Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Tory MEP answers back over homophobia comments

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. If this character has never met anyone with an irrational fear of homosexuals he must either inhabit a homofriendly utopia (which would effectively debar him from belonging to it), or he has just never met anyone who perceives him as gay and refuses to approach within about 5 feet (as has happened to me). The latter is much more likely, I suspect.

  2. Maybe he’d care to step off the croquet lawn and meet people in Shoreditch and Liverpool who really do suffer homophobic abuse?

  3. If your refering to the Causer murder, then the judge in the case said it was NOT a homophobic killing.

    .

  4. How pathetic. He finds himself backfooted so responds by quibbling about semantics. This man is just a hideous embarassment to the Conservative party and his head should roll ASAP.

  5. This isn’t any better, really. He has just admitted that he makes a sweeping generalisation that homophobia does not exist based on his very limited experiences.

    Homophobia and transphobia exists…and people die because of it.

    And it has to stop.

  6. Mihangel apYrs 11 Aug 2009, 11:32am

    @Pringle

    the judge was speaking out of his arse.

    The whole case was badly managed and allowed thugs to escape proper punishment.

  7. I can see him as a prison guard of a Nazi concentration camp denying the holocaust because he does not agree with the term genocide.

    This tactic he is using comes straight from the US Republican party double speak manual. You see these tactics used against president Obama reversing terminology and meaning and calling him the racist.

  8. “He added that he did not believe in gay marriage, yet assured his readers he was “liberal and tolerant”.”

    I’m not a doctor, but this is fairly bipolar thinking. Does he even know the meaning of the words “liberal and tolerant”!?!? Christmas ideas for his family: a dictionary.

  9. Its that right wing fundamentalist Republican party double speak dictionary he is using Will.

    Good = Bad
    Bad = Good

  10. Just one more reson why it confuses me so much. Sometimes I think i never should have told my mom I am gay. If I oculd I dont want to be gay anymore. i don”t have a father like you.

  11. Brian Burton 11 Aug 2009, 12:55pm

    Tory MEP, him speak with fork tounge.
    All these MEPs and Westminster MPs are Liars, Cheats and fonies. They are on the Get-Rich-Quick gravy-train of expences!

  12. Oh, here’s “Kevin” again. Kevin is upandatem/davidskinner or what ever name he uses today, pretending to be “confused” to prove some sick point. He used the same line in another thread.

  13. Of course, Mr. Helmer is right. Moreover, none of the so called “phobias” exists if subjected to the sort of scrutiny he applied to homophobia. Under certain circumstances, any fear can be regarded as rational. I hope Mr. Helmer will continue this campaign and rid our vocabulary of the unnecessary and misleading “phobias”. It is amazing that he and his law and order party friends find time for such services to society beside their tireless witchhunts against anti-social elements such as people of different ethnicity, political affiliation, and sexual orientation. I wish I could be Polish or British to be able to vote for such fine politicians. My kingdom for a passport!

  14. “It is amazing that he and his law and order party friends find time for such services to society beside their tireless witchhunts against anti-social elements such as people of different ethnicity, political affiliation, and sexual orientation.”

    There is another party, historically they done the same great job as this chap and his palls, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party of Germany from 1933 to 1945.

  15. A little boy wanted $100 badly and prayed for two weeks but nothing happened.

    Then he decided to write God a letter requesting the $100. When the postal authorities received the letter addressed to God, USA, they decided to send it to President Bush.

    The President was so impressed, touched, and amused that he instructed his secretary to send the little boy a $5.00 bill.

    President Bush thought this would appear to be a lot of money to a little boy.

    The little boy was delighted with the $5.00 and sat down to write a thank you note to God, which read:

    Dear God,

    Thank you very much for sending the money, however, I noticed that for some reason you had to send it through Washington D.C. and, as usual, those crooks deducted $95.00.

  16. I have just left the following message on his web page:

    Mr Helmer,

    As a researcher(counselling/psychotherapy/education) could I please inform you that your arguments surrounding the construct of ‘homophobia’ are utterly mis-informed. May I sugges that you, in fact, access research into homophobia and society before making spurious claims that only reflect personal prejudices. Indeed, we know (scientifically) that homophobic dispositions associate with lacking education…..I would suggest that narrow and deep is also important, as well as broad and superficial, in forming your views.

  17. Queer mafia 11 Aug 2009, 2:34pm

    Dear Mr Roger Helmer

    Did you know that handlebar moustache makes you look like a 1970’s gay porn star :D

    Are you still making films?

  18. Har Davids 11 Aug 2009, 5:19pm

    It’s becoming tedious: the moment someone has an attack of foot in mouth and gets unfriendly critique, it’s ‘militant gays’ or ‘militant’ atheists trying to curtail one’s freedom of expression, or ‘my remarks were taken out of context’. Just another BS-peddler.

  19. Brian Burton 11 Aug 2009, 5:30pm

    Who in their right mind takes notice of a MEP let alone the Westminster Get-Rich-Quick Bandit expece crowd.

  20. Christina Engela 11 Aug 2009, 5:32pm

    “”What I was saying was that the word homophobia has no meaning. I have never met anyone with an irrational fear of homosexuals, it is just a propagandist word created by the militant gay rights lobby.””

    Somebody should inform this person about the First Rule of Holes – when you’re in one, stop digging.

  21. Brian Burton 11 Aug 2009, 5:59pm

    ‘A’
    You are quite right of course. He is a MEP so the man is supid!

  22. Pumpkin Pie 11 Aug 2009, 6:40pm

    I can see him as a prison guard of a Nazi concentration camp denying the holocaust because he does not agree with the term genocide.
    There is another party, historically they done the same great job as this chap and his palls, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party of Germany from 1933 to 1945.

    Rather than being over-the-top, I actually find these accusations of Nazism to be spot-on. I was reading an excerpt from an interview with Sacha Baron Cohen (Borat/Bruno) the other day, in which he says that he didn’t believe Germany ended up the way it was under Nazi rule thanks to virulent anti-semites – all it needed was apathy. And I agree with him. People like Mr. Himmler here care not what happens to us, so long as it doesn’t inconvenience them and so long as it can be swept under the rug.

    People in this country act like Nazi Germany is some relic of the past, like it’s something that could never happen to the great old United Kingdom. And what do we find here? Racism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, sexism – these things still exist, and nobody seems to care all that much. We’re in a recession, and what’s the first thing that happens? Immigrants are stealing our jobs! Politicians have more pressing matters than working on equal rights laws! Taxpayer money shouldn’t be spent on people with mental illnesses – just lock them up instead! Stop all foreign aid, our problems are much worse! Blame everyone else for our government’s failings, and don’t extend olive branches to anyone in case we need them for firewood!

    Sometimes, just sometimes, the selfish, craven, ignorant, apathetic, idiot masses of this odd little island country make me want to vomit. I’d love to leave this place forever and move to a more enlightened land, but you know what? Very, very few such places exist. There will always be stupid, hateful people, we just need to make sure they never get the power to ruin other people’s lives.

    It’s becoming tedious: the moment someone has an attack of foot in mouth and gets unfriendly critique, it’s ‘militant gays’ or ‘militant’ atheists trying to curtail one’s freedom of expression, or ‘my remarks were taken out of context’. Just another BS-peddler.

    Another funny thing is how our anger at his spiteful little rant was only manufactured to embarrass his precious little party. Sure, ’cause we couldn’t possibly have been offended by virtue of his words being offending, could we?

  23. PLAN A DEMONSTRATION
    Roger Helmer MEP will be speaking at the

    Conservative Conference 2009 in Manchester on the 5th and 6th of October at The
    Bridgewater Hall in Manchester.
     
    It is outside the security zone so anyone can attend and
    entry is free.  

  24. My first reaction at reading this guy trying to defend his comments was to laugh out loud. I mean, how many times have we all seen politicians with foot-in-mouth syndrome, who, when being challenged about such comments say “I didn’t meant what I said, what I meant was…”. I think its all too obvious that he made bigoted comments that he knows full well were out of order, but rather than having the decency and honesty to hold his hand up and say “OK, I apologise, I admit what I said was wrong and I won’t do it again”, he’s being a coward and trying to back away from what he said whilst vainly attempting to save face. He may believe he’s wormed his way out of this one, but I doubt many others will.

    Oh, the same goes for Cllr. Gunn from Selkirk, who’s only landed himself deep in it with people far more eloquent and with sharper debating skills than himself.

  25. Dave North 11 Aug 2009, 8:27pm

    Pumpkin Pie.

    There is a lovely little story mixed into the film V for Vendetta
    about two lesbians who got together, sufferred from the usual bigotry and their current governments endorsement of it.

    Later, a more enlightened government came into play so they got married and lived together in general harmony.

    Even later, a sadistic power came into play populated by idiots like this Helmer fellow and now that they were registered, known and findeable, they came for them.

    Yes, we have to be extremely careful as all it takes is malevolent politicians like this to get into power and were potentially screwed.

  26. Nathan Garcia 11 Aug 2009, 8:54pm

    This guy is the perfect example of an insidious homophobe. The moment one has to claim levels of a liberal nature and tolerance, it’s already not true. Any time it’s not completely obvious by example of ubiquitous lack of concern about gays or their place in society, there is an element of homophobia. Denial of existence of homophobia is evidence in and of itself of homophobia. Nobody has to invent words or descriptions to embarrass Tories over lack of vision, lack of inclusion, lack of tolerance, no matter how much Tories object. Tories or on the defensive because they have plenty of policy, outlook, behaviour and attitude, inappropriate in an inclusive society on any number of levels, to defend, albeit ineffectively.

    Homophobia means any level of angst over people who are among the LGBT community. One needn’t be overt to negatively affect the society in subtle ways. Most often, those who guard against being recognized for their homophobia are destructive of the homosexual community in subtle ways. Roger Helmer would prefer, I’m certain, to be subtle in the effectiveness of his homophobia. His overt denial of the obvious is blatant, and even encourages others who would otherwise be subtle to come out of the closet to similarly mask their process of undermining the gay community.

  27. Melchior, Balthazar, and Gaspar 11 Aug 2009, 9:51pm

    Not only do we not believe that homosexuals are being disproportionately being murdered and bullied any more than the remaining 98- 99% of the population but neither do we believe in their existence – period. We call this the homosexual delusion. There are many people who claim to have seen a homosexual but we have never seen one. Where is the evidence? Where is the proof? What do they look like? Are they pink with fluffy ears and webbed feet? At least with a black man, We can see him at four hundred paces.

    To be fair, in a way We can understand the mistake: simple people pick up a handful of books claiming to be written by the Queer Queen of Heaven, or his apostles such as Alfred Kinsey, Ian Mckellen, Ben Summerskill or Peter Tatchell and since a Queer Queen of Heaven seems to be a sufficient account for how these books got to be there, for the similarities in all the texts, and so on – they stick with commonsense and fallaciously conclude that this being (which they have never seen with their own eyes) actually exists.

    Of course, some people do claim to have seen the “Queen“, and even shaken his hand but there’s no shortage of liars in the world, and undoubtedly
    some people who claim to have had these Queen experiences are deliberately telling fairy stories, but, you know, the human brain is a very, very complicated thing… and conjuring up an imaginary Queen would be child’s play for it. Christopher Robin had Binker. Richard Dawkins had the slimy custard man. We suspect that something very similar is happening with people who claim to have seen a Queen or heard his voice, or felt his cold touch.

    Admittedly there are also no end of gay parades composed of strutting, sweating gesticulating, grunting, goose-stepping and cavorting devotees who worship the Queen, singing the hymn, “The Love that dares to speak its name” but what does this prove except that mass delusion is frighteningly possible.

    Internet sites such as Outrage, Stonewall, LGBT History month are certainly no proof that the Queer queen exists . As a scientist it is no answer to the question ’ where did this inane rubbish come from?’ To stick a label on them that says “ Queen ” or the gospel according to Peter Tatchell or Alfred Kinsey or Sharron Ferguson is no answer at all.

    Each internet site is a simple re-arrangement of only 26 letters. Even a child should be able to see that, with a little random shuffling of vowels and consonants on a computer, one can arrive at all sorts of patterns like that. Working out how each letter got into the place that it did is the business of science. Claiming that the Queen of Heaven did it puts an end to an inquiry that promises to give us a full and satisfying explanation of how these books came to be, without the need for invoking a discredited Queen -of-the-gaps-type
    hypothesis.
    Some people might point to the fact that the letters on the PinkPage , or Gaydar, for instance, are arranged in definite patterns, spelling out sophisticated chains of arguments, and that this is a clear mark of intelligence, not random accident.

    Well, If there were some kind of intelligence behind these books and sites, then, judging by their contents, it is obviously a pretty poor one; we would hardly have lost much by not believing in the Queer Queen or in what his books have to say. The scientific view of the matter is beautifully simple and invigorating: the works of the “Queen” and all his apostles are nothing but a collection of fortuitously ordered a’s, b’s and c’s, recombined from previous patterns. There are the jumbled Latin and Greek prefixes and suffixes, like philia, phobia, homo and hetero; there are the nonsense poems of Edward Lear, the lies of Kinsey and there are the works of the Queen, and the one developed from the other, through a series of hallucinations, chicanery and random typing errors…though admittedly we haven’t got all of the details just now.

    But If science doesn’t have the answers to where they came from, then, sure as hell, the Queen of Heaven doesn’t. If a Queen designed the books, then who designed the Queen? Just tell us that.

    No the Queen of Heaven and all his followers can only be described as an ostentatiousacrimonioussuperciliouspusillanimouscalumniouscensoriousvituperativequerulousembitteredobsessive and bombastic bully.

    Some might think that that’s going a bit over the top but one only has to read the threads on Pink News, or Peter Tatchell’s Outrage, or Stonewall to discover this is not so. Apart from finding no evidence whatsoever for an intelligence hiding somewhere beneath the paragraphs in the mystical realm of blind faith, you will discover, on the other hand, plenty of hatred, ignorance, intolerance, bigotry and buffoonery in every sentence.

    Believing in a Queen of Heaven is a dangerous delusion, but some might ask but what’s especially dangerous about people believing in his existence if it makes them happy? Makes them happy?
    Well, for one fairly obvious reason: these people believe any book which has the
    name gay on the cover, and these books say a lot of very silly things. Belief in the Queen and his apostles has been responsible for filling the internet with non-sequiturs, caricatures, strawmen and vitriol. Those of us who walk the heights and dare to doubt the assertions of this “smarter than thou” homosexual delusion find themselves subjected to a modern inquisition – consisting mostly of the Mainstream Media and politically correct counsellors, researchers, psychotherapists and educationist . We believe the Queen’s disciples, like Ian Mckellen and Summerskill are fascist militants; they are organised, and they’re out to force us to convert us and our children. Yes, we would certainly call this a dangerous delusion. If there is a Queen he has a lot to answer for, and one day will answer in full. We only hope Sir Richard Dannett is getting those rooms in the Tower of London aired and ready.

  28. “neither do we believe in their existence”

    Oh, no! I don’t exist! Help me! Help me! I’m imaginary! Just like Jesus and the Holy Chickey Spirit, and his “virgin” mother!

    What a joke.

    That’s just plain stupid… even more so than your other stupid statements. And that’s saying something!

    Really. Do you think you can stop my €140k annual salary? Or take away my half a million euro home with my partner? Or my friends, my family? Anything I have?

    No?

    So what can you do?

    Oh, that’s right. Nothing. Looks like we “imaginary people” are more influential than you.

    Love the “we” bit…. only applies if there’s more than one of you, you think shit, multiple personalities don’t actually count.

    To PinkNews, surely you can ban this twat’s IP address? I mean, its just the ame thing with him, over an over and over again… this gimp couldn’t make it to the corner shop unaided!

  29. Actually, I have to mention this, its really had me laughing:

    “Not only do we not believe that homosexuals are being disproportionately being murdered and bullied any more than the remaining 98- 99% of the population but neither do we believe in their existence – period.”

    So, the first part, the say that “homosexuals” are getting killed and bullied more than breeders, then they say that we don’t exist…..

    …..Hmmmmm…..

    Hold on! Wait a minute…. who’s getting murdered? The homosexuals that don’t exist? Riiiiiiiiight.

    What a laugh! Have you ever heard anything so bleeding stupid?!?! Ha! Does he even read the crap he writes!

  30. Pumpkin Pie 11 Aug 2009, 10:45pm

    Dave North:-

    Ah, I really wanted to see V For Vendetta at the cinema when it came out, but I was desperately broke at the time. I’ll have to catch it on DVD some time. And read the original graphic novel, too. It sounds like such an interesting piece of art on many levels.

  31. I am not typing this as I don’t exist lol

    And Ben Summerskill did not write an article on this in the Guardian today as he does not exist also.

    guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/11/homphobia-europe-roger-helmer?commentpage=1

  32. Mario Sanchez 11 Aug 2009, 11:03pm

    fuck you, europe!

  33. If homosexuals don’t exist, then homosexual news websites don’t exist (because without anyone to create, maintain and reed them they can’t exist), and so that entire rant was in fact a hallucination, making it is you who is deluded (and apparently suffering from a multiple personality disorder too).

  34. Ben Summrskill, Ian Mckellen and Elton John all certainly exist as men but Ben,Ian and Elton as homosexuals do not. In the same thatIsabel Quaresma the woman exists but not Isabel, the chicken. I wish to refer to the case of Isabel Quaresma, a Portuguese woman who was found in January 1980 at the age of nine, after she had spent the previous eight years shut in a hen-coop. Her growth was seriously stunted; she held her arms in the position of hens’ wings, and the palms of her hands were calloused. She had been fed on scraps; the same food as the hens received.
    Eventually she was rescued and taken for rehabilitation. The question arises, should the institute that has challenged Isabel’s condition be convicted of an incitement to chickenphobic hatred simply for trying to rehabilitate her?

  35. Heterosexuals do not exist a few drinks and they go anyway!

  36. The question for you, then, Balthazar, is why do gay people come from predominantly straight culture? Don’t get me wrong – I am not in favour of your analogy – it shows a philosophical immaturity that is not in question. However you seem obsessed with the etiology of homosexuality…..I wonder why it is relevant? A large group of people in our inter-subjective reality identify themselves as part of a group ‘the gayers’ – now, if you have a problem with that; please produce an ethically-based argument why this harmful to society (or other individuals). If you can do that 1) without recourse to religious dogma 2) without pejudicial bias in interpretation of research…etc. then I will be surprised.

    You do me the honour of addressing counselling, psychotherapy and educationalism (I’ve corrected your grammar here) in your post. This suggests to me that you found my post somewhat challenging.

    This all makes me wonder why you have such a passionate opposition to your supposed ‘homosexual agenda’, I can only imagine that you have some personal conflict surrounding sexualities and understanding sexual diversity….I am sorry that your chosen method of ‘using others’ for your own sense-making exercise is lost on most of us……I am only glad of the time and energy you seem to have spent making your entries – at least it has pre-occupied you when you may have been causing real harm. I pity you.

  37. Eagle Ashcroft 12 Aug 2009, 1:45am

    Rodger Hermer you’ve so full of sh-t you ought to go into the fertilizer business because you would be an over night multi-billionaire as you so full of it. You haven’t the brains to blow your self to hell. Why you’ve dumber than a box of rocks. After reading your blog I’d advise you go back to school starting in nursery school and working your way up. Yeah right the gay agenda spreads propaganda like you got a hole in the top of your head.The trouble with a-holes like you is you put your foot in your mouth every time you speak. Put your money where your mouth is and shut the f-ck up because a-holes like you would scream and run if you saw a drag queen cross your path. Don’t tell any of us you’ve not homophobic or we made the word up you ignorant jackass.

  38. here is a comment i have left on roger’s website. it is my best attempt to unravel the double speak and confusion in his article and ask him to be accountable for his words.

    roger i feel you are being disingenuous here. language changes. to say that homophobia describes irrational fear of gay people and can not describe hatred of gay people is to say that the word mobile can not describe a phone as that is not its exact meaning. yet most of society uses it this way. as most of society uses the word homophobia to describe hatred of gay people and treating gay people as inferior. one of the great qualities of the english language (and why we have Shakespeare) is its great fluidity.

    however, to meet you on your ground. it would seem you would accept that hatred toward gay people does exist (and i appreciate your condemnation of this). this whole discussion arose because of your talking about Mr Kaminski. BBC Radio 4 broadcast the audio of a tv interview with Mr Kaminski. the transcript runs as follows.

    He said: “The association of fags unequivocally support this.”

    The interviewer asks: “What term did you use?”

    Kaminski replies: “The assocation of fags.”

    The interviewer then says: “Don’t you think that’s offensive?”

    Kaminski says: “That’s how people speak. What should I say? They are fags.”

    the Polish word used is reported as being an analogue of the word “fag” and it is clear from the interviewer’s response that the word he used is derogatory. this seems to me to indicate a viewpoint where gay people are seen as inferior and not worthy of respect. thus, whether the word homophobia is used or not – it would seem that Mr Kaminski – a public figure – has been making derogatory comments about gay people. i wonder if you would defend this.

    on the subject of conventional views – it was once a conventional view that people from Africa were able to be enslaved – it was once a conventional view in the Weimar Republic that Jewish people were dangerous.

    when a conventional view is held about a group by people who are not part of the group and that view is used to create inequality in a society then surely it is important to examine that view. in fact history is built on this.

    this does not preclude you from airing your views on gay marriage – i welcome them as it helps us have a full debate. but please do not be surprised if people challenge those views. and do not use the term of political correctness to silence those who would challenge your argument.

  39. What Melchior, Balthazar and Gaspar desperately wish to be true in their comment at No. 27, is that being gay is caused after birth or is a learned behaviour. Why they should desperately wish this to be true when it manifestly is not so says far more about their personal insecurities than it does about the human race in all its glorious diversity and difference.

    The Boston Globe carried an article back in 2006 (www dot boston dot com slash news slash globe slash magazine slash articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/) which explored the irrational needs of people like Melchior, Balthazar and Gaspar for rule driven societies and ways of thought which validate their own limited thinking. The opinion of many scientists working in the field of social relationships is that people like these – in reality, of course, all three identities are the same person and that fact is, in itself, highly revealing – are profoundly disassociated and potentially dangerous. One can easily see in Comment 27 that the composite dysfunctional identity is very angry – the incoherence in the sentence structure, the inability to express a rational argument in a logical manner and the profound anxiety about the very existence of the hate object (gay people, in this case) and the profound denial that the hate object can possibly have any validity at all in his (her?) world are all symptomatic of a personality experiencing a profound crisis. This person, whoever he or she is, is in deep distress and is very angry and potentially very dangerous because the real world does not, and will not, conform to his internal narrative about what is normal and acceptable.

    I strongly advise that if anyone here on this site has the slightest clue as to the real identity of the composite Melchior/Balthazar/Gaspar person then they should contact their local police force and express their concerns about the stability of this sad character before he, or she, harms someone – as he, or she, will most certainly do as this composite character’s frustrations mount and its hatreds become more and more irrational and out of control.

    Here’s a quote from the Boston Globe article which I referenced above (o read the whole thing for it’s worth the read and it is quite short), please note that the emphases given in bold type are mine and not the Boston Globe’s:

    The Family Research Council, a conservative Christian think tank in Washington, D.C., argues in its book Getting It Straight that finding people are born gay “would advance the idea that sexual orientation is an innate characteristic, like race; that homosexuals, like African-Americans, should be legally protected against ‘discrimination;’ and that disapproval of homosexuality should be as socially stigmatized as racism. However, it is not true.”

    Some advocates of gay marriage argue that proving sexual orientation is inborn would make it easier to frame the debate as simply a matter of civil rights. That could be true, but then again, freedom of religion enjoyed federal protection long before inborn traits like race and sex.

    For much of the 20th century, the dominant thinking connected homosexuality to upbringing. Freud, for instance, speculated that overprotective mothers and distant fathers helped make boys gay. It took the American Psychiatric Association until 1973 to remove “homosexuality” from its manual of mental disorders.

    Then, in 1991, a neuroscientist in San Diego named Simon LeVay told the world he had found a key difference between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men he studied. LeVay showed that a tiny clump of neurons of the anterior hypothalamus – which is believed to control sexual behavior – was, on average, more than twice the size in heterosexual men as in homosexual men. LeVay’s findings did not speak directly to the nature-versus-nurture debate – the clumps could, theoretically, have changed size because of homosexual behavior. But that seemed unlikely, and the study ended up jump-starting the effort to prove a biological basis for homosexuality.

    We also have to bear in mind that Warren J. Gadpaille – a now discounted source because of the advancement in scientific techniques and who published back in the 1970s – is the basis for much of the psychosexual nonsense and beliefs, such as the rant at Comment 27, that the composite Melchior/Balthazar/Gaspar character who posted that disturbed rant and therein builds his arguments on, decided to go with. Gadpaille and his erroneous views about homosexuality has had a huge influence within the fundamentalist Christian community – not, I hasten to add, that Gadpaille was deliberately or viciously wrong nor that he would have approved of his work being used in the way that they do; simply that his findings have been overtaken by new discoveries and techniques in science such as modern, sophisticated genetics (as he would be the first to acknowledge) and that it is purely by accident, or evil design, that fundamentalist so-called Christians have seized upon his early works.

    Of course, one also has to bear in mind that the seminal, no pun intended, work of Vivienne C. Cass (Homosexual identity formation: Testing a theoretical model – The Journal of Sex Research Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 143-167 May, 1984, has also been instrumental in formulating the attitudes of such fundamentalists as the Melchior/Balthazar/Gaspar character who appears at this site in his various guises. Again, one has to say that there is absolutely no evidence that Cass supports the viewpoints of such sociopaths as the composite character, Melchior/Balthazar/Gaspar, under discussion here.

    Of course, and as I’m sure that many here will see, the argument isn’t about what causes homosexuality – it’s about what causes sexual desire and why some people, us gay people, want to couple with others of the same sex whilst some people, the majority of people, want to couple with others of the opposite sex. The argument that the strange composite character, Melchior/Balthazar/Gaspar seems to want to advance is that some sexualities are, quite simply, wrong because they have no fulfilment. That, however, is manifest rubbish and only has any meaning if one discounts love and asserts the supremacy of procreation as the only possible meaning for sexual behaviour and if one discounts the genetic interest in closely related offspring.

    I’ve also noted a tendency by this odd composite character, on other threads at this site, to attempt to denigrate homosexuals by associating them (us) with predatory sexual behaviour and child molestation. Such fixations are deeply unhealthy and I would advise anyone here present who might have some clue as to the identity of this idiotic composite character to keep their children well out of reach of his (her) grasp for this person is very obviously deeply disturbed when it comes to children and their sexuality and, if you have any clue as to their identity, he or she must be reported to your local police force as soon as you possibly can.

    It’s my considered opinion, but, of course, I could be wrong that people like the Melchior/Balthazar/Gaspar character at this thread (and others like David Skinner on other threads at this site) are extremely dangerous and that they represent, if their words are to be believed, a violent threat against everyday Gay people and against children.

    Their determined attempts to try to link Gay behaviour with child molestation speak volumes to me. These are, or he is, very dangerous people, or a very dangerous and deranged person, and he, or they, must be stopped. The sheer anger, viciousness and bile in his comment (27) demonstrates most clearly that he, or they, is, or are, no longer in full command of their human reasoning faculties. The person who posted Comment 27 is seriously deranged and must be reported to the police as soon as possible.

  40. @Dave North (25) my sentiments exactly.

  41. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 12 Aug 2009, 8:31am

    BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! JOHN.M.J.! BRAVO! BRAVO! JOHN M.J.! BRAVO! BRAVO!

  42. Well said John.

    Although I have a feeling that this chap, with all his many “personality facets”, is more than likely in receipt of medical help of some form already…. this kind of intensely abnormal anti-social behaviour can only go hidden from normal people for so long. Lets face it, this nut is not the employable type, nor the type that has any friends, or the the that can foster any meaningful relationships, sexual or otherwise.

    He’s probably banging out this dribble from an outpatients ward on a V-Tech laptop with a rubber stylus attached to his head.

  43. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 12 Aug 2009, 9:04am

    Will! Bravo! Bravo Will! Bravo! Bravo! Bravo Will! Will! Bravo!

  44. Well done, M.J! I’ve often thought that some of the fundies on here are seriously deranged. I’d said that about David Skinner before. What scares me is that some of them DO, as you say, exhibit signs that would lead one to believe that they could resort to violence. There is a huge amount of aggression and repressed frustration and anger in some of their posts.

    Will – you made me smile :D Sadly, I think this loner isn’t in the safety of a Psych ward – although he quite clearly should be.

  45. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 12 Aug 2009, 12:05pm

    Melchior, Balthazar, and Gaspar:

    BOO!
    BOO!
    BOO!
    BOO!
    GO HOME!
    BOO!
    FAKE!
    BOO!
    BOO!
    GO HOME!
    BOO!
    FAKE!
    BOO!
    BOO!
    BOO!
    GO HOME!
    FAKE!
    FAKE!
    BOO!
    BOO!

  46. All my respect to the people who read Melchior/Balthazar/Gaspar’s comment. I thought, after reading the first couple of sentences that it was a parody but I did not find it amusing so just skipped. Well I hope it is not very blasphemic, but I just started wondering why someone who thinks homosexuality is wrong would pick as his pseudonym the names of three bearded adult men who cross the desert to admire a baby boy.

  47. Andy, this nutter is on a delusional “kings” rant… he thinks he’s a king. All the names he uses mean king.

    Probably someone put him in charge of his fellow drooling screamers in the psychiatric ward, and now it gone to his head.

  48. John, if you can give me an ethically – based argument as to why homosexuality contributes to society without recourse to the beliefs of Hegel and the dogma of Marx, or with the prejudicial bias in interpretation of research carried out by the likes of LeVay who is gay, or the bogus psychoanalysis of Michael King, yet another “Queen of Heaven” devotee, I too would be surprised.
    By the way, I hope you noticed that in Boston Globe report “What makes people gay? “ it said, “Most reputable studies find the rate of homosexuality in the general population to be 2 to 4 percent, rather than the popular “1 in 10″ estimate.” Well, Well.

    Iris, Iris “There is a huge amount of aggression and repressed frustration and anger in some of their posts.” Well, Iris, let us be thankful that it remains in their posts and does not find physical expression as it does with the gays attacking Christians, on the streets, in universities and in their churches.

    The Hamilton Square Baptist Church riot in San Francisco took place on the date of September 19, 1993 in which an angry group of male homosexuals and lesbians vandalized church property, assaulted church members, terrorized church congregants, screamed profanity, threw rocks, harassed and scared children, and disrupted a church service. During the riot the rioters pounded on the church doors and attempted to kick them down. When the rioters saw church children standing in the lobby, they shouted “We want your children. Give us your children.” During the riot an eight year old mentally handicapped girl was verbally accosted when exiting through the front entrance of the church and was so traumatized that she fell down the church steps. In addition, a nine year old boy was hysterically crying and said “They are after me. It’s me they want.” The nine year old boy did not calm down until the family was several miles from the building.
    According to Pastor David Innes, Senior Pastor of Hamilton Square Baptist church, the protesters denied people entrance to the church and in some cases did it by physical contact.
    When people entered the church demonstrators gave out phony flyers said to be church flyers. In addition, the phony flyers were also put on automobile windshields in the surrounding area. By 6:00 PM that evening a riotous conditions were under way and the rioters had control of the outside church property. The church asked the officer in charge several times to remove the protesters but the officer stated that things were completely under control and that police regulations and procedures prevented him from removing the rioters.

    On 22 July 1998, thanks to a campaign led by the late lady Young, the House of Lords rejected the Government’s attempts to lower the age of homosexual consent to 16. However, as the debate took place, gay rights groups held a vigil outside Parliament; this threatened to become violent when it became clear they had lost the vote. Led principally by the gay rights group Outrage! The protesters attempted to storm Parliament in anger at the Peers’ decision; fortunately this was stopped by the police.
    Unfortunately, the vehemence displayed by the protesters did not end there. As the Peers were leaving the House of Lords, those who voted against the Government were insulted, sneered at and received death threats. Lady Young herself required police assistance in getting to her car.

    In 1999 an Anglican parish church in Newcastle upon Tyne was vandalised and extensively daubed with obscene graffiti because its vicar upheld traditional Christian beliefs on homosexuality. The attack followed a local meeting organised by Britain’s leading ‘gay rights’ lobby group, Stonewall, at which a member of the audience advocated action against Jesmond Parish Church in Newcastle.

    In 2006 the Western Isles Council in Scotland received hate mail and death threats because its registrars refused, on moral grounds, to conduct civil partnership ceremonies.

    2006: Dozens of lesbian activists at Smith College, USA, climbed in through windows and stormed the podium in a riot scene shortly after Ryan Sorba began a speech on his upcoming book, ‘The Born Gay Hoax.’ The melee forced an end to the speech before a packed hall in the library on the Northampton campus. Uniformed police officers and a plainclothes security guard were in the room but mostly just stood and watched. Rather than take action against the rioters, the officers and a university official walked to the podium and ordered Sorba to leave the room “for his own safety.”

    November 2008, a homosexual mob attacked a group of Christians and assaulted a girl that go to San Francisco’s Castro district every Friday to witness the Gospel.

    November 2008, Worshippers at a Bible-teaching church in Lansing, Mich., were stunned when members of a pro-homosexual, pro-anarchy organization named Bash Back interrupted their service to fling propaganda and condoms around the sanctuary, drape a profane banner from the balcony and feature two lesbians making out at the pulpit

    March 11th 2009 homosexual and lesbian Student storm troopers became the final arbiters of who may speak and what views may be expressed in the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, The speaker went to speak on hate crimes laws as a threat to free speech and religious freedom.
    The mob scene was coordinated by the International Socialist Organization (a group found only on college campuses and in the Obama administration), the Pride Alliance, the Coalition Against Hate, and the Campus Anti-War Network.

    Iris, I could go but space and time do not allow but let us never ever forget Mr Harry Hammond a 65 year old street preacher, in 2001, in Bournemouth, who felt deeply offended and threatened by the way Gays were taking over the centre of Bournemouth. In response he displayed placards that read ‘Stop Immorality’, ‘Stop Homosexuality’ and ‘Stop Lesbianism.’ About 30 gays, who obviously felt offended by this, attacked him, knocking him to the ground and pelting him with soil and water. Even though he was the one who was physically assaulted, the Crown Prosecution Service had him fined £300 with £350 court costs, plus the receipt of a criminal record for inviting this attack upon himself. He died a few months later.

    Iris, homosexuality is a violation and consequently is orientated towards violence.
    I certainly wouldn’t want to meet your friend Lezabella down a dark alley.

  49. “Iris, homosexuality is a violation and consequently is orientated towards violence.
    I certainly wouldn’t want to meet your friend Lezabella down a dark alley”

    No, it’s not a violation. You keep saying that as though it’s a fact, but it’s not.

    As I keep saying, but I’ll say yet again. Some LGBT people are violent, some heterosexual people are violent – that doesn’t mean that ALL LGBT people are (nor all heterosexuals). People keep mentioning violent heterosexuals to try to make you understand the fallacy of your argument, but you either refuse to understand or DO understand but just dismiss it because it interferes with your bias.

    And what you said about Lezabella is absolutely laughable! :D What do you think she’ll do? Assault you with her superior intelligence?

  50. “if you can give me an ethically – based argument as to why homosexuality contributes to society”

    You wont understand this, but for the benefit of those other readers with an IQ above that of an apple:

    Genes for homosexuality could be beneficial on the whole, to society. In bonobo chimpanzees, studies of homosexual interactions are a form of social cement, and bonobos are very closely related to humans. It is possible that homosexuality evolved to serve social functions in humans, too (Kirkpatrick 2000). After all, social cohesion is still a main function of sex in humans.

    The genetic etiology of homosexuality may come from a collection of traits that, when expressed strongly and in concert, result in homosexuality; expressed less strongly or without supporting traits, these traits contribute to the robust nature of our species. The genes for these traits persist because they usually combine to make us better at survival and reproduction.

    Genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men apparently boost fertility in women. Female relatives of gay men, on their mother’s side of the family, had more children than female relatives of heterosexual men. (Corna et al. 2004)

    It should be noted that the question of explaining homosexuality is not limited to humans. Homosexuality exists in hundreds of animal species, and has been SCIENTIFICALLY observed (Bagemihl 1998).

    As I said, you need a brain to understand this, so I’m no expecting an intelligent answer from you Pringle. I never do.

    But go ahead and try, you do make me laugh in a guilty-laugh-at-the-retard kinda way!

  51. In reference to John’s comments I said something similar a while ago, I think this individual has a real personality disorder.

    Hence their obsessiveness with something they supposedly hate, their “I’m right” attitude despite any evidence to the contrary, their ability to only see things in black and white (no grey), babbling paragraphs and unsual syntaxical structure, and their disturbing penchant for bringing up paedophillia and child abuse all of the time.

    I think they may have a fragmented personality, perhaps Borderline Personality Disorder, although I’m not sure yet, medicine isn’t my area, however I can clearly see they’re not normal.

    Ha ha I really don’t know what he thinks I’d do to him in an alleyway Iris, maybe it’s a sick fantasy he has???? Ugh!

  52. Yo Balthazar, defender of the faith. Listen man, I read your latest comment, and I can only say I am happy time and space did not allow you to continue – still not funny, boy.

    Some of your lot can be pretty amusing, but you are just not one of them. I guess God probably did not intend you for our amusement. I wonder if he can come up with an ethics-based reason for your existence, especially taking into consideration that you are just not funny.

  53. Belteshazzar 12 Aug 2009, 7:31pm

    Will, I too have read all this twaddle about bare – buttocked baboons ( why do I immediately think of you ?) and your gullible belief in everything so – called scientists, (especially those who are gay themselves) have to say. Your credulity would make a witch doctor green with envy.

    The sad thing is Will, nay tragic, is that although you ask for an intelligent reply, it is precisely an intelligent reply that you are incapable of understanding.

    Was that laughing in a retarded kinda way?

  54. Belteshazzar 12 Aug 2009, 7:34pm

    LezaBella, Impressed by your understanding of the Bible, I feel confident that you will be able to answer this legal conundrum . Incidentally I confess to knowing absolutely nothing about the law.

    I always thought that crimes of passion were put in the category of manslaughter and are therefore not so serious as pre- meditated murder. But it seems now that manslaughter motivated by phobia, passion, hatred, is a worse crime. Or does this only apply to crimes motivated by homophobia? If the assailant of Michael Causer had, through rational, cold -blooded deduction, without malice, carried out the killing simply because he believed homosexuals should die, would this have been a lesser or worse crime?

    Here is another conundrum: if the assailant of Michael had been motivated by homophilia, irrational love, like Nadim Kurrimbukus who set fire to his lover, Charlie Davies, or Oral Seaton who butchered his former lover Winston Dow – Stephenson, would this be a lesser crime?

    And what about crimes motivated by cyprinophobia, dysmorphophobia, photophobia, gerontophobia, heterophobia, gingerphobia hobophobia, Judeophobia, peladophobia. Why are not these minority groups given special protection?

    In September 2008, Ian Mckellen said,

    “I’ve been busy at quite a few schools recently. I went to a wonderful school in Harpenden.
    “They invited me to come and give prizes to 13-year-olds in front of the parents and to talk, partly, about being gay. I said that we were all part of a minority group – be it for being short or tall or fat or thin, or having red hair or whatever. I said, ‘Hands up who thinks they are part of a minority group,’ and all the hands went up.

    Why didn’t he tell them that some minorities, like homosexuals are more equal than others?

    Finally Lezabella, what happens when homosexuals cease to be a tiny minority but grow to become 10, 20 50 or even 60% of the population. Will they loose their protected status?

    So many questions.

  55. “The sad thing is Will, nay tragic, is that although you ask for an intelligent reply, it is precisely an intelligent reply that you are incapable of understanding.”

    How would you know? You haven’t given one yet.

  56. “The sad thing is Will, nay tragic, is that although you ask for an intelligent reply, it is precisely an intelligent reply that you are incapable of understanding.”

    Translation: I haven’t a f*cking clue what you’re saying, I’m an idiot.

  57. “If the assailant of Michael Causer had, through rational, cold -blooded deduction, without malice, carried out the killing simply because he believed homosexuals should die, would this have been a lesser or worse crime?”

    So you’re asking whether, if the assailant ‘didn’t know what he was doing was wrong’ i.e it was just the assailants view of homosexuals.

    This would then fall under the Mac’ Naughten Rules (spelling is variable as it’s so old) of ‘insanity’. To put the rules very bluntly and simply, they can be used if an assailant either:

    A) Didn’t know what they were doing
    B) Didn’t know what they were doing was wrong.

    This doesn’t apply in the Causer case as the assailants did know what they were doing, they were not in psychosis or anything, and more importantly they knew it was wrong; hence they dragged Michael into the street and lied that other youths had beaten him to cover their tracks. To cover one’s tracks and to lie is a clear indication you knew what you did was wrong.

    The only logical motive WAS homophobia due to the attackers stating “He’s a little queer he deserves it”.

    So your question is pointless as it simply doesn’t apply here.

    Are you trying to defend murderers here because you hate gays so much? Or are you trying to test me? Either way, on both counts you’ve failed.

    I think you DO have a personality disorder, seriously.

    You’re obsessed with homosexuality aren’t you? Do you think this, or trying to defend murderers of a gay man, is normal behaviour?

  58. Our biblical friend changes his name so many times I cannot keep track of it anymore, so I will just refer to him from now on as the nut case. Is that OK nut case?

    I have to say you did make some progress. Now you are sounding a bit like Hannibal Lecter or however you spell that. Still not funny, but in some perverted way, hmmm…, how does one say… gives me the shivers. I will continue reading your comments to see if you will progress and God or evolution can make something nice of you, like a sheep or maybe a chicken…

  59. Andy, evolution left that cretin behind. Intelligence is an evolutionary trait of humans, all except him, he’s still screaming at the sky god to smite stuff. He’s a throwback to darker, more devolved times…. the only difference is that we have to suffer the arrogant stupidity he’s banging out on a V-Tech laptop with his face….

  60. Maybe I need to do what you do Pringle with the hope some of this intelligence will hit home and raise you out of your stupor (I assume you drink excessively?), just repeat, repeat, repeat…. here goes.

    “if you can give me an ethically – based argument as to why homosexuality contributes to society”

    You wont understand this, but for the benefit of those other readers with an IQ above that of an apple:

    Genes for homosexuality could be beneficial on the whole, to society. In bonobo chimpanzees, studies of homosexual interactions are a form of social cement, and bonobos are very closely related to humans. It is possible that homosexuality evolved to serve social functions in humans, too (Kirkpatrick 2000). After all, social cohesion is still a main function of sex in humans.

    The genetic etiology of homosexuality may come from a collection of traits that, when expressed strongly and in concert, result in homosexuality; expressed less strongly or without supporting traits, these traits contribute to the robust nature of our species. The genes for these traits persist because they usually combine to make us better at survival and reproduction.

    Genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men apparently boost fertility in women. Female relatives of gay men, on their mother’s side of the family, had more children than female relatives of heterosexual men. (Corna et al. 2004)

    It should be noted that the question of explaining homosexuality is not limited to humans. Homosexuality exists in hundreds of animal species, and has been SCIENTIFICALLY observed (Bagemihl 1998).

    As I said, you need a brain to understand this, so I’m no expecting an intelligent answer from you Pringle. I never do.

  61. Belteshazzar 12 Aug 2009, 9:07pm

    Not so fast Lezabella; you haven’t answered the other questions. And if I may, here is one more: what would be the difference between a homosexual taking his partner who was terminally ill with a sexually transmitted disease to Dignitas, (or even a health authority that thought that in the best interests of the patient it was time to pull the plug) and another person, such as a member of that partner’s own family, such as a parent, cutting short his life simply because they didn’t want him to even have the possibility of contracting AIDs or HIV? The motivation in both cases would the same; not wanting to see a loved one suffer.

    However, I would be content if you were to just answer the other questions.

  62. If Will is so incorrect with his scientific proof of homosexuality pringle, the intelligent thing to do is take each example and provide your own scientific proof as to the alternative theory.

    What you have done is to dismiss scientific studies with small insults and an ad hominem attack. This just lends to the fact you (1) don’t understand what Will has said, or (2) you are indeed quite stupid (3) you have no response.

    This lends to Will’s argument, not detract from it. In fact it makes you look like a bigger fool than you already do. Quite distasteful, your response. Not quite the “authority” on homosexuality, are you, just an authority of looking like an idiot next to people with a superior mind. I find your lack of substance quite distressing, and noting you say said would make me think that everything you say is but a lie driven by your own agenda. I’m sure everyone else here thinks the same. I can only assume you find life quite stressful, difficult to understand, and lonely.

    Will, well done on trying to enlighten a dark and small mind, but while it wasted on him, I found what you had to say quite interesting. I also to the time to reference that paper by Bagemihl. Truly fascinating. Here is the bit that caught my attention:

    “No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue.” An example of overlooking homosexual behavior is noted by Bruce Bagemihl describing mating giraffes where nine out of ten pairings occur between males. “Every male that sniffed a female was reported as sex, while anal intercourse with orgasm between males was only “revolving around” dominance, competition or greetings.”

    So, by pringle’s delusions, the giraffes are sinners???? I’m sure the giraffes care.

    Its sad that someone in this day an age, with all the information at their fingertips, can still end up with be such a dismally closed mind.

  63. If I do answer the questions, why do you want to know the answers in the first place?

  64. “The motivation in both cases would the same; not wanting to see a loved one suffer.”

    Yeah, I agree, your mother should have put a pillow on your face when you were born…. no we all have to pay the price for that whore’s lack of backbone in listening to your low brow rantings.

  65. Lezabella, let him answer your questions first…. he thinks he can demand answers, but not give any. And you know he’s a freak, your above his demands for answers.

  66. Glad you enjoyed the read, Tony. Fascinating, isn’t it?

    The natural existence of homosexuality in non-human animals is the bane in the argument of conservative religious nuts who oppose our basic human rights because these findings point to the natural occurrence of homosexuality in humans. It also counters the ‘peccatum contra naturam’ (‘sin against nature’) rubbish we hear to often.

    The evidence is there for all to see…. closing your eyes doesn’t make it go away.

  67. I agree Will, usually I don’t mind people ‘picking my brain’ so to speak, but I question his motives.

  68. Yep, he has only one agenda, spout lies and feel one bit better about himself that he’s ranting to gay people. Think of him like a stupider version of Fred Phelps…. they have a lot in common:- the anger, the unreasonable arguments, the rantings, and of course, the blind hate.

  69. If you answer him, Lezabella, he’ll just ignore your answers and move on to something else or revert to abuse.

    His statement here is beyond stupid: “The motivation in both cases would the same; not wanting to see a loved one suffer.”

    Don’t let him distract you with legal matters. I can’t believe there are many people who know less than him about the law. His motives are utterly transparent.

  70. To the Commenter at 48/

    First of all let me say that I did not introduce either Hegel or Marx into this discussion – you did! There is nothing in my Comment at 39 which should lead you imply that I am a Marxist and that is just a specious attack designed – in all its weakness – to cheaply discredit me. Let me categorically state that I am NOT a Marxist. I understand your wilful objections to the freedoms implied in Hegel’s works – such freedoms as ‘speculative reason’ cannot possibly fit into your limited worldview for you do not incline to reason and argument but to rules and the absolutes of belief. I accept some of Hegel’s philosophy and reject some of it – as any sensible person would but, obviously, as you do not.

    Secondly, whether or not Mr. LeVay is gay does not invalidate his findings if other scientists, gay or straight, can reproduce them, and they can, so therefore Mr. LeVay’s findings are valid and his gayness, or otherwise, is just another red-herring and your use of his alleged sexual orientation is just another cheap attempt to discredit scientific findings in order to justify your own idea, unsupported by any evidence, that gay scientists will be biased (are straight scientists biased, too, in favour of heterosexuality?).

    Thirdly, it matters not one damn or curse whether the number of Gay people in our population is two, four, six, eight, or ten percent. What are you arguing for here – that a minority should only enjoy legal rights if it is large enough in the general population to break some threshold of your choosing? That if it is a small enough minority then it should be criminalized and acted against in order to satisfy your prejudices, which are in plain disregard of scientifically verifiable and reproducible facts? There is also the point, here, that you have absolutely no ability to analyse the results of surveys. It has long been accepted that surveys which ask about sexual orientation return deeply flawed data for a number of reasons chief amongst which are the following:

    Survey data regarding stigmatized or deeply personal feelings or activities are often inaccurate. Participants often avoid answers which they feel society, the survey-takers, might dislike.

    The research must select some characteristic that may or may not be defining of sexual orientation, and that may involve further testing problems. The class of people with same-sex desires may be larger than the class of people who act on those desires, which in turn may be larger than the class of people who self-identify as gay/lesbian/bisexual.

    In studies measuring sexual activity, respondents may have different ideas about what constitutes a ‘sexual act.’

    There are several different biological and psychosocial components to sex and gender and a given person may not cleanly and clearly fit into a particular category either by self-identity or by the surveyors criteria.
    .
    Studies with random samples containing sufficient numbers of representatives of small sexual minorities are expensive to do. Hence, most studies rely on volunteers who are willing to talk about their sex life, but who do not necessarily reflect the general population.

    The activities over recent years of people like you has led to people being reluctant to reveal to questioners the precise details of their sexual orientations and practises for fear of condemnation, violence against the person and withdrawal of services by fundamentalist Christians working in Government Departments and of the survey results being used by groups of which they, the surveyed, disapprove.

    Fourthly, your ridiculous attack on Michael King is quite spectacularly silly. You merely attempt to discredit him for no better reason than that his findings conflict with your biases. You raise your pathetic beliefs over his carefully conducted researches and use, heretically, the phrase ‘Queen of Heaven’ which you know, as I do, refers to a quite different idea and is a phrase which you use to quite deliberately insult any believing Catholic who happens to be reading these comments – two for the price of one, it seems. Professor Michael King’s details can be found at http colon slash slash www dot ucl dot ac dot uk slash mental-health-sciences slash staff slash king dot htm for anybody who is interested in judging the man’s worth.

    Fifthly, you said, and I quote:

    Will, I too have read all this twaddle about bare – buttocked [sic] baboons (why do I immediately think of you ?) and your gullible belief in everything so – called scientists, (especially those who are gay themselves) have to say. Your credulity would make a witch doctor green with envy

    Once again, you mount a ridiculous and plainly silly attack upon the scientific system, and upon logic and rationality, simply because its findings fail to support your prejudices and beliefs. Whether or not any particular scientist is gay, or not, is completely irrelevant as to the validity of his, or her, findings. If such findings are consistently reproducible by other scientists (gay or straight) then those findings are more than likely a true representation of the world – and better than your ridiculous and ill-founded, irrational beliefs which I have consistently successfully refuted on numerous other threads at this site.

    As to the rest of your ill-informed and under-educated post at 48 I refer you to all the subsequent very expert comments by Iris, Lezabella, Will and many others (please forgive me for not naming you all but do know that I have read and appreciated all of you and I thank-you for your support and I will support you as oft as I may in the future) which specifically refute your ridiculous standpoint about gay people and gives the lie to your idiotic beliefs about Gay people and our practices.

    For anyone who wants to read further, an article about the demographics of sexual orientation can be found http colon slash slash en dot wikipedia dot org slash wiki slash Demographics_of_sexual_orientation .

  71. John M.J, nicely put… always the articulate one.

  72. Will, thank-you! I blush for it takes, as I’m sure you know, no great erudition or articulation (to twist your meaning just slightly and in jest) to counteract the insidious and ridiculous homophobia of the Belshazar composite character at 48.

    Nonetheless, thank-you for your kind comment at 71.

  73. Not at all, credit where credit is due… I always admire the articulation and calmness of your posts.

    Anyone here for the fist time would read your postings, then compare to those of Belshazar (and the other personalities he uses), and conclude his are the scribblings of the demented, or at least that he’s suffering from an array of obvious mental conditions.

    It only lends to the perception among people who might be first time readers here, or even just recently out, that these religious homophobes are nothing more than febrile extremists on the fringes of society, and more so when countered by cleverly written pieces like yours and those of Iris, Lezabella and Adrian, etc.

  74. Will:

    Here Here.

  75. John M.J – thank you. I opened this thread with a heavy heart this morning, but after reading your post I feel a lot better. Your posts puncture the fundies’ bubble of arrogance so precisely and so well :D

  76. David North 13 Aug 2009, 10:06am

    #61 Belteshazzar

    What a sick pr!ck you are.

  77. Belteshazzar 13 Aug 2009, 10:07am

    JP this reminds me of when in the House of Commons, I believe, an MP asked the question “Where will we find a more foolish knave, or a more knavish fool?” Immediately an answer came from behind him, “Here, here.”

  78. David North 13 Aug 2009, 10:11am

    #61 Belteshazzar

    To clarify my disgust further.

    Here’s betting that your individual, or splintered brand of humanity made up the same types of people who happily implement torture, or happily gas/hang people, and even the type of lovely human that clubs seals to death.

    Statement #61 is one of the most inhuman, unfeeling , sick pieces of garbgage I have ever had the misfortune to read.

    You indeed are a very sick individual.

    I have ever had the misfortune to

  79. Belteshazzar 13 Aug 2009, 10:15am

    Iris, a heavy heart or lack of peace of mind simply means you are searching for the truth. C.S. Lewis, talking about the Christian message, said:-
    “…. It does not begin in comfort; it begins in dismay…and it is no use at all trying to go on to that comfort without first going through that dismay. In religion, as in war and everything else, comfort is the one thing you cannot get by looking for it. If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end. If you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth- only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin with and, in the end, despair.”

    May suggest that what John MJ says sounds, on the face of it, reasonable but so did the Satan’s whisperings both to Eve and Christ in wilderness.

    I don’t have a heavy heart, Iris, because I know the end of the story.

  80. Belteshazzar 13 Aug 2009, 10:24am

    David North, steady, steady what I wrote in 61 is indeed ghastly but that is precisely where our government is taking us with assisted euthanasia. Soon our society will witness horrors that far exceeded that of the Third Reich. Human life means nothing; all that matters is what Erich Fromm called man being life aware of itself. If you are not being aware of yourself, you are not man and therefore have no right to human rights. It is worse than sick it abominably evil.

  81. David North 13 Aug 2009, 10:25am

    #80 Belteshazzar

    Fair Dues.

  82. “If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end.”

    Ironic statement for one who brandishes so many obvious lies as “evidence”. Do you find comfort in lies then?

    And quoting C.S. Lewis! Please! The man who wrote a book about a talking lion and badgers who have cups of tea behind a wardrobe?!?!?! Oh, yeah, quote the authority! Well, come to think of it, you’re right…. religion is just a load of silly children stories that make no sense. Well done, first accurate portrait of your faith.

    “I don’t have a heavy heart, Iris, because I know the end of the story.”

    Ha! You don’t know where the end of your shoelaces are, you old fool. Lights out, its medication time.

    Does looking foolish bother you?

  83. “Soon our society will witness horrors that far exceeded that of the Third Reich”

    Again with the irony…. all your “principles” are based on the policies of Nazi Germany. No wonder you have a fondness for the “Third Reich”.

  84. Belteshazzar 13 Aug 2009, 10:31am

    Well,crew,I must cease fire now. Hedges to cut, rubbish to clear , visitors arriving and many other things. And hey, the sun is beginning to shine. Which reminds me that the sun falls on the just and the unjust. God loves everyone equally. Perhaps talk later?

  85. “Well,crew,I must cease fire now. Hedges to cut, rubbish to clear , visitors arriving…

    …from the local outpatients clinic to see if I’m taking my Ritalin and not trying to touch the neighbours 5 year old boy.

    “Perhaps talk later?”

    Ohhhh, I can’t wait… I simply love the circus and clowns!

  86. “Which reminds me that the sun falls on the just and the unjust. God loves everyone equally.”

    Talk no further until you show how you know this information.

  87. Okay, WHO put a stop payment on my reality check ?

  88. “Iris, a heavy heart or lack of peace of mind simply means you are searching for the truth”

    No, it means I’m depressed at seeing such pointless hatred coming from you.

    “May suggest that what John MJ says sounds, on the face of it, reasonable but so did the Satan’s whisperings both to Eve and Christ in wilderness.”

    Oh, yes – another anti-woman myth spread by men. Compare that with Pandora, etc. You don’t know the end of the story. You can’t prove there’s a god, and you sure as hell can’t count on your place in Heaven is there is one.

  89. Belteshazzar(77):

    You were never in the House of Commons in your life.

    In fact, you don’t have any in common with anybody, do you?

  90. Iris:

    Here, here.

  91. Paul Kidder 14 Aug 2009, 5:27am

    Could a moderator not intervene here? What’s abundantly clear is that worthy commentry has been obscured by a terminally unbalanced individual, with the precise aim of goading people into argument.

    I’m dissapointed so many of you have dignified this rubbish and engaged with someone who is so clearly OBSESSED with homosexuals that he spends valuable time “researching” and dictating reams and reams of bigoted nonesense! This is baiting of the lowest order, and by responding to these spurious “arguments” PinkNews readers are gratifying him no end. Most of the above respondants seem to be intelligent, empathic
    individuals. Please don’t embarrass yourselves by being drawn in to a clearly troubled person’s deluded,
    psychosexual self-loathing.

    The first port of disempowered bigots is ALWAYS the internet nowadays. Say whatever you like when there’s a keyboard between you and the person you’re abusing. Judging by his vocabulary, (and rabid hatred) I suspect it’s possible the aforementioned “gentleman” is reacting to a poor homosexual experience (or lack thereof) at public school.

    between you and the people you want to harrass.

  92. Paul Kidder:

    Thanks for your excellent input. Much appreciated, believe me.

    However, the situation is complicated by the ‘freedom of speech’ issue, and also by our perfectly normal propensity to stamp out homophobia wherever it raises its head.

    You can write to the editor, you do have a fine opinion.

    As for the regulars here, we are still waiting for a questionnaire the editor has planned to cope with the rising tide of homophobic expressions on tyhis great site.

    Oh, and just to stay on the topic, I have visited this thread so often I am getting sick of Roger Helmer’s smirck, and I have already thrown out my pink dress shirt.

  93. At 79 the strange composite character who refers to himself in grandiose manner as Belteshazzar, note the ‘t’, and not as ‘Belshazzar’ (in alternative English spellings also known as ‘Balthazar’) who was the last King of Babylon according to the Biblical Book of Daniel, wrote the following:

    May suggest that what John MJ says sounds, on the face of it, reasonable but so did the Satan’s whisperings both to Eve and Christ in wilderness.

    Here we get to the very nub of this strange person’s deluded beliefs: he, or she, believes that the hatred he preaches, and the vile slurs against the scientific integrity of many eminent men and women which he promulgates, demonstrate the Love of God and the forgiveness to be found in Christ, whilst believing that my reminders about the pitfalls of believing in an unjustified, unsupportable from the evidence (the questionably translated Biblical texts) and his limited and fundamentalist recensions of those probably faulty texts in order to preach hatred against a group of people, runs directly counter to God’s love. What a strange ‘Alice Through The Looking Glass’ world he lives in.

    He preaches hatred and intolerance. He twists scientific discoveries in ways that are unjustified by the evidence and insults and denigrates scientists with whom he disagrees by identifying such scientists as Gay – whether or not they happen to be Gay – and thereby implying that they must be biased. His simplistic reasoning runs very simply and thuswise: “my interpretation of our ancient Scriptures must be correct because I believe it to be so, therefore any other interpretation is wrong and evil; because my weird interpretation of those texts indicates that homosexuality is aberrant then anyone who finds scientific evidence of homosexuality as a natural part of existence must be, by definition, an aberrant homosexual also; because such people are aberrant homosexuals then they must be wrong and can therefore be insulted, vilified, accused of bias and discounted”. The incredible circularity of this way of thinking and arguing is obvious and has been known for millennia as the mark of the superstitious, rule-based believer who is incapable of exploratory thought because he lives in fear of where such God-given thought abilities might lead him.

    I, however, as I am sure that you do whether you are atheist, agnostic of Christian, reach for a different and far more valid interpretation, and a far more mainstream version, of the message of Christ: that it is a message of love, of tolerance, of compassion and of understanding and that it fulfils the Prophecies of the Old Testament and the Apocrypha and moves us on to a far more rational exploration of our universe(s) and Creation and that we must accept the things that our God-given abilities lead us to discover, even in the field of human sexuality, and reinterpret our understandings in the light of new reasonings and discoveries.

    So, I invite you to compare the two approaches – the dysfunctional Belteshazzar character who preaches hatred and intolerance and a narrow Pharisaic, rule based, belief as against me, who strives to scale the majestic heights of God’s Love for us, or the pinnacles of rational enquiry whichever you may choose to believe in, and to further the logical understanding of our world, as I believe we are commanded to do, through scientific enquiry and logical thought.

    Yet he accuses me, in his usual duplicitous and underhand way, of being the one who drips poison into your ears. He equates me with the Devil who tempted Eve and The Christ and yet he is the one whose appeal is made to your worldly side – to your hatreds, and, if you would but allow it, to the self hatred which he has done his insidious best over the last few years to instil into you. I merely tell you to love yourself – whether you are an atheist Gay, an agnostic Gay or a Christian Gay, as I am, just love yourself, and love all the other people around you to the best of your abilities.

  94. Oh, and further to my last at 93:

    He drips the subtle poison of hatred and self-loathing into your ears under the guise of spurious fellowship and vacuous and invalid scholarship. His sole aim is to seduce you away from love and tolerance and understanding and into the very heart of the great evil which he represents. I don’t think that I am a superstitious person – suprastitious I’ll grant you for I believe in God and Christ and the universal message of love and knowledge that I detect (for me but perhaps not for you and you are entitled to your different viewpoint) in my belief system – but when I ran up against the sheer evil, the vicious and incompetent hatreds, of this Belteshazzar personality (the Skinner personality) I shivered in my soul (my inner being if you prefer, as you have every right to, that way of phrasing it).

    I recognised at once that we were up against a fiend – a personality whose primary aim was the disruption of civilised discourse and the insertion of misdirection, uncertainty and confusion into the debate which takes place at this site – the sort of personality which delights in wickedness and in confusing the innocents. I couldn’t help myself in immediately associating the Beltshazzar/Skinner composite with one of the minor fallen angels who work, in Christian mythology, for Lucifer: a daemon, in other words.

    Of course, that’s just fanciful, and silly reaction born from the residue of medieval beliefs that I happen to have as part of my background – but it is rather surprising how much this composite Skinner/Belteshazzar character fits the medieval parameters of what constitutes a daemon. That only goes to prove, naturally, that our ancestors recognised substantive and functional evil in exactly the same way as we do but simply attached different labels to it for today we would label this composite character as a paranoid obsessive with delusions of authority who is potentially dangerous and in need of treatment for his compulsive referencing of, and projecting the idea of, having sex with children upon a pre-selected hated group.

    By the way, Beltshazzar, without the ‘e’ after the ‘t’, appeared at the 2007 Folk and Roots Festival in Chicago. I don’t think that it is a coincidence that our delusional composite character uses a similar spelling as his non-de-plume when submitting his comments here. It is perfectly possible that this severely disturbed person has been dropping clues like that on us in all of his rants at this site and that he might live in the greater Chicago area. I am probably wrong but we have to start profiling this idiot before he acts out his delusional psychotic fantasies on one of us. Does anyone remember anything else about this character that he might have inadvertently given away?

    Yes, yes. I do know that ‘Belteshazzar’ can also be an alternative spelling of ‘Balthazar’ (I’ve read ‘Belteshazzar – a romance of Babylon’ by Edwards Reynolds Roe, Donohue, Henneberry (Chicago), 1890) but that, irrationally, and for no better a reason than it was published first by a House in Chicago I grant you, reinforces the suspicion in my mind that this particular potential criminal probably lives in that area.

    Now, if you believed any of the foregoing which I’ve just written in the last two paragraphs then you have just fallen for exactly the same type of argument that the Belteshazzar/Skinner composite advances – the completely irrational, off the wall, guilt by association, false logic, stupidity. There isn’t one single valid logical premise contained in my words in the last two paragraphs which should enable me, or you, to believe that the seriously mentally ill construct known to us as ‘Belteshazzar’ or ‘David Skinner’ actually lives or has his being anywhere in the greater Chicago area but I’ll bet that for some of you, not for all of you (obviously), that it seemed likely to be a possibility from what I had written. That’s exactly the type of argument that he uses to attempt to discredit his opponents here (Will, Iris, Lezabella, Bentham, Adrian T, me and many others whose names elude me at this moment of writing).

    He picks upon the small and the irrelevant and, like a good conjuror, uses sleight of mind, mental legerdemain, to misdirect you into marginal channels in the hope that some tiny part of his overall evil and invalid argument will, thereby, stick in your mind and disturb your thoughts. Once he has got one tiny point into your head then he will hope to capitalise upon that and get you to accept minute and incremental steps away from what you rationally know, and knew, to be correct in the first place and to persuade you into his erroneous beliefs. It’s cunning and it’s subtle and it’s exactly the same style of argumentative propaganda which many politicians use – but it has no validity and is, in my opinion evil and manipulative.

    So, to return to my original point and Belteshazzar’s original quote which I gave at the head of this article: my whisperings are the whisperings into your ears of love and tolerance, compassion and understanding, whereas his, in as much as he whispers for he seems to strut, shout and assert, are the words of hatred and intolerance, the poison of invective and the slanders of untruth, and the denials of our God-given, in my opinion but perhaps not in yours and that’s fine by me, rationality and logic.

    Now, my friends, just which one of us is whispering as Satan prompts?

  95. John M.J.:

    CHAPEAU !

  96. My alternative analysis of the nut case is of course that he is a psycho. Despite all of John M.J.’s eloquence, I think this sufficiently expresses the nut case’s essence. Oh, and still not funny, nut case.

  97. Andy:

    I, too, have noticed the complete lack of humour in Belteshazzar’s irrational comments. Also, he/she can’t possibly be loved by his family otherwise he would be given the milk of human kindness in a paychiatric ward.

    This person is not well.
    This person does not know how to think.
    This person knows nothing of God’s love.
    This person is a hate-monger.
    This person is dangerous.

    You have consistently pointed out his/her lack of humour, and you are right about that, no doubt about it, innit.

  98. Belteshazzar 14 Aug 2009, 10:58am

    John says that his whisperings are the whisperings into your ears of love and tolerance, compassion and understanding and that ““I’ll grant you for I believe in God and Christ and the universal message of love and knowledge that I detect … in my belief system

    Maybe we need to reminded of his tolerance, compassion and understanding and dare I say temperate language? when he said on another thread August 2nd 2009 5:01,

    “He, in his deliberate wickedness, must have known. But what is worse, much worse, you then go on to quote Biblical passage after Biblical passage despite the fact that you have been told, repeatedly, by me and many others, that your reliance on such passages is faulty at best and, at worst, heretical; and we have told you, time and time again, as clearly indicated in the Book of Wisdom in the Apocrypha, that you must use your God-given powers of reasoning and your God-given powers of analysis to determine what is true in our Faith.
    Yet, despite being told what you have to do you wilfully, and contrary to God’s will, persist in your errors, errors in Faith and in Doctrine; you commit heresy in your writings and delight in disturbing the faithful and, by your presence here at this site, you are limiting salvation and the chances for salvation, which is the worst sin of all! Do you honestly think that God is proud of you at this moment? Do you honestly believe that your wickedness in denying salvation to others by limiting the Christ’s love is a delight to God?
    I daresay that you believe, as Servetus believed, that there is no suprastitious component to our belief. Instead, you willingly impose a superstitious component upon yourself when you elevate the Bible to the very centre of your belief, when you elevate the Bible, and your irrational and superstitious belief in it (as if it contained some magic, some sense of spells and potions), to the very point, the central belief point in your soul that God and the Spirit ought to occupy; in your heart and in your brain you have substituted the Bible for the Living God of our Faith. I pity you, Mr. Skinner, and I will pray for you and I will pray that our God will overlook your mischief and your wilful heresy and admit you to the Kingdom.

    May I remind folks that this is precisely the language of the Roman Catholic church when it burnt and tortured heretics by the thousand during the Inquisition, all in the name of love and compassion. They too prayed that their humanistic Roman Catholic God would overlook the mischief and wilful heresy of their victims, such as Latimer, Ridley and Cranmer, who were horribly burnt to death in Oxford.1555.

    It is also the language the Primate of America , the rev Katherine Jefferts Schori as she pursues Anglican communions in America through the courts, stripping them of their hard earned assets and selling their church property off to God knows whom. Maybe John, it is you who come from Chicago?

    Sadly much of this will go over the heads many on this thread.

  99. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 14 Aug 2009, 11:30am

    Q: What did the United Nations do to protect human rights?

    A: The United Nations published the Declaration of Human Rights, a document to promote world equality and peace for everybody!

  100. Belteshazzar 14 Aug 2009, 11:57am

    Please don’t let us start talking about The United Nation, a discredited and highly compromised outfit that cannot even defend itself.

    Where was it in Bosnia, or bringing Saddam Hussein to justice? This toothless organisation was sheltering behind its bunkers, turning Lebanese refugees away to be bombed by Israeli jests?

    What about widespread allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse of Congolese women, boys and girls have been made against U.N. personnel who were sent to help and protect them — despite a so-called zero tolerance policy touted by the United Nations toward such behaviour?

    Where is the UN in Zimbabwe, or any amount of places, such as Burma?

    The only thing united about the United Nations is its paralysis, procrastination, moral cowardice and of course its promotion of homosexuality. I should have guessed

  101. “The only thing united about the United Nations is its paralysis, procrastination, moral cowardice and of course its promotion of homosexuality”

    The UN might have been slow to act in some cases, I agree, but the promotion of homosexuality?? You really are paranoid.

  102. Belteshazzar 14 Aug 2009, 3:28pm

    Iris, Iris, Iris, yes of course I am dreaming all this. But as I have said before the moment the gays stop telling lies, I promise to stop telling the truth about them

    New York Times, December 18th 2008

    “An unprecedented declaration seeking to decriminalize homosexuality won the support of 66 countries in the United Nations General Assembty on Thursday, but opponents criticized it as an attempt to legitimize pedophilia and other “deplorable acts.”
    The United States refused to support the nonbinding measure, as did Russia, China, the Roman Catholic Church and members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The Holy See’s observer mission issued a statement saying that the declaration “challenges existing human rights norms.”

    The declaration, sponsored by France with broad support in Europe and Latin America, condemned human rights violations based on homophobia, saying such measures run counter to the universal declaration of human rights.
    “How can we tolerate the fact that people are stoned, hanged, decapitated and tortured only because of their sexual orientation?” said Rama Yade, the French state secretary for human rights, noting that homosexuality is banned in nearly 80 countries and subject to the death penalty in at least six.

    France decided to use the format of a declaration because it did not have the support for an official resolution. Read out by Ambassador Jorge Argüello of Argentina, the declaration was the first on gay rights read in the 192-member General Assembly itself.
    Although laws against homosexuality are concentrated in the Middle East, Asia and Africa, more than one speaker addressing a separate conference on the declaration noted that the laws stemmed as much from the British colonial past as from religion or tradition.

    Navanethem Pillay, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, speaking by video telephone, said that just like apartheid laws that criminalized sexual relations between different races, laws against homosexuality “are increasingly becoming recognized as anachronistic and as inconsistent both with international law and with traditional values of dignity, inclusion and respect for all.”
    The opposing statement read in the General Assembly, supported by nearly 60 nations, rejected the idea that sexual orientation was a matter of genetic coding. The statement, led by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said the effort threatened to undermine the international framework of human rights by trying to normalize pedophilia, among other acts.

    The Organization of the Islamic Conference also failed in a last-minute attempt to alter a formal resolution that Sweden sponsored condemning summary executions. It sought to have the words “sexual orientation” deleted as one of the central reasons for such killings.
    Ms. Yade and the Dutch foreign minister, Maxime Verhagen, said at a news conference that they were “disappointed” that the United States failed to support the declaration. Human rights activists went further. “The Bush administration is trying to come up with Christmas presents for the religious right so it will be remembered,” said Scott Long, a director at Human Rights Watch.
    The official American position was based on highly technical legal grounds. The text, by using terminology like “without distinction of any kind,” was too broad because it might be interpreted as an attempt by the federal government to override states’ rights on issues like gay marriage, American diplomats and legal experts said.
    “We are opposed to any discrimination, legally or politically, but the nature of our federal system prevents us from undertaking commitments and engagements where federal authorities don’t have jurisdiction,” said Alejandro D. Wolff, the deputy permanent representative.
    Gay-rights advocates brought to the conference from around the world by France said just having the taboo broken on discussing the topic at the United Nations would aid their battles at home. “People in Africa can have hope that someone is speaking for them,” said the Rev. Jide Macaulay of Nigeria.”

  103. Paul Kidder 14 Aug 2009, 3:30pm

    Could a moderator not intervene here? What’s abundantly clear is that worthy commentry has been obscured by a terminally unbalanced individual, with the precise aim of goading people into argument.
    I’m dissapointed so many of you have dignified this rubbish and engaged with someone who is so clearly OBSESSED with homosexuals that he spends valuable time “researching” and dictating reams and reams of bigoted nonesense! This is baiting of the lowest order, and by responding to these spurious “arguments” PinkNews readers are gratifying him no end. Most of the above respondants seem to be intelligent, empathic
    individuals. Please don’t embarrass yourselves by being drawn in to a clearly troubled person’s deluded,
    psychosexual self-loathing.
    The first port of disempowered bigots is ALWAYS the internet nowadays. Say whatever you like when there’s a keyboard between you and the person you’re abusing. Judging by his vocabulary, (and rabid hatred) I suspect it’s possible the aforementioned “gentleman” is reacting to a poor homosexual experience (or lack thereof) at public school.

  104. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 14 Aug 2009, 3:38pm

    I love the United Nations’ Declaration of Human Rights.

  105. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 14 Aug 2009, 3:42pm

    We all agree that Bellie is a troubled person and that’s too bad. But he can’t just bulldoze his/her way through the Internet like this. It ain’t cibilized.

    We now have the means to report homophobic remarks and attitudes to the moderator. Let’s do it.

  106. Belteshazzar – yes, I remember that. But I’d hardly call that ‘promoting’ homosexuality. All that motion asked was that people be treated equally. That’s not ‘promotion’.

  107. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 14 Aug 2009, 3:56pm

    Belteshazzar:

    By talking that way about the Declaration of Human Rights, you are proving to all our readers throughout the world that you are not only homophobic, but also anti-social.

    Do yourself a favor and rise up to the challenge: just go to the nearest hospital, go into the emergency and ask to see a psychologist.

    There’s no shame in having a mental health issue; things are goinfg to be OK, you’ll see. There are good people, professional people waiting to see you and they will treat you with kindness and understanding.

    Please, try to stop yourself from doing further harm to yourself. Please.

  108. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 14 Aug 2009, 4:08pm

    “It is our duty to ensure that these rights are a living reality — that they are known, understood and enjoyed by everyone, everywhere. It is often those who most need their human rights protected, who also need to be informed that the Declaration exists — and that it exists for them.”

    Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

  109. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 14 Aug 2009, 4:12pm

    “In the course of this year, unprecedented efforts must be made to ensure that every person in the world can rely on just laws for his or her protection. In advancing all human rights for all, we will move towards the greatest fulfillment of human potential, a promise which is at the heart of the Universal Declaration.”

    High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour

    On the occasion of the 60th Anniversary of the Declaration of Human Rights

  110. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 14 Aug 2009, 4:18pm

    “The campaign reminds us that in a world still reeling from the horrors of the Second World War, the Declaration was the first global statement of what we now take for granted — the inherent dignity and equality of all human beings.”

    Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

  111. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 14 Aug 2009, 4:21pm

    On 10 December, Human Rights Day, the Secretary-General of the UN launched a year-long campaign in which all parts of the United Nations family are taking part in the lead up to the 60th birthday of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) on Human Rights Day 2008.

    With more than 360 language versions to help them, UN organizations around the globe are using the year to focus on helping people everywhere to learn about their human rights. The UDHR was the first international recognition that all human beings have fundamental rights and freedoms and it continues to be a living and relevant document today.

    The theme of the campaign, “Dignity and justice for all of us,” reinforces the vision of the Declaration as a commitment to universal dignity and justice and not something that should be viewed as a luxury or a wish-list.

  112. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 14 Aug 2009, 4:23pm

    “We must work for the full implementation of human rights on the ground in a way that affects and improves the lives of the men, women and children who are all entitled, regardless of their race, sex, religion, nationality, property or birth, to realization of each and every right set forth in the Universal Declaration.” Video

    High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navanethem Pillay

  113. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 14 Aug 2009, 4:29pm

    2008 is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 60th anniversary. It’stime for a global conversation about
    human rights and the values that unite
    us as one human family

    It can also be a time when each of us
    chooses to take human rights into our
    daily lives, individually and collectively.

    www dot everyhumanhasrights dot org/

  114. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 14 Aug 2009, 4:31pm

    How many fundamentalists does it take to change a light bulb?

    Who cares? They’re in the dark if they change the bulb or not.

  115. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 14 Aug 2009, 4:40pm

    The International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia (IDAHOT) is celebrated every May 17 around the world.

    It is coordinated by the Paris based “IDAHO Committee” founded and presided by French academics, Louis-Georges Tin.

    The international day against homophobia aims to coordinate international events to call respect for lesbians and gays world-wide. Unlike the LGBT Pride Day, which is meant to emphasise proudness of one’s sexuality and refusal to be ashamed of it, IDAHO is held to highlight:

    “ “… that in reality it is homophobia that is shameful and must be deconstructed in its social logic and fought against openly.”[1] ”

    May 17 was chosen as the day of the event because homosexuality was removed from the International Classification of Diseases of the World Health Organization (WHO) on May 17, 1992.[2]

    In 2003 the Canadian organization Fondation Émergence instituted a similar event, the National Day Against Homophobia, on June 1; they have since changed it to May 17.[3] Belgium followed suit in 2005, and Costa Rica did similarly in 2008.

    Much movement towards reaching these goals has been made achieved by the French government, particularly by Human Rights Minister Rama Yade [4] [5][6]. Working closely with the Netherlands, the French government convened a World Congress on Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity on May 15 2009 [7]. On the eve of the 2009 IDAHO day, France became the first country in the world to officially remove transgender issues from its list of mental illnesses [8][9].

  116. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 14 Aug 2009, 4:42pm

    What can you hold without ever touching it?

    A conversation.

  117. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 14 Aug 2009, 4:48pm

    “Is God Love?

    There are people who have it both ways—who harbor a fairly abstract conception of God, yet get some of the psychological perks of believing in a more personal god. One key to their success is their choice of abstraction. Perhaps the most commonly successful abstraction is love: God is love.

    Is it true? Is God love? Like all characterizations of God, this one presumes more insight than I feel in possession of. But there’s certainly something to the idea that love is connected to, indeed emanates from, the kind of God whose existence is being surmised here.

    The connection comes via love’s connection to the moral order of which that God is the source. That moral order has revealed itself via ever widening circles of non-zero-sumness that draw people toward the moral truth that mutual respect is warranted. As we saw in chapter 19, it is the moral imagination whose growth often paves the way for that truth, and it does so through the extension of a kind of sympathy, a subjective identification with the situation of the other. And as sympathy intensifies it approaches love. Love, you might say, is the apotheosis of the moral imagination; it can foster the most intimate identification with the other, the most intense appreciation of the moral worth of the other.

    Sometimes love, in the course of leading to this moral truth, fosters more mundane truths. Suppose you are a parent and you (a) watch someone else’s toddler misbehave, and then (b) watch your own toddler do the same. Your predicted reactions, respectively, are: (a) “What a brat!” and (b) “That’s what happens when she skips her nap.” Now (b) is often a correct explanation, whereas (a)—the “brat” reaction—isn’t even an explanation. So in this case love leads toward truth. So too when a parent sees her child show off and concludes that the grandstanding is grounded in insecurity. That’s an often valid explanation—unlike, say, “My neighbor’s kid is such a show-off”—and brings insight into human nature to boot. Granted, love can warp our perception, too—happens every day. (For an extreme illustration, Google “Texas Cheerleader Mom.”) Still, love at its best brings a truer apprehension of the other, an empathetic understanding that converges on the moral truth of respect, even reverence, for the other.

    What’s more, this empathetic understanding, the foundation of the moral imagination, might never have gotten off the ground had love not emerged on this planet. Long before history, and long before human beings, animals felt something like love for kin. And it’s a pretty good bet that when animals first felt love is when they were first able to in any sense identify with the subjective interior of another animal. To put this point in physiological language: love probably sponsored the first “mirror neurons,” a likely biological basis of the moral imagination and thus an essential element in the moral order’s infrastructure.

    There’s an even deeper association between love and the moral order. The expanding moral compass sponsored by the moral order, as we’ve seen, is a manifestation of non-zero-sumness, of the fact that cultural (and in particular technological) evolution leads more and more people to play non-zero-sum games at greater and greater distances. And natural selection’s invention of love, it turns out, was itself a manifestation of non-zero-sumness. Love was invented because, from the point of view of genetic proliferation—the point of view from which natural selection works—close kin are playing a non-zero-sum game; they share so many genes that they have a common Darwinian “interest” in getting each other’s genes into subsequent generations.

    Of course, the organisms aren’t aware of this “interest.” Even in our species—smart, as species go—the Darwinian logic isn’t conscious logic; we don’t go around thinking, “By loving my daugher I’ll be more inclined to keep her alive and healthy until reproductive age, so through my love my genes will be playing a non-zero-sum game with the copies of them that reside in her.” Indeed, the whole Darwinian point of love is to be a proxy for this logic; love gets us to behave as if we understood the logic; the invention of love, in some animal many millions of years ago, was nature’s way of getting dim-witted organisms to seek a win-win outcome (win-win from a gene’s-eye view), notwithstanding their inability to do so out of conscious strategy. And at that point the seeds of sympathy—love’s corollary, and a key ingredient of the moral imagination—were planted.

    Then, having been spawned by this biological non-zero-sumness, sympathy could be harnessed by a later wave of non-zero-sumness, a wave driven by cultural, and specifically technological, evolution. As interdependence, and hence social structure, grew beyond the bounds of family—and then beyond the bounds of hunter-gatherer band, of chiefdom, of state—the way was paved by extensions of sympathy. This sympathy didn’t have to involve its initial sponsor, love; you don’t have to love someone to trade with them or even to consider them compatriots. But there has to be enough moral imagination, enough sympathetic consideration, to keep them out of the cognitive category of enemy; you have to consider them, in some sense, one of you.

    And, just as we’ve seen that love can foster truth within the family, this movement of sympathy beyond the family has also advanced the cause of truth. Because the fact is that other people are one of you. For better or worse, they are driven by the same kinds of feelings and hopes and delusions that drive you. When you keep people in the category of enemy you do so by, among other feats, willful blindness to this commonality.

    It’s pretty remarkable: natural selection’s invention of love—in some anonymous animal many millions of years ago—was a prerequisite for the moral imagination whose expansion, here and now, could help keep the world on track; a prerequisite for our apprehension of the truth that the planet’s salvation depends on: the objective truth of seeing things from the point of view of someone else, and the moral truth of considering someone else’s welfare important.

    Though we can no more conceive of God than we can conceive of an electron, believers can ascribe properties to God, somewhat as physicists ascribe properties to electrons. One of the more plausible such properties is love. And maybe, in this light, the argument for God is strengthened by love’s organic association with truth—by the fact, indeed, that at times these two properties almost blend into one. You might say that love and truth are the two primary manifestations of divinity in which we can partake, and that by partaking in them we become truer manifestations of the divine. Then again, you might not say that. The point is just that you wouldn’t have to be crazy to say it.”

    -Richard Wright, “The Evolution of God”

  118. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 14 Aug 2009, 4:51pm

    The Sins of Sodom
    by John Corvino

    First published at 365gay.com on March 31, 2008
    Though it may sound perverse, I get excited whenever religious fundamentalists speak up during the Q&A portion of my public events. While fundamentalists are hardly a dying breed, they seldom participate in such functions. And though I find their silence generally pleasing, it does rob me of what we college professors like to call “teaching moments.”

    So it piqued my interest when, at a debate in St. Louis last week, an audience member concluded an anti-gay tirade with, “Haven’t you ever heard of the Sodom and Gomorrah story?!”

    You see, I had actually read the Sodom and Gomorrah story the evening before—out loud, to a Detroit audience. If you’ve never actually read the story, find a Bible and read Genesis 19 (it’s near the beginning). You may be in for a surprise.

    A quick summary: two angels come to Sodom and Gomorrah, and Abraham’s nephew Lot invites them into his home. An angry mob surrounds the door and demands, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them.” Lot protests, offering them his virgin daughters instead. (Yes, you read that right.) But the mob keeps pressing for the visiting angels, who suddenly strike them blind. The angels then lead Lot and his family to safety, and the Lord rains fire and brimstone on the cities.

    Most scholars take the mob’s demand to “know” the visitors in a sexual (i.e. “biblical”) sense. Assuming they’re right, this oft-cited story is about an attempted gang rape. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that gang rape is BAD. But what does that have to do with homosexuality?

    At this point fundamentalists will point to the fact that the mob declined Lot’s offer of his daughters, instead demanding the (male) visitors. “Aha,” they say. This proves that the story is about homosexuality!”

    I always find this response surprising, since Lot’s offer of his daughters is an embarrassing detail of the text—for fundamentalists. Lot is supposed to be the hero of the story, renowned for his virtue. When faced with a mob of angry rapists, what does he do? Why, he does what any upstanding man would do. He offers them his virgin daughters. If you ever want an example of the Bible portraying women as expendable property, you need look no further than the Sodom and Gomorrah story.

    Some biblical scholars have suggested that the true sin of Sodom is inhospitality. Inhospitality? Failing to offer visitors a drink, after they’ve traveled a long way to see you, is inhospitality. Trying to gang rape them is quite another matter. (And let’s not forget about offering them your daughters, which apparently is biblical good form.)

    Lest you think Lot’s offer is a quirk, a strikingly similar story occurs at Judges 19. In this story, an angry mob demands to “know” visitors, and the host offers both his virgin daughter and his guest’s concubine. As in the Sodom story, the mob declines the women and keeps pressing for the visitor. This time, however, the guest tosses his concubine outside and closes the door. (Again, he’s supposed to be one of the good guys.) The mob violently rapes her until morning, when she finally collapses dead.

    The lessons to be drawn here are several. First, most people who cite the Bible against homosexuality have little idea of what it says. Either that, or they have a rather strange moral sense. A story where the good guys offer their daughters to rapists is supposed to teach us what, exactly?

    Second, the Bible contains some pretty wacky stuff. This isn’t news to those who study it carefully, but it does surprise the casual reader. For example, later in Genesis 19 Lot’s daughters get him drunk, have sex with him, and bear his children/grandchildren, without eliciting the slightest objection from the brimstone-wielding God.

    After I explained all of this to my questioner in St. Louis, my debate opponent (Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family) interjected that the Bible contains more salient references to homosexuality than the Sodom story. This is undoubtedly true, but it misses the point. The point is that the Bible reflects the moral prejudices and limitations of those who wrote and assembled it. Genesis 19 makes that abundantly clear (as do passages regarding slavery, and numerous others).

    Once you grant that point, you can’t settle moral claims merely by insisting that “the Bible says so.” The Bible says lots of things—some true, some false, and some downright bizarre.

    So when fundamentalists quote the Bible at my events, I don’t try to silence them. On the contrary, I ask them to continue reading.

  119. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 14 Aug 2009, 4:57pm

    What do you call a guy who’s born in Columbus, grows up in Cleveland, and then dies in Cincinnati?

    Dead.

  120. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 14 Aug 2009, 5:00pm

    To write with a broken pencil is pointless.

  121. Belteshazzar 14 Aug 2009, 6:58pm

    Jean- Paul a.k.a Benthan most other folks have cleared off onto other threads, leaving you free to fill this thread with your appalling trash.

    Your approach to the Bible is like a blind, deaf and dumb idiot who stumbles across a nuclear reactor and then, because it wont perform some basic operation – like wiping his arse, in rage and frustration and tries to destroy it with fly a swat.

    It would be futile in your present state of catatonic and ketamine- induced ignorance to point out that Lot is not held up as a paragon of virtue, let alone being a hero, and that Abraham had to repeatedly plead with God to spare Sodom of at least 10 of its habitants. Guess who he had in mind? Try reading the whole story – but first turn the Bible the right way up. I fear, however,
    that even this may be too complicated a manoeuvre for you.

    It would be pointless to point out, to you at least, that even its heroes, like Abraham, Moses, David and Peter all had feet of clay and that in no way does the Bible attempt to hide the true and fallen nature of humanity. Do you really think that you are first person in two thousand years to discover that men and women in the Bible are described just as they are, warts and all? Obviously this kind of transparent honesty has come as just too much of shock to your delicate system . For when you read the Bible, you see yourself, as when looking in a mirror. It is that horror which offends you.

    Iris, Lezabella and John attempt to put up reasoned argument that deserve a response but you are something else.

  122. No, nut case, you were wrong. Jean-Paul is not the only person left. I am stil here, still thinking that you are not amusing, and frankly, quite useless.

  123. “Your approach to the Bible is like a blind, deaf and dumb idiot”

    Really? Your approach to rational is the exact same.

    I have yet to meet someone with such a diminished grasp on the most rudimentary forms of logical recourse and scientific understanding. Who gives a toss what your silly book is about, its ALL you know, and its distressing that you are so f*cking stupid. You version of god is a stupid tantrum throwing bitch, rather like yourself actually, and your grasp on the bible is limited to cutting and pasting.

    Can we at least have a religious nut who can give us a run for our money?

  124. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 15 Aug 2009, 5:40am

    Belteshazzar:

    By talking that way about the Declaration of Human Rights, you are proving to all our readers throughout the world that you are not only homophobic, but also anti-social.

    Do yourself a favor and rise up to the challenge: just go to the nearest hospital, go into the emergency and ask to see a psychologist.

    There’s no shame in having a mental health issue; things are goinfg to be OK, you’ll see. There are good people, professional people waiting to see you and they will treat you with kindness and understanding.

    Please, try to stop yourself from doing further harm to yourself. Please.

    Will:

    Good to see that you are not totally pissed at me. I do get nervous…tic…every now…tic…and then. Ha ha. Youse the man, hey!

  125. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 15 Aug 2009, 5:52am

    Andy:

    I’ve been looking for you. You are welcome to join the ‘team’ we are building. Please think about it; we can use your sense of humour.

    First, go to the front page, and click on ‘My’ at the upper left hand corner on the grey bar. That will bring you in the Foum area. Register any way you like. You should know that the info you provide becomes visible to others, even the fundies who like to snoop around like ‘bottom feeders’ to use your clever expression.
    Being a show-off, I give them everything short of a spit in the eye ‘cos i ain’t got nothin’ to hide, Ha. not like them! But you follow your own instinct.

    Then by clicking on ‘Forum’ you will eventually find one called ‘Dealing with crackpots…’. All you have to do for now is say ‘hello'; I will be in toch…I mean touch. Ha ha. Comments made on the Forum on public.

    Or, you can go to my profile and send me a message which will be private. Some of your friends are already there, In fact, you can check out the Forum before joining our ‘team’. Bring Tony if you can, OK. And Mike too.

  126. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 15 Aug 2009, 6:01am

    Belteshazzar:

    My approach to the bible is he same as my approach to all Literature, and I don’t usually give a comic book the same respect I give to, say, Shakespeare or Thomas Hardy or Virginia Woolf…you know, real authors (from the word ‘authority’) Yuk, yuk.

    Blow it out your ear. And I mean that in the most charitable way, of course. Siick around, all of you; I want all of you, every one of you, get it.

  127. I’m rather amused by the fact that the Belteshazzar composite character – actually David Skinner in another guise – chose to use my gently chiding words about his lack of intellectual rigour in his post at 98 as an example of my intolerance and lack of love. In fact and of course I would never have posted such words of love and gentle guidance were it not for the fact that I fear for the ultimate fate of his soul. That he chooses to use my very words that point him up to be the fool that he is, is, for me –and I hope for all of you also – most highly risible.

    Of course, as you will all have noted, my words are most apposite in the context of his Comment at 98 – I worried about his lack of compassion and chided him for his wickedness and his following of the dark powers and I have repeatedly attempted to point out that he is misguided and listening to the quiet words of the evil one (my words as he quoted them at 98, and the quote is accurate, …you then go on to quote Biblical passage after Biblical passage despite the fact that you have been told, repeatedly, by me and many others, that your reliance on such passages is faulty at best and, at worst, heretical; and we have told you, time and time again, as clearly indicated in the Book of Wisdom in the Apocrypha, that you must use your God-given powers of reasoning and your God-given powers of analysis to determine what is true in our Faith) and he twists my concerns for his immortal soul and his intellectually weak understanding of our Faith into some misunderstanding, in his usual fashion, of my position. He has absolutely no understanding of the difficulties involved in recensing our ancient Scriptures and he takes, at face value, whatever particular translation best suits his preconceived hatreds without paying any regard whatsoever as to whether or not such an approach to our Faith may jeopardise his immortal soul.

    When I advised him that you commit heresy in your writings and delight in disturbing the faithful and, by your presence here at this site, you are limiting salvation and the chances for salvation, which is the worst sin of all! he simply continued in his errors, as is amply demonstrated on this thread, and continues to persist in disturbing the faithful and in attempting to deny salvation to any Gay Christian who reads at this site – and that, as I said earlier on this thread, is the mark of a daemon, or, if you prefer (and you are welcome to so prefer) the mark of a dangerous psychotic.

    This Belteshazzar/Skinner composite seems to believe that any challenges, such as mine, to his erroneous and heretical Faith positions are evidences of intolerance and lack of love and compassion. Well, no, they are not for I have often prayed for his salvation and I have often told him so. That he cannot change, that no part of Christ’s operative love has, as yet, entered his heart and soul, that no true understanding of Christ’s message has penetrated his mind and that no scholarly comprehension of Biblical science has impinged upon his brain is further evidence of how far gone into the daemonic world of evil he actually is (into the psychotic world of self-delusion, if you prefer that phraseology – and I see no reason why you should not so prefer it). I will, of course, continue to pray for him, but I fear that he is a lost cause – but in Christ all things are possible and he may yet come to know the love of God (or the rationality of modern science and logic which would be equally as desirable an outcome, in my opinion).

    However, it’s not enough to simply address the person who is addressing you on any thread – one has to think of all those who are reading a thread like this one, but not necessarily commenting thereupon. One will never, probably can never, persuade ones opponent on any thread to believe as one believes oneself – and the strange composite character herein is the prime example. The whole point is to persuade the person, the people, who is, who are, reading this thread to feel as free as you do. You are not trying to persuade your antagonist – really, he, or she, is completely irrelevant, and more irrelevant than the Belteshazzar/Skinner personality one cannot get – he, or she, only offers you a chance to comment and to advance your own correct viewpoint: you are trying, rather, to persuade the multitude of readers who read but do not comment to validate their existences as you do – to validate their lives, as you validate yours, in the face of such hatred and intellectual dishonesty as posted by the idiot composite who fights against us. One does not have to win against the enemy on the page – one merely has to advance arguments that are so compelling that the majority of the people reading at this thread will agree with you rather than with our intellectually challenged enemy. You are not fighting againstthe Skinners, Melchiors, Balthazars or Gaspars of this world, you are fighting for, attempting to persuade, all the others who read at this thread to NOT accept the anti-Gay rubbish, the unsound and heretical theology, the vicious hatreds of failed minds, as espoused by those like the Belteshazzar/Skinner persona.

    Through our comments, by our constant challenging of these trolls, we are validating the lives and values of the many who read here but feel that they dare not, or have not the courage or a current liberty of action, to join us here.

    The Skinners, Melchiors, Balthazars or Gaspars of this world are merely offering you the opportunity to advance our viewpoints – and to that extent they are, of course, valuable – whilst remaining relevant to, and counteracting, the mis-directions and errors of logic and Faith that they continue to post. Our job is to validate those who find us and to show them that there is a mature adult life that the weird people like the composite cannot, and should not, disturb.

    Perhaps, and I’m guessing here, the value of threads like this is that we Gay people willing and able to comment demonstrate the arguments against the composite in such a way as to help those who are still scared, and scarred, by such evil, by such daemons, by such intellectually dishonest people as the Belteshazzar/Skinner idiot.

  128. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 15 Aug 2009, 6:32am

    Belteshazzar:

    “Iris, Lezabella and John attempt to put up reasoned argument that deserve a response but you are something else.”

    Thank you so much. I must say that is the first time i have ever heard you complimenting someone. It becomes you; you should try being kind and friendly more often. I think you are something else, too. Thanks again.

  129. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 15 Aug 2009, 7:43am

    Hey Shazz:

    You said:

    “Your approach to the Bible is like a blind, deaf and dumb idiot who stumbles across a nuclear reactor and then, because it wont perform some basic operation – like wiping his arse, in rage and frustration and tries to destroy it with fly a swat.”

    Rage and frustration…! Who me?

    man/woman, you really can’t read people. You are looking at ‘cool’ right in the face, and that is something tou ain’t about to see in a mirror. But do carry on. More, more more…!!!

  130. May I remind folks that this is precisely the language of the Roman Catholic church when it burnt and tortured heretics by the thousand during the Inquisition, all in the name of love and compassion. They too prayed that their humanistic Roman Catholic God would overlook the mischief and wilful heresy of their victims, such as Latimer, Ridley and Cranmer, who were horribly burnt to death in Oxford.1555

    That is what the composite Belteshazzar/Skinner character that haunts these threads posted at 98.

    What a weird world he lives in when he equates the Inquisition with the Christian Humanists – the Christian Humanists who count amongst their number Justin Martyr, Petrarch, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa and Peter Abelard. He discounts, or doesn’t know about and has never read, such people as Giovanni Pico della Mirandola and his Oration on the Dignity of Man, in which Mirandola stressed that Men had the free will to travel up and down a moral scale, with Satan being at the bottom of that scale and the God of Love, as evidence by the Christ, and the Angels of God’s loving, being at the top.

    Obviously he doesn’t know about the Eastern Orthodox tradition of studying in the homes of the Masters and the humanistic traditions that evolved from such schools over the last two thousand years.

    This is just another example of the twisted and weird thinking that the composite indulges in. The incredibly silly and astoundingly stupid idea that the Inquisition was sponsored and led by Christian Humanists is just too amusing and idiotic to comment upon. Please, my dear Belteshazzar, my dear Mr. Skinner, can you spare a little of whatever you are currently taking and send it to me for such a mind-altering drug would certainly make this wet and windy Saturday easier to bear!

    The Inquisition was not, I admit, the Spanish Church’s finest hour, but then, neither were the murderous Covenanters, nor was the vile John Knox, nor was the vicious, lieing Calvin, nor was the hated and reviled servant of the Devil called Zwingli who believed that those who didn’t conform to his beliefs could be tortured to death, nor was the dreaded Luther who lit the flames of unbelief and immorality all across Europe and whose idiotic misinterpretations of the Bible – done in order to simply satisfy his own carnal desires – led to the death of millions.

    All that you have done here is expose your virulent anti-Catholic bias. All that you have done is to expose yet another of your small-minded hatreds. Now we know two things about you – you are anti-Gay and anti-Catholic. Are you anti-Jewish also, by any chance?

    Come on; give us your take on the Elder Faith! Let’s see what stupidities you can come up with about our Jewish brethren!

    Oh, and by the way, don’t even think about trying to confuse the issue with Francis Bacon, as you attempted to do earlier, for you are so very wrong. The term ‘Christian Humanist’ is also used sometimes to indicate Renaissance humanists who supported the Catholic church, such as Johann Reuchlin, John Colet, and Desiderius Erasmus, as opposed to those known primarily for their pagan or political contributions to Renaissance philosophy, like Giordano Bruno or Francis Bacon and I will not accept any argument based within the pagan philosophy excepting that which supports the pagan for there is not enough evidence that can be found and quoted about the ancient pagan philosophy – although others might know better and correct me about that.

    Whilst we’re at it here, your viewpoints, Belteshazzar or Mr. Skinner, about Christianity strike me as most reminiscent of the views of the Westboro Baptist Church led by Fred Phelps – a superstitious and spell-ridden outfit dominated by Biblical superstition. Are you, either of you, or both of you, a member of that so-called Church by any chance?

    Yes, Latimer, Ridley and Cranmer were horribly burnt to death by the political powers of the time but that those fearfull and disgusting executions had anything to do with belief is just another of this composite character’s wilful, mischievious and devious misdirections. Those executions were about, as he well knows, political power and monarchical supremacism. The composite chooses, with wilful disregard as to the facts, to subscribe a totally religious motive to those executions, whilst knowing and deliberately disregarding, the political milieu into which those poor souls ventured.

    Once again, the Belteshazzar/Skinner composite deliberately disregards facts and attempts to twist meaning to his own purpose – as I have come to expect. He attempts, in his pathetic venture, to rewrite history.

    His hubris knows no bounds!

  131. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 15 Aug 2009, 8:24am

    Spot on, Doc!

  132. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 15 Aug 2009, 8:30am

    Shazz:

    “We must work for the full implementation of human rights on the ground in a way that affects and improves the lives of the men, women and children who are all entitled, regardless of their race, sex, religion, nationality, property or birth, to realization of each and every right set forth in the Universal Declaration.”

    High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navanethem Pillay

    Won’t you join us. There’s a the Human Race 101 course starting at a unversity near you soon.

  133. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 15 Aug 2009, 8:45am

    Shazz:

    Now think, think! Why? Because that’s what minds are for, dear.

    Re: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

    “It is our duty to ensure that these rights are a living reality — that they are known, understood and enjoyed by everyone, everywhere. It is often those who most need their human rights protected, who also need to be informed that the Declaration exists — and that it exists for them.”

    Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

  134. (For more about the murderous activities of the characters mentioned in John MJ’s cogent observations 4 posts above, I recommend AC Grayling’s ‘towards the light’)

  135. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 15 Aug 2009, 9:32am

    Good boy, Adrian. Always feels like rock bottom granite when I read your posts.

  136. Belteshazzar 15 Aug 2009, 9:43am

    Well John that was a lot of impressive sounding words. Mostly wind and trousers me thinks.

    Just a number of points:

    When you accuse me of being a composite character I assume you are comparing me with legion, the man possessed by a legion of demons. But who exactly is the “we” you refer to from time to time – and I don’t mean those reading this blog? “We have told you” and “we have told you, time and time… Who is we?

    You get a tad nervous when I quote scripture and yet you who claim to be a Christian and who claim to have a” scholarly comprehension of Biblical science” and who claim to know to “our ancient scriptures” – in greater depth than anyone this side of the Warrumbungles by the sound of it – have never used a verse to support your arguments. So please John, this is your big moment, to demonstrate your skilful use of scripture. Give me one verse that supports your theology of self validation. Where in these “ancient scriptures” does it say that we validate ourselves? Show me.

    To be a heretic, I must be heretical towards some doctrine . Tell me John, because I am slow of understanding, what is this doctrine?

    You say that I am denying salvation to Gay Christians. Who am I? I am just a composite nobody. But more importantly deny them salvation from what? From what do gay Christians need to be saved? From what terrible bondage and slavery?

    John when I post comments to you, Iris, Lezabella and Paul, I am aware of the fact there is another fellow human being at the other end and that we do share a common humanity. I use all the self control I have not to descend into insults and ad – hominems as you and others do. So when you say that “You are not trying to persuade your antagonist – really, he, or she, is completely irrelevant, and more irrelevant than the Belteshazzar/Skinner personality one cannot get – he, or she, only offers you a chance to comment and to advance your own correct viewpoint,” this not only sounds a touch unloving but totally self – serving. In other words you will get what you want, when you want and to hell with anyone else.

    Whilst you are trying to find a verse using your “ scholarly comprehension of Biblical science” to support your doctrine of validation through faith in your “God-given powers of reasoning and your God-given powers of analysis, ” allow me to offer just one of countless verses that talk of justification through faith in the saving work of Jesus Christ.

    This is from Luke, chapter 18

    “To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
    “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
    “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

    Finally John when you say that “Our job is to validate those who find us and to show them that there is a mature adult life that the weird people like the composite cannot, and should not, disturb,” what exactly is mature about a narcissistic existence that results in AIDs, HIV, bi – polar depression, drug taking, a death wish, paedophilia and a fast track to hell?

  137. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 15 Aug 2009, 10:26am

    Shazz (chaise, en français):

    “It is our duty to ensure that these rights are a living reality — that they are known, understood and enjoyed by everyone, everywhere. It is often those who most need their human rights protected, who also need to be informed that the Declaration exists — and that it exists for them.”

    Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

  138. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 15 Aug 2009, 10:30am

    shazz:

    Why are you so grumpy all the time? Lighten up, willya.

  139. Belteshazzar 15 Aug 2009, 12:17pm

    A Strange Combination! (Atheist Joke 1)
    What do you get when you cross an atheist with a Jehovahs Witness?…. Someone who knocks at your door for no apparent reason.

    The Angry Atheist (Atheist Joke 2)
    The story is told of the Atheist who accosted a preacher. “Do you believe in eternal life?” The preacher has no time to reply. “Well its a load of rubbish!” shouted the Atheist. “I believe in science, evolution, survival of the fittest, and when we die, that’s it! No eternal life, no great judgement, and no God!” The Atheist continues his assault against the preacher repetitiously and tirelessly. “Eternal life! Eternal life! Ha! “Its all pie in the sky when you die.” When I die that’s it, the end, no eternal life, no nothing. He continues, until he reaches his climax, “I will be buried six feet under when I die and that’s it! Nothing! Caput! When I die I am utterly convinced that that will be the end of me!” “Well thank God for that” replies the preacher!

    The Pastor, the Vicar, and the Atheist (Atheist Joke 3)
    One day a Pastor, a Vicar and an Atheist go on a fishing trip together. They are in the boat and the Pastor says,” Oh! No! I left the paddles on shore!” So he proceeds to get out of the boat and walk on the water to the shore to get them. Once he had gotten back into the boat the Vicar says,” Oh! No! I left the bait on shore too!” And like the Pastor the Vicer exits the boat and walks on the water to get the bait. When the Vicar climbs back into the boat the atheist yells,” Well if you guys can do it so can I!!!” and proceeds to clim out of the boat, but he falls into the water. At this piont the Pastor says,” Do you think we should have told him where the rocks are?”

  140. “what exactly is mature about a narcissistic existence that results in AIDs, HIV, bi – polar depression, drug taking, a death wish, paedophilia and a fast track to hell”

    And what’s that got to do with homosexuality? Somewhere I quoted the huge increase in HIV in STRAIGHT men, for a start. Secondly, lesbian sex constitutes one of the LOWEST risks of HIV transmission – so AIDS can hardly be that ‘gay plague’/’god’s punishment’ that some people like to say it is, can it?

    Drug-taking? I’ve done voluntary work with drug users – not one of them was gay. Anyone can take drugs, straight or gay.

    Fast track to hell? Well, that depends on whether one believes in hell. And if it exists, it’ll be god deciding who goes there not you, according to your prejudices. You keep insisting that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, but I don’t believe it is and neither do many other people. Your interpretation is yours (and others like you’s) only.

    Your comment about paedophilia is so offensive, it hardly deserves a response, but here we go for the umpteenth time – paedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality, any more than having brown hair.

  141. “You are not fighting againstthe Skinners, Melchiors, Balthazars or Gaspars of this world, you are fighting for, attempting to persuade, all the others who read at this thread to NOT accept the anti-Gay rubbish, the unsound and heretical theology, the vicious hatreds of failed minds, as espoused by those like the Belteshazzar/Skinner persona.”

    Well said John!

    “what exactly is mature about a narcissistic existence that results in AIDs, HIV, bi – polar depression, drug taking, a death wish, paedophilia and a fast track to hell”

    Evidence please?

    No?

    Didn’t think so.

  142. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 15 Aug 2009, 1:23pm

    Shazz:

    Q: What did the United Nations do to protect human rights?

    A: The United Nations published the Declaration of Human Rights, a document to promote world equality and peace for everybody!

  143. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 15 Aug 2009, 1:27pm

    Shazz:

    I do like your jokes. Thanks.

  144. Belteshazzar 15 Aug 2009, 2:56pm

    Life sure gets complex with Objectum – sexuality. This coupled with the You tube “I Wanna be like you – Jungle Book” should just about sum up everything up. Enjoy. I’m taking a break now

  145. Belteshazzar 15 Aug 2009, 3:16pm

    Sorry, Iris, As Colombo would say, “There’s just one more thing .” I never said that it was me who decided who was and who was not going to hell; it Jesus Christ.

    In Luke 12, he says “I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.

    I am just the messenger, Iris; don’t blame me. Anyway I must cease now.

  146. “I’m taking a break now”

    Did the hospital attendants tell you “lights out”?

  147. “I am just the messenger, Iris; don’t blame me”

    And you were appointed a messenger when and by whom? Your message bears little resemblance to the Christianity I learnt at school.

    What denomination of Christianity are you?

    And your quote about hell is irrelevant. I’m well aware that the Bible mentions Hell. If you believe in Hell, you’d be better off seeing to your own sins and leaving other people alone. Indirectly, you ARE deciding who’ll go to hell because you’re deciding what’s a sin.

  148. Paul Kidder 15 Aug 2009, 10:24pm

    It disturbs me to see intelligent, rational individuals reduced to wound-up spinning tops. This twisted sociopath (he will probably find the comparison flattering) has been playing you all like harps! This argument is purely one-sided and is DESIGNED to antagonise. You could type “ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES JACK A DULL BOY” over and over again (a la “The Shining”), and the end result would still be the same. He’s sick and he’s not listening. A person deliberately on the attack will never compromise or allow themselves reasoned with. No wonder he’s “taking a break”. He’s succeeded in his goal. There’s no need to rise to his bait. You’ve already won. You’re queer, you’re here – he CAN’T get used to it. Next time people encounter him on these forums (and you will), please – ignore him. Anything else just gives credence to the fetid sewage he daubs us with. Leave him to swim in it instead.

  149. Belteshazzar 15 Aug 2009, 11:56pm

    No Iris, I have just told you I don’t decide who goes to hell, only God can do that.
    What you object to is someone telling you what is written. I don’t blame you for not liking what it says, but I didn’t write it; I am merely pointing out to you what it says.:

    “Romans 1: 26ff: Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

    As to your other point about my seeing to my own sins, I agree, for Romans 1 then goes on to say about those in general who do not acknowledge God:

    “Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.”

    Well lris, I am guilty of all those things, if not in deed then at least in thought. Jesus Christ said that thinking and doing something were the same thing.

    Indeed Romans 2 goes on to speak about me and the rest of society.

    1ff You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you toward repentance?
    But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. God “will give to each person according to what he has done .”To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honour and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honour and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favouritism.”

    Now there is no way that I going to hang all my dirty washing out on the net; but the fact remains that we all do have dirty washing somewhere – maybe hidden, but it is there.

    Passing judgment and pointing out someone’s sin, even if it is one’s own are two different things. The policeman does not pass judgement; he merely arrests someone and brings them before the judge. The policeman, is maybe an immoral ma, or at the least, not perfect, but that is not the point. He does his job which is to bring the offender before the judge.

    A sailor on board the Titanic might be a disreputable drunkard but if he knows that trouble is up ahead, no matter if he thinks he is not a fit person, he has a duty to bring disagreeable news to the attention of the passengers. This will not necessarily make him popular.

    Two thieves hanging on crosses ,either side of Jesus. One curses, jeers and blasphemes Christ, but the other criminal points out to the one cursing that they are both under condemnation and deserve to die, but that Christ is innocent. The one doing the pointing out is not condemning or judging, he is merely warning.

    At the present moment in our history, I and many others cannot believe the way in which the west is going into meltdown. If people had told us thirty or forty years ago that we would be where we are now, none of us would have believed it.

    Homosexuality is no worse than any other evil such as pride. From God’s infinite vantage point, there is no difference. All have gone astray. However, at our moment in history homosexuality is key in accelerating the in rot society started by those you call heterosexual or straight. Their adulterous and promiscuous life style has inevitably opened the door to all kind of perversions, including homosexuality. This, Iris, is all going to end in tears – unless we repent.

    Paul Kidder, show me where I have not been listening or reasoning. If what I have been saying doesn’t resonate with a note of truth; if it doesn’t strike a cord why is that I am indeed not ignored? Why do these threads run into hundreds? If you have something to say you are liberty to say it. I am not attempting to stop you or get you reported to the moderators. Speak up. The only comments I ignore are those that descend into gratuitous insults, sheer buffoonery and time – wasting.

    What you really don’t want is the trouble of thinking and you would attempt to stop others from thinking also. Go back to sleep Paul. It’s late anyway.

  150. Mihangel apYrs 16 Aug 2009, 12:14am

    Beltshazzar:

    I don’t believe in your god, who is petty and small minded. In fact, were I to consider it as a deist, I’d say that you blaspheme to push an omnipotent god into such a small box. Why a non-physical being should care where one puts one’s bits is beyond me.

  151. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 16 Aug 2009, 2:23am

    Paul Kidder:

    Do you honestly think you are telling us anything we don’t aleady know?

    Do you have any idea how long we have been dealing with the various facets of this alienated funamentalist so-called chrisiain phycho-path homophobe?

    Do you know that here are two more just like him who have been antagonising us and disrupting our debates with their multi-faceted personalities?

    Don’t you think we have tried to ignore him?

    Don’t you think we need to to confront him every step of the way because he is homophobic and refuses to understand that homophobia can be cured?

    Don’t you see that putting him in his place is like shooting fish in a barrel?

    And finally, speaking for myself, why does my gut instinct tells me that you, who has parachuted in here at just this particular time, are another pathological facet of this poor demented man or woman whose sense of christian mission has gradually alienated him/her from anything remotely resembling mainstream christianity and that you are attempting to infiltrate our group by playing up to us?

    If anyone can vouch for you, this would be a good time, innit.

    No offense intended.

  152. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 16 Aug 2009, 4:43am

    Mihangel ap Yrs:

    We have been quietly building a group, a team. You are welcome to join and to bring friends with you.

    Just go to the front page, click on ‘My’ in the upper left hand corner at the end of the grey bar.

    That will bring you to the registration area. Register any way you want.

    You should know that any info you give out at this point will be seen by the fundies who haunt this site like vampires.

    Personally, I ain’t got nothing to hide.

    Once you’re in, click on Forum and say hello to us at a place called ‘How do deal with crackpots…’

    This comment too is public. You will find friends there.

    If you prefer privacy, look up my profile and send me a message. That will be private and I will be in touch soon.

    We gotta organize, pal, that’s all there is to it.

    We need your insight and your aggressivity.

  153. Paul Kidder 16 Aug 2009, 4:45am

    Dear Friend.

    Don’t worry – no offence taken! I assure you, your gut instinct is wrong – but your understandable paranoia did make me smile! To be honest, I very rarely post in discussion forums. Nobody needs to vouch for me. This will be my last post. However, I AM alive and well on Facebook! 

    I read PinkNews daily and was only given to comment after I saw how people were being manipulated and snidely abused. As the old saying goes, “Never argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel”. I think what you have to say is eloquent and, of course, absolutely right. I realise I can’t tell you anything you don’t already know. My intention was not to offend. My problem with these forums is that nobody can truly be “put in their place” when things get heated. The Internet is the perfect weapon for sociopaths. Behind a keyboard a person can become eerily desensitised and (literally) detatched from whom they are addressing. Anyone can say ANYTHING. Given the provocative nature of his posts, this thread could continue forever – if you let it. Don’t get me wrong – I think YOUR comments are very astute, and in many cases – excellent, but I think you’ve dignified this twerp long enough. Don’t rise to his bait. I know from experience that online arguments can be strangely addictive, but do yourself a favour and leave this strange, sad little man to masturbate over his secret stash of Zac Effron downloads. The obvious guilt conveyed in his posts are torture enough. I don’t think he’s dangerous – just terribly sad and disempowered. That’s why his posts are so drawn-out; they’re born out of frustration. Funny, really!   

    I respect your opinion and obvious intelligence, and would gladly buy you a beer sometime – but this dimwit is a waste of your time and opinion. There are bigger fish to fry.  

    Take care, PK.

  154. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 16 Aug 2009, 4:51am

    Shazz:

    “On 10 December, Human Rights Day, the Secretary-General of the UN launched a year-long campaign in which all parts of the United Nations family are taking part in the lead up to the 60th birthday of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) on Human Rights Day 2008.

    With more than 360 language versions to help them, UN organizations around the globe are using the year to focus on helping people everywhere to learn about their human rights. The UDHR was the first international recognition that all human beings have fundamental rights and freedoms and it continues to be a living and relevant document today.

    The theme of the campaign, “Dignity and justice for all of us,” reinforces the vision of the Declaration as a commitment to universal dignity and justice and not something that should be viewed as a luxury or a wish-list.”

    So, go climb a tree and branch off! We ain’t buying! Never will!

  155. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 16 Aug 2009, 5:09am

    Paul:

    Don’t run away on account of me!

    I’m just so fed up having our debates bulldozed by people who worship a book instead of being open to the Spirit of a loving God.

    Every one of us here is intelligent, we work hard, pay taxes and we need to have our dignity and our rights enshrined in the constitution, like in Canada.

    That won’t stop the homophobia. Only clinical help has a chance if the patient is capable of admitting his mental illness.

    Thanks for your kind remarks. A Frenchman can’t resist the call of friendship.

    Big hug,
    JP

  156. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 16 Aug 2009, 6:41am

    On Christmas morning, a cop on horseback was sitting at a traffic light. Next to him was a kid on his shiny new bike.

    The cop said to the kid:

    “Nice bike you’ve got there. Did Santa bring that to you?”

    The kid said:

    “Yeah.”

    The cop said:

    “Well, next year tell Santa to put a taillight on that bike.”

    The cop then proceeded to issue the kid a $20 bicycle safety violation ticket.

    The kid took the ticket, but before he rode off he said:

    “By the way, that’s a nice horse you got there. Did Santa bring that to you?”

    Humoring the kid, the cop said:

    “Yeah, he sure did.”

    The kid said:

    “Well, next year tell Santa to put the dick underneath the horse, instead of on top.”

  157. Belteshazzar 16 Aug 2009, 7:22am

    Thankfully we no longer attack or discriminate against coloured people, simply because we realise that people of other races, beneath the skin are, essentially the same as us. Yes, races have superficially different characteristics. Black people, for example are able to withstand heat better than the whites and the whites are better equipped biologically to endure the artic; but these are innocuous traits that are not going to threaten the unity, stability and cohesion of a society. On the contrary: an inclusion in the gene pool of different races only invigorates it. The reason that we no longer need the law – and maybe never needed it in the first place – is because coloured people do not try to force them selves on us a different species, or “strange flesh“ as it says in Jude 7. They do not pretend that they are the same but then insist on living according to different rules that are intended to destabilise and deconstruct society. Other races want to be like us, get married, settle down, have children and raise a family of their own. “Am I not a man and brother?” was the inscription written on broach worn by the abolitionist during the 19th century.
    The gay community, however, are billing themselves as homosexuals, a more advanced stage along the road of evolution ( they really do believe this). But when it comes to the homosexuals saying that they do not attack us on the grounds of our being heterosexual, they can take no credit for this, for the simple reason that the vast majority of us do not self – identify as heterosexual in the first place, but simply as male and female. There are no heterosexuals to attack – and there are no homosexuals either: only men and women whose sexuality is plastic and which tragically can be orientated into all shapes and sizes .

    ( Google Ericka Eiffel Tower and Objectum Sexuality)

    Indeed David Mixner, the most powerful man in American gay politics who is a vocal opponent of an ongoing campaign in California to protect the legal definition of marriage was asked if he thought whether gay sexuality was all about sexual passion or whether there was room for lasting relationships. Mixner answered, “Well first of all I don’t see anything wrong with passionate relationships, or short term relationships if it is enriching, and nourishing and exciting for the individuals involved, and healthy for both parties. I try not to put parameters around anyone else’s relationship if they are happy. But I think one the things that we have explored and maybe one the gifts we bring society is that because we have not allowed to be officially sanctioned our relationships, in a number of ways — then we have had to explore alternatives. And I think that in many ways that we are seeing that many in the heterosexual community are copying some of those alternative ways that people can be together, love each other in a healthy wonderful positive sense and the same time meet the needs of a very complex society in which we live.
    ( watch David Mixner – most powerful gay man in US! Youtube)
    Yes David Mixner Life sure gets complex.

    They take pains to tell us that when they attack us, give death threats, disrupt our church services., break up university forums, invade our schools and homes, threaten us with public humiliation, fines, loss of jobs, and soon the threat of prison, this is not because they demand the civil right to be treated as equally human, to be integrated into society, to be able to sit at the front of the bus , to be able to eat in the same restaurants, or even to get married. What they demand is the right and freedom to “explore alternatives” to marriage, family, society, creational ordinance – in other words to deconstruct truth.

    (Lighten up Jean Paul and watch “ I wannabe like you – Jungle Book” on Youtube).

    The United Nations, a corrupt outfit if there was one, will never end war, oppression, slavery or poverty. They talk a lot but do nothing except get in the way. Show me their track record. Where are they when things get tough except hiding behind their compound walls? War and poverty will always be with us until Jesus Christ returns and then these things will finish.

    As for the dignity of men having sex with men, where is the dignity in AIDs, HIV, Folsom Street Fair and dogging at any number of public picnic and beauty spots?

    Repent and be changed ( not change yourself , but be changed by God)

  158. Typewriter 16 Aug 2009, 7:40am

    the authors of Essential Psychotherapy and its Treatment, a standard text in medical schools, disagree with the APA’s leadership, and say that the newer studies vindicate sexual reorientation therapy.
    The newest edition (2009) notes on page 488 that, “While many mental health care providers and professional associations have expressed considerable skepticism that sexual orientation could be changed with psychotherapy and also assumed that therapeutic attempts at reorientation would produce harm, recent empirical evidence demonstrates that homosexual orientation can indeed be therapeutically changed in motivated clients, and that reorientation therapies do not produce emotional harm when attempted (e.g., Byrd & Nicolosi, 2002; Byrd et al., 2008; Shaeffer et al., 1999; Spitzer, 2003).”

    Google Anglican Mainstream’s article entitled “ The Psychological Profession and Homosexuality: Lunatics running the Asylum?

  159. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 16 Aug 2009, 8:06am

    The Phelpses’ Logic (and Ours)
    by John Corvino

    First published at 365gay.com on February 4, 2008

    “No one was surprised when the Phelpses announced plans to protest Heath Ledger’s memorial services.

    Known for their “God Hates Fags” message and their obnoxious funeral pickets—they now demonstrate against fallen American soldiers for defending our “doomed, fag-loving nation”—the Phelpses are nothing if not attention whores.

    What’s surprising is how much the Phelpses can tell us about ourselves.

    Let’s admit it: deranged people, like car wrecks, are fascinating to watch.

    While everyone would be better off ignoring the Phelpses, doing so is hard sometimes. (I feel the same way about Britney, Paris, and Lindsay—my willpower against media “junk food” is only so strong.) So it was that I recently found myself listening to Shirley Phelps-Roper—daughter of Fred, who founded the infamous Westboro Baptist Church—when she appeared on a Washington D.C. radio station.

    Phelps-Roper condemned Ledger for Brokeback Mountain, in which he plays a cowboy who falls in love with another man. Ledger is in hell because he mocked God’s law, she claimed, and “if you follow his example, you will go to hell with him.”

    Predictably, the show’s callers attacked Phelps-Roper; sadly, they often made little sense. One insisted that, according to the bible, God doesn’t judge anyone. Say what?

    Phelps-Roper’s reading of the bible may be selective, but apparently, so is everyone else’s: it doesn’t take much searching to find a judgmental, even wrathful God in the bible.

    The show’s host then attacked Phelps-Roper for her picket signs, which often thank God for disasters:

    “Thank God for 9/11.”

    “Thank God for maimed soldiers.”

    “Thank God for Hurricane Katrina.” and so on.

    Phelps-Roper had a ready comeback:

    “Exactly. You better thank him for all of his judgments because the scripture says that God is known by the judgment that he executes in this Earth, so you thank him for everything.”

    This answer is interesting, and not as bizarre as it might first appear. Theologians have long pondered the problem of evil—if God is all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful, why does he allow evil in the world?—and some quite respectable ones have concluded that evil doesn’t really exist.

    From our limited human perspective, things may look bad, but that’s just because our minds are too feeble to comprehend God’s design: ultimately, everything is just as God planned it.

    The problem is that, pushed to its limits, this position quickly yields practical contradictions. By this logic, we ought to thank God for Heath Ledger’s death; but by the same logic, we ought to thank God for Brokeback Mountain’s box-office success.

    We ought to thank God for Hurricane Katrina; yet we ought also to thank him for sparing the (delightfully debaucherous) French Quarter. We ought to thank God for AIDS, yet also for protease inhibitors. If God should be thanked for everything, then God should be thanked for EVERYTHING.

    Yet somehow I don’t expect to see the Phelpses with signs thanking God for same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, or the passage of ENDA, or the increasing acceptance of GLBT people.

    If I were on a radio program with Shirley Phelps-Roper, I’d want to ask her “Why not?” If all of God’s judgments are “perfect,” why not these?

    My guess is that she’d answer that these events result from human free will rather than divine will. But then how do we distinguish them from 9/11?

    Was it God’s will for Islamic extremists to fly planes into buildings? If so, do they escape hell, since they were only doing God’s will? If not, then why are we thanking God, rather than blaming the extremists?

    I wouldn’t expect a satisfying answer to these questions, but that’s not because Phelps-Roper is deranged (which she is) or stupid (which she isn’t, as far as I can tell). It’s because centuries of philosophical theology have failed to produce satisfying answers to the problem of evil.

    Instead, we pick and choose: even though God is supposed to be responsible for everything, we thank him for the things we like and call the rest a mystery. In this respect Phelps-Roper resembles most biblical believers: she just happens to “like” rather different things than sane folks do.

    A talented and likable actor dies in his prime.

    The Phelpses thank God, while mainstream believers declare God’s will a mystery. Had the paramedics saved him, mainstream believers would thank God while the Phelpses declared God’s will a mystery. In either case, divine providence remains unquestioned. Heads, God wins. Tails, God wins.

    If there’s a mystery here, it’s why believers seem to have lower expectations of God than they do of local weather forecasters. That, and why a loving God lets the Phelpses continue to spew hate in his name.

  160. Belteshazzar commented thus:

    When you accuse me of being a composite character I assume you are comparing me with legion, the man possessed by a legion of demons. But who exactly is the “we” you refer to from time to time – and I don’t mean those reading this blog? “We have told you” and “we have told you, time and time… Who is we?

    There are two points here: firstly he is deliberately trying to confuse the issue by deliberately misunderstanding the identity question which I raise. No, I am not accusing him of being ‘the man possessed by a legion of daemons’ (that is a wilfully and deliberately misleading, and a deliberately dishonest on his part, misdirection – I’m accusing him of being exactly what he is: a deeply dishonest charlatan masquerading as Belteshazzar when, in reality, he is the same poster who claimed to have the identity of ‘David Skinner’ some few threads ago, but who has now changed his identity because things got too hot around here for that persona to continue to have any validity.

    Oh, and the ‘we’ whom I refer to in my posts is, as he must know but chooses to ignore for his own deeply dishonest purposes, is all of us who comment here. Let me say it again – we have told you, demonstrated time and time again, Belteshazzar, just how wrong in your interpretation of our faith you actually are yet you proceed in your idiotic quest to damn your own soul!

    Then he went on to say:

    You get a tad nervous when I quote scripture and yet you who claim to be a Christian and who claim to have a” scholarly comprehension of Biblical science” and who claim to know to “our ancient scriptures” – in greater depth than anyone this side of the Warrumbungles by the sound of it – have never used a verse to support your arguments

    Well, no! I don’t get a tad nervous when this disordered so-called Christian quotes Scripture for he has absolutely no comprehension of the true meaning of Scripture – he doesn’t have any understanding of, knowledge of, or learning about, Hebrew and I doubt that he can read the original Hebrew texts and he certainly can’t understand those ancient Hebrew texts and he certainly has no learning of, or about, the ancient society which gave rise to those texts. It is also certain that this composite character, the Skinner/Belteshazzar character, has absolutely no knowledge of New Testament Greek and wouldn’t know how to handle, how to recense, one single verse from our Bible written in that tongue.

    Let us venture further into the composite’s distempered world. He said:

    To be a heretic, I must be heretical towards some doctrine . Tell me, John, because I am slow of understanding, what is this doctrine?

    This is so easy it’s like shooting fish in a barrel! You are in deep heresy because of your demonstration, in all of your comments at this site, because of your deep resistance to Christian doctrine and your denial of the five Armaniastic points.

    These are the five Arminiastic points (as promulgated by Jacob Hermann (1560-1609) which outline mainstream Christianity, the five points that clearly demonstrate the composite’s heresy for he does not accept them. Here goes (enjoy!):

    Free Will: Arminius promulgated the ancient Christian ideal, in line with ancient faith and belief, that the fall of man was not total, meaning that there was still enough good left in man for him to will to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.

    Conditional Election : Arminius promulgated, in line with Faith and ancient belief, that election was not based on God’s foreknowledge of who would believe for God created man as free. Man’s “act of faith” was seen as the “condition” for his being elected to eternal life, since God foresaw him exercising his “free will” in response to Jesus Christ.

    Universal Atonement: Arminius maintained, in line with Scripture and ancient Faith, that redemption was based on the fact that God loves everybody, that Christ died for everyone, and that the Father does not will for any to die unredeemed. The death of Christ provided the grounds for God to save all men, but each must exercise his own “free will” in order to be saved.

    Obstructable Grace: Arminius observed that since God wanted all men to be saved, in line with all the ancient teachings, He sent the Holy Spirit to “win” all men to Christ, but since man has absolute “free will,” he is able to resist God’s will for all of his life. He saw quite clearly that God’s will to save all men can be frustrated by the finite will of man. He also taught that man exercises his own will first, and then is born again into Love.

    Falling From Grace: If man cannot be saved by God unless it is man’s will to be saved, then man cannot continue in salvation unless he continues to will to be saved. In other words, man can fall away from grace and lose his salvation but that that is an act of a man’s own free will.

    Now, those such as Belteshazzar (a follower, and who can doubt it, of Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church, who disagree with the teachings of Arminius choose the word “TULIP” as an acrostic to summarize the “Five Points of Calvinism:” the very bases of the Faith demonstrated, erroneously, by the composite in all his posts.

    “T” = Total Depravity: The Calvinists believed that man is in absolute bondage to sin and Satan, unable to exercise his own will to trust in Jesus Christ without the help of God. The error here, in this statement, should be quite plain to all true Christians and the heresy obvious and it’s what the composite believes in.

    “U” = Unconditional Election: The Calvinists believed that foreknowledge is based upon the plan and purpose of God, and that election is not based upon the decision of man, but the “free will” of the Creator alone. Again, that is silly and wilful – if we are created in the image of our Creator then we, too, must have free-will or else our creation is naught but that of a slave and indicates an evil God and not the God of Love whom we sense. Again, the error should be plain to all true Christians and the heresy obvious and it’s what the composite believes in.

    “L” = Limited Atonement: The Calvinists believed that Jesus Christ died to save those who were given to Him by the Father in eternity past. In their view, all for whom Jesus died (the elect) will be saved, and all for who He did not die (the non elect) will be lost. So, no learning of charity, no new understanding by any individual is possible. You are damned or saved from the moment of your birth – that’s not free will; that’s not Christ’s operative message of love. That’s just a mockery of Christ and if this is true, which it isn’t, then, Christ didn’t have to come to us. Again, this is heresy and what the composite believes in.

    “I” = Irresistible Grace: The Calvinists believed that the God possesses irresistible grace that cannot be obstructed. They teach, as Belteshazzar does, that the free will of man is so far removed from salvation, that the elect are regenerated (made spiritually alive) by God even before expressing faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. If a totally depraved person wasn’t made alive by the Holy Spirit, such a calling of God would be impossible. This is mere witchcraft, simple superstition designed to appeal to the feeble-minded such as Belteshazzar. There can be no justification from faith for this wizard-like belief and it’s heresy and what the composite believes in.

    “P” = Perseverance of the Saints: The Calvinists believed that salvation is entirely the work of the Lord, and that man has absolutely nothing to do with the process. The saints will persevere because God will see to it that He will finish the work He has begun. In other words, according to Belteshazzar, there is no action that you can take that can change your relationship with God or your eventual, predestined, fate. This is heresy but, regrettably, it’s what the composite entity that is Belteshazzar believes in.

    So, Belteshazzar, or whoever you are, you are in heresy in all the points of your belief as you have demonstrated at this site and in major error on at least five of the major doctrines of the Faith.

    I don’t think that I need to go on and bore you all further, do I?

  161. David Skinner 16 Aug 2009, 9:58am

    John MJ, Finally. Thank you very much for marking out your territory and like your adversary you too would no doubt say “Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me. Amen!”

    Somehow something makes me feel that just the two of us are going to be left down in the basement discussing this . Neither is the conflict between Calvanism and Arminianism something of which even your average Christian is aware. My knowledge of it is extremely hazy. However, I believe it is a very crucial issue and I shall endeavour to look into this. I must say, John, that discussing theology with you is not a fruitless exercise, at least on my part; I have learnt a great deal in the short time that we have crossed swords and I suppose, begrudgingly, I thank you for this.

    It is Sunday and therefore I shall be otherwise engaged for the rest of day, as no doubt you will. But thanks for stating your position and no; I am not a member of Phelps church.

    As for my name, I have to keep changing this as some joker(s) post comments in my name.. So what am I to do? I try to remain with the same nomenclature when I am involved in a personal conversations with people like yourself, but apart from that I am not interesting signing my name to what I write; it’s the idea that I am trying to put across that is the important thing, not personal performance or point scoring. Winning arguments can be a waste of time. One can win the argument and loose the heart of the one that one is trying to win for Christ.

    No doubt our conversations will become bitter but let us not forget that we are all sinners saved by grace alone

    God Bless to you sir

  162. Jean-Paul a.k.a. Bentham 16 Aug 2009, 11:41am

    David Skinner:

    You take the cake, you really do.

    If it’s theological debate you want, why don’t you go onto a site which specialiizes in theological debate instead of pestering us, distracting us, and disrupting our debates.

    We are gay, we are here, and we are not going anywhere in your direction.

    We are the ones who John M.J. is talking about, and your lame excuse for changing names is nothing, nothing but another one of your lies.

    As you have said so often: EVIDENCE PLEASE.

    You should be so lucky as to find yourself alone in a basement with Mr.John M.J.

    Every one here is ready to go to bat for him; I am first in line, and believe when I say that you have taught me well how to torment someone ceaselessly.

    Your cruelty has no bounds; you are digusting; you don’t even deserve to hear one more syllable of a respected scholar like Mr. John M.J.

    So go to your church, if in fact ANY CHURCH WILL HAVE YOU, take out your songbook and sing yourself into oblivion.

    GO TO HELL.

  163. Jean-Paul Bentham 16 Aug 2009, 1:51pm

    David Skinner:

    You said to John M.J.:

    “I must say, John, that discussing theology with you is not a fruitless exercise, at least on my part; I have learnt a great deal in the short time that we have crossed swords and I suppose, begrudgingly, I thank you for this.”

    I interpret that to mean:

    Thank you for letting me pick your brain, Mr. John M.J.: it’s a lot easier jerking you around than going to University and learning Theology and the History of Christanity in Western Civilization for myself ‘cos I’m too lazy to become a real scholar like you.

    Just like it’s easier for you to pick Lezabella’s brain than to study British Law for yourself.

    Why don’t you pick my brain? S’matter? Afraid of what you might find? Go ahead and insult me, see if I care, you foolish knave, or is that you knavish FOOL. Been to the House of Commons lately?

    Will is so-o right: you are a buffoon, a clown!!! You do belong in a circus!! In a cage.

  164. Jean-Paul Bentham 16 Aug 2009, 2:05pm

    David Skinner:

    You said to Mr. John M.J.:

    “No doubt our conversations will become bitter but let us not forget that we are all sinners saved by grace alone”

    I interpret that this way:

    “Mr. John M.J., at last I have met a mind superior to my own. Please tell me more because it’s easier for me to pick your brain than it is for me to spend 10 years in Universities learning Theology and the History of Christianity in Western Civilization for myself, cos, although I do have a big mouth and I love to pluck the wings off butterflies, being a sadist and all, I really am too lazy to crack open a book. Won’t you be kind to me and teach me to be as smart as you, for free, and right now.

    In your dreams, sweetie.

  165. Jean-Paul Bentham 16 Aug 2009, 2:09pm

    David Skinner:

    You said to Mr. John M.J.:

    “As for my name, I have to keep changing this as some joker(s) post comments in my name.. So what am I to do?”

    That’s a lie, and you know it. Where’s the EVIDENCE, you rat up a drainpipe.

  166. Jean-Paul Bentham 16 Aug 2009, 2:15pm

    David Skinner:

    You said to Mr. John M.J.:

    “I try to remain with the same nomenclature when I am involved in a personal conversations with people like yourself”

    Ha! What a suckhole, brown-nosing scoundrel you are, you lying, sadistic, cruel, self-important, vicious miscreant.

  167. Jean-Paul Bentham 16 Aug 2009, 2:19pm

    David Skinner:

    You said to Mr. John M.J.:

    “My knowledge of it is extremely hazy.”

    Ha! You are now centre-stage and finally saying the truth, innit.

  168. Jean-Paul Bentham 16 Aug 2009, 2:25pm

    David Skinner:

    You said to Mr. John M.J.:

    “I shall endeavour to look into this.”

    Really, shall you endeavour, indeed? do you know how to endeavour? Maybe you could take an Endeavour 101 course at your local Kindergarten. Endeavour indeed. FAKE! BOO! GO HOME!

  169. Jean-Paul Bentham 16 Aug 2009, 2:30pm

    David Skinner:

    You said to Mr. John M.J.:

    “you too would no doubt say “Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me. Amen!”

    Putting words into people’s mouths are we??

    Why don’t you let our resident scholar speak for himself, you dummy. We are all too familiar with your devilish tactics, you fart in a mitt.

  170. Jean-Paul Bentham 16 Aug 2009, 2:33pm

    David Skinner:

    You said to Mr. John M.J.:

    “God Bless to you sir”

    You are in no postion to give God’s blessing to anyone, you sadistic, cruel, disdainful, homophobic, sociopath.

    GO LAY AN EGG!

  171. Jean-Paul Bentham 16 Aug 2009, 3:11pm

    August 16, 2009

    home
    biography
    upcoming lectures
    lecture dvd
    columns
    in the news
    video & photos
    mailing list
    curriculum vitae

    When Tolerance Isn’t Enough
    by John Corvino

    First published at 365gay.com on August 15, 2008
    “Why do you need other people’s approval?”

    The question came from an old (straight but gay-supportive) friend, as we sat over breakfast discussing progress in the gay-rights movement. He meant it sincerely.

    “After all,” he continued, “if you like rap music, and I hate rap music, you don’t need my approval to pursue your tastes. Indeed, even if I think listening to rap music is a mind-numbing waste of time, so what? Live and let live.”

    That’s true. But when it comes to gay rights, “live and let live” may no longer be enough.

    The difference between what he describes and what I seek is sometimes described as that between tolerance and acceptance. Roughly, “tolerance” involves leaving people alone to live as they choose, even when you don’t approve, whereas acceptance involves somehow affirming their choices.

    But even “acceptance” seems too weak here. Acceptance sounds close to acquiescence, which is scarcely distinguishable from tolerance. Gay people don’t want merely to be tolerated or accepted, we want to be embraced and encouraged—like everyone else in society.

    The shift from tolerance to acceptance is apparent in the movement’s goals. When I came out in the late 1980’s, we were still fighting to make gay sex legal. As late as 2003, homosexual sodomy was criminal in over a dozen states. That’s when the U.S. Supreme Court finally declared sodomy laws unconstitutional in Lawrence v. Texas, overturning Bowers v. Hardwick. Suddenly, tolerance was legally mandated.

    Then things changed—rapidly. Just a few months later, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts declared the state’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Gays and lesbian Americans began legally marrying the following year, and marriage became the predominant gay-rights issue in this country. Now California’s doing it (despite the threat of an amendment overturning that decision), and a handful of other states have civil unions or domestic partnerships.

    Legally speaking, when it comes to marriage, “tolerance” may be enough. A marriage is legal whether people approve of it or not. Socially speaking, however, marriage requires more.

    That’s because marriage is more than just a relationship between two individuals, recognized by the state. It’s also a relationship between those individuals and a larger community. We symbolize this fact by the witnesses at the wedding, who literally and figuratively stand behind the marrying couple. Marriage thrives when there’s a network of support in place to reinforce it.

    Beyond that, marriage is a life-defining relationship that changes those within it. This is why the claim “I accept you but I don’t accept your homosexuality” rings so hollow. When my relationship is life-defining, rejecting it means rejecting me. “Tolerating” it is better, but not by much: nobody wants their life-defining relationship to be treated as one would treat a nuisance, much less “a mind-numbing waste of time.”

    And so the rap-music analogy falters in at least two ways. First, listening to music doesn’t require the participation of others (beyond those who produced it), but marriage does. At least, it does in order to work best. Marriage is challenging, and it needs community support. Second, no one wants their life-defining relationships to be merely “tolerated.” Ideally, they should be celebrated and encouraged.

    Obviously, not everyone will approve of everyone else’s marriage. You politely applaud at a wedding even if you think the groom is a jerk. But the ideal is still one where others’ participation is crucial. I’ve even been to wedding ceremonies—straight and gay—where the minister turns during the vows and asks, “Do you pledge to support Whosie and Whatsit in their marriage?” and the audience responds “We do!”

    That’s one reason why same-sex marriage is so contentious. We are not simply asking people to “tolerate” something we do “in the privacy of our bedrooms.” We are asking them to support and encourage something we do publicly. We are asking them, in effect, to participate.

    We should not be ashamed of asking for that. We’re social creatures, and it’s natural for us to seek others’ support. It’s especially natural for us to seek it from our friends and family. But insofar as we desire such support from people not ready to provide it, we need to make the case for it.

  172. Jean-Paul Benthem 16 Aug 2009, 9:11pm

    Some months have 30 days;
    some months have 31 days;
    how many have 28?

    They all do.

  173. 21stCenturySpirituality 16 Aug 2009, 11:31pm

    Belteshazzar, you have said quite alot that I would like to respond to but what jumps out at me immediately are the quotes below:

    “what exactly is mature about a narcissistic existence that results in AIDs, HIV, bi – polar depression, drug taking, a death wish, paedophilia and a fast track to hell?”

    “As for the dignity of men having sex with men, where is the dignity in AIDs, HIV, Folsom Street Fair and dogging at any number of public picnic and beauty spots?”

    Because I work with vulnerable adults I have had to undergo stringent checks. This is called an ‘enhanced disclosure’ and involves gaining access to police records to check for any convictions involving child abuse, if a person is on a sex offenders register, if they are on whats called a ‘POVA’ list. This is for protection of vulnerable adults and if you had any history of abuse or exploitation of vulnerable adults you will be on this list and you wont be employed in these lines of work. They do these checks in the UK for teachers, nurses, doctors, anyone who works with vulnerable adults or with children. Each time you change job you have to go through this again. They are really strict on it and most people in these kind of professions are quite use to filling out these forms again and again and you cant start work until the process has been completed. Now Ive been through this process dozens of times in the 15+ years of my working life and each time in every section it says ‘none recorded’. There is no record with the police, the education authority, social services or any other national body involved in education, law enforcement, care provision and such of my being involved in paedophilia, or posing any kind of risk or threat to children. If there was, I wouldnt be able to work in the field I work in.
    Now I have another gay friend who is a mental health nurse so he would have had to undergo exactly the same stringent checks of all police records and such and again, none recorded, none recorded, none recorded right across the board.
    Ive got other gay friends who are doctors, nurses, social workers, teachers and they will all have been through the same stringent checks many times. If paedophilia or child abuse was on there records they would not be working in those professions becuase they would not be allowed to by law and in every profession like this it is law that everyone has these checks.
    Your assertion that a gay sexual orientation is connected is clearly not supported by the fact of these stringent checks. These checks have been around for many years in this country (UK) and millions of people have gone through them many times.

    As to drug taking, Ive worked in drug services and in projects where clients have drug issues and Ive done extensive relevant training about drugs awareness and drug issues and I can tell that there are various reasons why people choose to take drugs but a persons sexual orientation does not automatically predispose them to taking illicit drugs. Thats a nonsense.

    “narcissistic existence”. No im not like that at all, if I was like that I wouldnt be driven towards working to help homeless and other vulnerable people. I wouldnt have done voluntary work with deprived children or worked in hospitals and in the community to provide help and support to the sick and the elderly. I wouldnt be considering training as a lay pastor to promote healing and love. I wouldnt ascribe to the kind of principles,values and politics that I do if I was narcissistic. And people of a heterosexual orientation can be equally capable of being self absorbed. A gay sexual orientation does not predispose a person to be narcissistic.

    “bi polar depression”. There are a variety of recognised causes for what use to be known as manic depression. Again, in the profession I work in I encounter and provide support to people who have this condition. Ive done extensive training and study of mental health issues and there is no credible evidence to support your assertion that a gay sexual orientation predisposes someone to bipolar.

    “a death wish and a fast track to hell” I can tell you as a deeply spiritual person whose walk with God has involved over 18 years of reading and reflection on spirituality, religion, mysticism and the like that that is a fallacy.

    “dogging” I have been in a stable relationship with the same person for 12 years. The term dogging is actually applied to heterosexual sexual activity. In my experience making love in a place of outstanding natural beaugty can be amazing and wonderful. How romantic and magical. On a beach in the moonlight with gentle waves lapping at the shore. Or in a beatiful forest surrounded by bird song and dappled sunshine. Whats wrong with that?
    Fresh air and exercise. Whats the big deal if theres no one around? Have life and have it abudantly. Now who was it who said that I wonder?

    AIDS, HIV… a virus is a simple organism. It does not possess the level of consciousness to discriminate between gay and straight sex, gay or straight semen, gay or straight blood. You are just as likely to pick up an STD by regularly practising unsafe sex whether the activity is heterosexual or homosexual in nature. A gay sexual orientation does not automatically predispose a person to be more likely to contract AIDS or HIV.

  174. Jean-Paul Benthem 17 Aug 2009, 1:29am

    21stCenturySpirituality:

    The same thing happens here in Canada.

    I did volunteer work as a Red Cross volunteer swimming instructor for years and years with mentally challenged children and adults of both sexes, and the screening did involve checking local and national police files for any sign of foul play on my part.

    Also, every year, I had to answer an elaborate questionnaire to determine what motivated me to work both as a volunteer and with mentally challenged persons.

    The David Skinners of this world know only how to pick up a Bible, to read it literally and to charge blindly at anyone they don’t like with the ‘certainty’ that the Holy Spirit will put the right words in their mouths when the time comes.

    They are sick, demented, sadistic, homophobic bigots who do not have the least interest in dialoguing with us, and even if they did, they really don’t know enough about the most basic rules of a civilized debate to have an honest exchange of ideas and to participate in a growing experience.

  175. David Skinner 17 Aug 2009, 10:39am

    21stCenturySpirituality. First up there is nothing new about 21st century spirituality. Have you never read Ecclesiastes? Most abuses have occurred involving social services. They are riddled with political correctness, confusion, inconsistency in their policies and of course they are in thrall to the human rights crowd. The net result is that homosexual abusers are able drive through the so- called checks of socieal services as a whale goes through a net. Islington, Wakefield, North and South Wales and the Isle of Jersey councils are just a few where paedophiles have either been treated as above the law or actively recruited into these services. Wherever vulnerable children are that is where the homosexual paedophile will go . Homosexuals make up only 1-2% or the population and yet are responsible for a third of paedophile or pederastic abuses

  176. david skinner 17 Aug 2009, 11:36am

    Oh and thank you Jean Paul for your article, When Tolerance Isn’t Enough by John Corvino
    You cannot imagine what a nugget you have given me .

    May I give you one? Just Google “I wanna be like you – Jungle Book.” and there you have John Corvine – n’est pas? .

  177. Stop writing rubbish DakidSkinner. Homosexuality has nothing to do with paedophilia.

  178. david skinner 17 Aug 2009, 1:11pm

    Like homosexuality has nothing to do with HIV ?

  179. Jean-Paul Benthem 17 Aug 2009, 1:15pm

    Skinner (176):

    What kind of an answer is that?

    It’s no answer at all, just gibberish.

    Dr. John Corvino’s personal website is full of ‘nuggets'; he is a real human being and is not trying to hide his scholarship.

    Moreover he is upfront about where he’s comimg from – not like you who is too ashamed to admit that you do not belong to any church whatesoever. No church would have a sadistic bastard like you in its ranks.

    The basic fact is that Mr. John M.J. has crushed you(160), and he isn’t about to teach you Theology which is what you have never studied in your life. I am here to remind you of that as many times as it takes. You are a heretic in the framework of Christianity – a heretic, heretic, heretic, heretic, heretic…get the picture…

    NOBODY AGREES WITH YOU…NOBODY.

    If you had a care for anyone’s well -being, you would be working on collaborative efforts to bring clean drinking water to millions of poverty striken families in Africa, like thousands of Rainbow children are doing as we speak.

    You are completely irrelevant.

  180. Jean-Paul Benthem 17 Aug 2009, 1:21pm

    D. Skinner:

    “Like homosexuality has nothing to do with HIV ?”

    Anyone is susceptible to HIV, you know that.

    Boy, you’re really scrapping the bottom of the barrel today, eh.

    Why don’t you read up on Doctor John Corvino’s “Nuggets” instead of parading your ignorance again today?

  181. 21stCenturySpirituality 17 Aug 2009, 1:47pm

    “Homosexuals make up only 1-2% or the population and yet are responsible for a third of paedophile or pederastic abuses”

    Are you referring to the population of the world? This is about 6 billion according to recent figures which would mean that gay men ( your comment seems to neglect lesbian and bisexual people)number around 120,000,000 around the globe. Are you saying that all 120,000,000 gay men all have exactly the same personality, background, sexual preferences, that there is no difference from one gay man to the next out of 120,000,000 people all born at different times, in different cultures and countries.

    And where are you getting your figures from about paedophilia? I want to see the original report/research for myself. Please provide information that will enable me to do that.

    Can you please enlighten me as to the source for your figures and whether it refers to the world population or a particular countries population.

  182. 21stCenturySpirituality 17 Aug 2009, 1:52pm

    Paedophiles have never been actively recruited into professions where they would have access to children. That is a ridiculous statement.

  183. David Skinner – did you not see my quote that said that the rate of HIV infection in STRAIGHT men has overtaken that in gay men? Do you not understand that HIV can be transmitted through straight sex? Do you not understand that children can be born with HIV?

    Did you not read my comment that the lowest rate of HIV transmission occurs in lesbian sex? What do you have to say about that?

    Finally, please can you tell us what denomination of Christianity you’re from?

  184. 21stCenturySpirituality – his source? Why, Conservapedia, I guess:

    hXXp://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual_pedophilia

    Offensive and untrue, but that won’t deter the DS’s of this world.

  185. Jean-Paul Benthem 17 Aug 2009, 3:15pm

    D. Skinner:

    I’m here to remind you that you have been proven to be an heretic within the framework of Christianity by John M.J. in his post 160:

    “So, Belteshazzar, or whoever you are, you are in heresy in all the points of your belief as you have demonstrated at this site and in major error on at least five of the major doctrines of the Faith.”

    Furthermore, you have repeatedly refused to tell us the name of your Christian denomination. Does any church on this planet want anything to do with you?

  186. Jean-Paul Benthem 17 Aug 2009, 4:55pm

    A travelling salesman was out in the country one evening and wasn’t sure how to get back to the main highway.

    He came upon a farmhouse and asked the farmer if he could spend the night.

    “Sure,” said the farmer. “I’ve got some beans and cornbread on the stove, but I’ve only got one bed, so you’ll have to sleep with me.”

    The salesman was very grateful.

    So they had dinner and went to bed early. The salesman was used to keeping late hours and couldn’t get to sleep.

    His tossing and turning was keeping the farmer awake so the farmer finally suggested they play football. The salesman didn’t understand.

    “Here’s how it works,” said the farmer. “Everytime you fart, it’s a touchdown.”

    The salesman thought it sounded fun, and they started playing. The salesman took an immediate lead, with the farmer struggling to squeeze even one out.

    Finally he felt one coming on and he strained and grunted and strained and grunted…and let a big wet one rip all over his side of the bed.

    “What’ll we do now?” exclaimed the salesman.

    “Halftime. Switch sides.”

  187. “Homosexuals make up only 1-2% or the population and yet are responsible for a third of paedophile or pederast abuse”

    Wrong on both accounts. You have no facts or figures to back this up. This makes you a liar, with an agenda to perpetuate your bigotry. I’m sure being a liar is in line with your christian teachings.

  188. Mr. Skinner/

    According to the American (USA) National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse, in 1997, the most recent year for which reliable statistics are available, neglect represented 54% of confirmed cases of child abuse, physical abuse 22%, sexual abuse 8%, emotional maltreatment 4%, and other forms of maltreatment 12%.

    The term ‘sexual abuse’ covers all forms of sexual contact including male on male, male on female, female on female and female on male and is calculated in such a way that Statutory Rape, i.e. situations in which one of the parties involved was under the legal age of consent but may, actually, have been mature enough to give informed consent – that is to say situations in which no force, emotional or physical, was actually employed by either party.

    According to the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention the vast majority of incidents of child sex abuse (97.3%) occur within the child’s home and is perpetrated upon these children by a close family member. Only 4% of such attacks are gay or lesbian – 96% are heterosexual. A child is far more likely, enormously more likely, to be attacked in a sexual manner in his or her own home by a close heterosexual family member than outside, or inside, the home by a gay or lesbian person.

    In Europe the prevalence of heterosexual sexual abuse of children by members of their own families is found to be even higher than in the USA – some 98.3% of abuse is heterosexual with only some 1.7% being gay or lesbian sexual abuse – and this despite Europe having a much higher proportion of out and visible gays and lesbians in the population than can be found in the USA with somewhere between 7% and 11% of the general population identifying publicly as gay or lesbian as opposed to the USA’s figure of 3% to 5%.

    For references see:
    Child sexual abuse by David P. H. Jones, Paul Ramchandani
    and:
    Children and young people who sexually abuse others by Marcus Erooga, Helen C. Masson, 1999.
    The child protection handbook by Kate Wilson, Adrian L. James, 2002.
    The APSAC handbook on child maltreatment by John E. B. Myers, American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, 2002.

    The overwhelming bulk of the evidence emerging from the developed world, and the third world, for that matter, is that sexual attacks on children are disproportionably perpetrated by heterosexual people: by people such as you claim to be – so-called normal, heterosexual people. Gay and lesbian people are not represented in the statistics in the numbers and percentages that one might expect to find if the propensity to sexually abuse of young children were naturally distributed over the entire population of the planet. Instead, it seems that heterosexuals such as you are far more likely to sexually abuse young children than gay and lesbian people are, and that you are far more likely to abuse them in this way when they are close family members.

    Now, that is very interesting. What is it about your heterosexuality that makes you, not necessarily specifically you but others of your sexual orientation – heterosexuals – many times more likely to sexually abuse children than gay and lesbian people are, and, what is more, to abuse family trust and the supposedly safe family home that all of you make such a noise about. Equally as interesting to my mind is precisely why you, and others like you, seek to project that type of behaviour onto us gay and lesbians (your hate group of choice) when the evidence simply does not support your wild assertions, deliberately evil mis-directions or the attempted propagation of your projected guilt onto us gays and lesbians on this issue. Rather, as the facts support, it is your sexual orientation that does the damage, not ours!

    As far as I can make out you are indulging in classic ‘projection’, ‘mis-direction’ and ‘displacement’ activity in order to justify your faux position of superiority on this issue. The fact remains – justified by survey and the statistics of Court, and Police, Records, and such facts backed up by the findings of Government Child Welfare Departments, and other reputable organisations, on both sides of the Atlantic and throughout the world – that heterosexuals are far more likely, in a statistically disproportionate way, to be the sexual abusers of young children than gay or lesbian people are.

    On these threads here at Pink News you have consistently sought to confuse, in a malicious, duplicitous and downright evil manner, homosexuality with paedophilia, homosexuality with HIV infections, homosexuality with foreshortened life, homosexuality with depression and other illnesses, homosexuality with a pointless and childless existence (despite many of us having children of our own family blood to care for), homosexuality with an absence of charity, homosexuality with an absence of the will to public service, homosexuality with venality – in short, you have attempted to ascribe to our homosexual orientation just about every disorder that your distempered mind can conceive of whilst admitting to absolutely no disorder of your own. Never have I witnessed such an obvious display of narcissistic personality disorder (hXXp://en dot wikipedia dot org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder), such hubris, such pride and such misplaced arrogance as I have seen in you in all of your many guises at this site. You masquerade prejudice as fact and you lie, wilfully and deliberately, and often, to yourself and to us.

    Many of us have patiently, and sometimes impatiently I will admit, refuted your silliness and pointed you in the direction of fact and truth. We have pointed out to you your factual inaccuracies, your erroneous beliefs, and your heretical beliefs about Christianity, and explained, often at great length, how you can educate yourself and find the one, true, living God of Love as preached by Christ. We have patiently explained to you what your errors are, and wherein what misunderstandings they lie; and we have pointed out to you your heresies and how they have separated you from God, but you have persisted in your wilful, arrogant disbelief and your Devil inspired worship of false idols.

    Yet you dare, yet you have the temerity born from your own arrogance and sense of superiority and nothing more, to castigate us and to tell us that it is we who are destined for Hell! No, Mr. Skinner, it is not us who destined for Hell or Purgatory – it is you, for your wilful disobediences of God’s Ordinances and for your deliberate heresies and your deliberate ignoring of the truth when it has been so plainly explicated to you.

    No, Mr. Skinner, I will not debate with you about matters Theological for I will not jeopardise my immortal soul by arguing with the evil that you are and the Lucifer you so obviously represent and whose payment you so obviously and willingly receive and expect, nor will I put at risk the soul of any other person by giving you the chance to spout your arrant, heretical, Devil inspired, nonsense. You may, as you have done, find your own way to Hell, unassisted by me, or any other of the truly faithful souls.

    Naturally, as I have often done, I will pray for you and implore our God, His Son, Our Lord and Saviour, and The Spirit who moves us, to lead you towards the Faith and away from the evil one whom you reside in and who has occupied your soul. That is my commanded duty as a Christian and I will perform it sincerely. Will you, can you, accept His healing at my hands and reconcile yourself to the one true God? It’s not too late to save yourself – to enter into the love of God.

  189. Jean-Paul Benthem 18 Aug 2009, 11:29am

    er-hem..

    Merci, M. John M.J.

  190. Jean-Paul Benthem 18 Aug 2009, 4:42pm

    Monsieur Skinnair:

    “A closed mouth catches no flies.”

    -Italian Proverb

  191. Jean-Paul Bentham 18 Aug 2009, 6:50pm

    DAVID SKINNER!

    BRAIN CANDY FOR MR. DAVID SKINNER!

    re·dun·dan·cy (rî-dùn¹den-sê) noun
    plural re·dun·dan·cies

    1. The state of being redundant.
    2. A superfluity; an excess.
    3. Unnecessary repetition.

  192. I have just received a reply from Mr. Helmer. I enclose it below, and then below it I enclose the response that I have just sent back to him.

    If anybody else receives a reply from him (it seems he has just returned to work), it’s important to answer him and put him right. He’s trying to wriggle out of his blunder.

    > Dear Eddy,
    >
    > Thank you for writing to me about my comments on homophobia,
    > which seem to have been widely (and perhaps deliberately)
    > misinterpreted. No one denies that discrimination and prejudice
    > against homosexuals exist. No one denies that (sadly) homosexuals
    > may be subject to abuse, threats or even violence (which by the
    > way I forthrightly condemn). My point is that no one has an
    > irrational fear of homosexuals, and that therefore the word
    > “homophobia” is misplaced, and cannot describe a real condition.
    > It is also used to imply that those who are less than
    > fully-paid-up supporters of Stonewall are suffering from a
    > psychiatric disorder. Which is why I say that this neologism is
    > not so much a word, more a propaganda device.
    >
    > It is perfectly consistent to be in favour of equal treatment for
    > all citizens, and opposed to discrimination against all
    > minorities, while maintaining the fact that there is no clinical
    > example (to my knowledge) of anyone who has a phobia (that is, an
    > irrational fear) of homosexuals or of homosexuality.
    >
    > Thank you again for writing to me. I trust I have clarified my
    > position.
    >
    > Yours sincerely,
    >
    > Roger Helmer MEP
    > http://www.rogerhelmer.com

    Dear Mr. Helmer,

    Thank you for your letter.

    I am pleased to see that you now make it clear that you acknowledge that discrimination and prejudice against gay and lesbian people exists.

    Regarding the term homophobia, you say that “no one has an irrational fear of homosexuals”. If that were true then you would witness no discrimination or prejudice against gay and lesbian people.

    The RATIONAL response to homosexuality does not involve discrimination and prejudice. The IRRATIONAL, unthinking, response does. This irrationality constitutes homophobia.

    No one says, “I absolutely love gay and lesbian people, but rationally I cannot accept them”. In other words, the only reason for knifing, stabbing, and beating up gay and lesbian people, and the only reason for sniggering at them and treating them as fifth-rate individuals is out and out irrationality, i.e. homophobia. I hope this clarifies the position for you.

    Should you require “clinical examples” of homophobia, I suggest you turn to the British Psychological Association and ask them if their members encounter people with an irrational hatred and fear of gay and lesbian people. They will assure you, as I do, that a great many members of British society are of this most unfortunate mindset.

    Yours sincerely,

  193. I love the line “the fact that there is no clinical example (to my knowledge) of anyone who has a phobia (that is, an irrational fear) of homosexuals or of homosexuality.”

    Right…. he wouldn’t be saying that after reading some of the comments in here from that Skinner freak, he’s see then how irrational the fear of the so called “homosexual agenda” is…. its irrational to fear what doesn’t exist. Irrational and somewhat insane.

  194. Jean-Paul Bentham 18 Aug 2009, 10:50pm

    “My point is that no one has an irrational fear of homosexuals”

    Am I seeing things? Did a British politician actually say something like that??

    Last Saturday I went to pick up some groceries. This is a small town (37,000 more or less) and the supermarket is a place where I always meet a bunch of people I know since childhood, and everything is cool.

    Everything is cool until Mrs. Homophobe spots me. She’s known my family since before I was born and there ain’t no such thing as a bad person in her family – never has been (but everybody knows different).

    The minute she spots me, her eyes hit the floor, she makes a 180 degree turn with her cart half full of groceries resisting the swift move because one of the casters just won’t co-operate.

    Oh, she’s in a state because I’m getting closer to her and she may have to actually look me in the face, and oh, I can just hear her praying to St. Jude, the Patron Saint of Impossible Things, and then I turn down an alley and she catches me with the corner of her eye, and I, her.

    This happens time and time again to a homosexual, Mr Helmer, and it’s called homophobia. I can give you her name, address and phone number if you like, and you can drive her to a clinic to cure her homophobia.

    And then there are the patronizing Knights of Columbus. What a bunch of nice guys, as long as you keep your distance cos everybody knows men don’t get too close to one another unless it’s to sign a petition addressed to the Prime Minister to stop pandering to the needs and wishes of homosexuals. Then they can’t get close enough to you; you can smell the whiskey off their breath.

    That’s homophobia, Mr. Helmer.

    And in both cases it is an irrational fear of homosexuals, just like some people have an irrational fear of a little spider, or of stepping onto a crack in the sidewalk. The reason you don’t see it is probably because you ain’t gifted…I mean gay.

    “My point is that no one has an irrational fear of homosexuals”

    And here we are in Canada with such inbred respect for all things British, especially the politicians. What’s wrong with this picture?

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all