for us are kept to themselves.” This writer needs to start school over – at kindergarten – if he is so utterly destitute of basic historical fact as to advocate the antithesis of democratic tradition as part of democratic tradition.Of course, his anti-scientific religious fanaticism when he writes that “We do not chose our sexuality, we are born with it or develop it through no concious decisions of our own.”His cold, calculating hatred of Christianity is evident in the methodical and reasonable tone of his revisionist screed.To try to get Christians to side with his censorship agenda, he asks, should a Jew should “have the right to say that their adoption of Jesus as the physical son of God, God incarnate and saviour of humanity is heretical and an offensive to God?”This writer obviously doesn’t know any Christians because genuine Christians are real men, they can handle criticism and intellectual discussion. A real Christian would say, yes a person has the right to say that. After all, it was Christianity that provided Britain and the West with the civilisation necessary to tolerate dissent without people killing each other.It is a tragedy that today, Hitler-wannabes and people who have never developed a mental age over 5 and who can’t handle dissent now want to establish a ruthless fascist tyranny to censor dissent.Where are the real men? Where are the advocates of liberty and personal responsibility in Britain today?
Tell me, if this couple are such passionate believers in freedom of speech why did they feel the need to try and badger the council into removing leaflets that they disapprove of? Yes, while the press focussed mainly on the Roberts’ trying to neutralize the abominable gay marriage information with christian literature, this was actually an afterthought when the council refused to be bullied by pen and phone. From the soundbytes I have read I’d say that this pair are very confused between something that discriminates and something that is none of their business.Anyway, now that it is done I hope they spend their jackpot somewhere where it will benefit the homeless and/or disabled.
I’m positive Christ himself takes a very dim view of those who say they act in his name to indulge their very own prejudace and hatred aginst others.Peace
“hate us in the private of their own homes”"Privacy” – their retarded command of English must be infecshus. She looks like she’s swallowed a wasp, so perhaps that’s her excuse.
“anythong” – Freudian or what ?
There seems to be a lot more hate (and bad grammar) in the anonymous BBC person’s screed than in anythong Mr and Mrs Roberts have written.The Daily Mail ‘squeals’, the couple ‘claim to be Christian’, their ideas ‘pollute’ newspapers. And if s/he’s going to criticise spelling don’t write a sentence like ‘The Roberts proudly spoke to to Peter Sissons of BBC News yesterday welcoming.’ And what on earth does “If she believes in democracy, then Mrs Roberts must accept the will of our democratically elected representatives” mean ? The Roberts family obey the laws as passed by Parliament. The writer seems to think democracy means everyone thinking alike – a road I wouldn’t go too far down. Governments change. “Why should they as Christians feel the right to tell members of the LGBT community that their way of life is wrong, that is offensive to God ?”They’re Christians. It’s what they do. The way of life of a great many straights is also offensive to God.”please let us not allow them to pollute our libraries, newspapers and airwaves” – nothing like freedom of speech, is there ? And who’s ‘our’ ? I think blogger Dumb Jon puts it pretty neatly :”when gays keep claiming to be terrified of persecution by Christian OAPs, well, it’s not exactly killing the stereotype stone dead is it ?”
Christ never said anything about LGB people at all, and Christians are supposed to be followers of Jesus’ teaching. The Sermon on the Mount shows us what Jesus thought of being ourselves, and that he advocated it wholeheartedly.When the writer states that these people “claim” to be christians, he is bang on correct, as christians practice loving kindness, not discrimination or hatred. I know many Christians who follow the true message of Christ, and who try to practice love in all their affairs.And the contributor who claimed that it was christianity that taught us how to handle dissent withouth violence needs to look again at the violent acts carried out historically in the name of the christian (and other) faiths and also the violent acts that are carried out today by Christian (and other) faiths eg queerbashings, bombings of abortion clinics, campaigning at funerals etc. These people are not Christians, they just claim to be. They take the bits of the bible that speak of judgment and ignore Christs message that he who without sin cast the first stone.
Even as a homosexual, I shudder at the illiberal attitude displayed above. Democracy requires me to listen to views I find loathsome. I do so knowing that the speaker may well find my own views loathsome. Your anonymous writer is basically arguing that we homosexuals are so pathetic that we have to be protected from even hearing the fact that people disapprove of homosexuality. This is neither a liberal view not a democratic one. It is totalitarianism, pure and simple.
One must be aware that not all Christians or branches of the Christian Church condemn homosexuals or homosexuality. Many use historical text to condemn, sometime selectively, many different human acts and actions.