Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that homosexuality is a ‘lifestyle choice’, how is it different from religion? Is religion not a lifestlye choice? Yes, it is.
Now, if both of them are ‘lifestyle choices’, why should the choices of religious people be given priority over gay people?
Not only does he want to pull out of the EU but also wants to bring back discrimination against LGBT people. To me he’s a double idi*t.
In his view, Christians are being discriminated against because they no longer have the right to arbitrarily discriminate against queers? It’s a hard life.
Christians are being discriminated against? Good, we now need to step that up into active persecution. This might redress the 1,800 year old skew in the balance that has seen these whinging bullies threatening everyone they don’t agree with.
From the article:
Garry Cockrill, the candidate for Southend West, told a hustings on Wednesday that Christians were being discriminated against.
Garry Cockrill’s reported comments are a pretty undiluted recitation of the current set of “memes” being promoted by the Conservative right.
(a) – Faiths, such as Christianity, have a right to express themselves in the form of discrimination against LGBT people. This “right” is usually clarified as being because the discrimination occurs out of conscience.
(b) – Faiths, such as Christianity, are the victim.
(c) – LGBT is a lifestyle choice. As it is a “choice” then the LGBT people can choose not to be so.
(d) – Families are under threat. This, of course is a very old one. It is never clarified as to in what way the “nuclear family” is threatened by liberation for other identities, but the solution, of course, is that the state must reinforce an ideal of the “nuclear family”.
These tenets are widely believed by the vast majority of UKIP and by very many of the most powerful people in the Conservative party.
It is foolish to take our current liberty for granted. To believe that it came about by some magic.
I remember very well the very long and hard struggle to obtain the liberties and equality that we do now enjoy.
Some regulars in these comments unfortunately have no idea of the size of the victory accomplished by LGBT rights people in the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and in independent pressure groups.
Unfortunately the opposition to equality for LGBT people is neither dormant nor stupid and is working hard to take away that which has been achieved.
“The statistics are overwhelming that children do better in families with one of one father, one mother and children. You just can’t get past that.”
Yes you can, especially since 2 lesbian mothers has been proved as the most stable family unit you homophobic prick!
Funny how your type always make such strident claims and using words such as ‘proved’ AND yet you NEVER provide this ‘proof’ of which you speak…?
However, figures DO prove that lesbians are, in fact, twice as likely to ‘divorce’ as gay men in Civil Partnerships:
By that simple fact alone lesbian partnerships clearly are NOT the “most stable family unit” AT all!
And I am gay, so your little left-wing, ‘right-on’, standard fall-back excuse of being rude, insulting, and calling people “homophobic pricks” because you a) have no decent argument in response; AND b) clearly are of low intellect hence the immediate recourse to hostile, aggressive, insulting behaviour as soon as you see you have lost the argument simply won’t wash, dear.
“I don’t believe the rights of groups should be forced on others.”, the guys says. Mmmmmm, what about the rights of christians being forced on others, wouldn’t that be just as bad? Probably not, because that stuff comes straight from the mouth of god, if I’m correct. Can’t Mr. Cockrill shove his bible, if he can’t come up with any kind of argument for his opinions that isn’t worse than stupid?
I recently sent my local UKIP candidate a question regarding Civil Partnerships along the lines of “What do you think of Civil Partnerships”.
I received a reply which was basically a non-answer.
Wouldn’t commit either way, so I suspect:
1) He thought I was gay, therefore generally supported it but with caveats.
2) He thought I wasn’t gay, so the caveats would come to the fore.
Before I asked this chap the question I was going to go UKIP.
Not bloody now……
Why don’t all you fags set up your own Poofter Party? Then you can stop squabbling like little bitches. The comments made were nowhere near as hateful as some posted on here. You are all so hypocritical, to think that everyone should have to agree with you.
Ohhhh Get her.
If your that straight what are you doing on a gay website.
Now if Gordon Brown called this guy a bigot..then I’d vote for labour
“”I’m happy to stand by my faith and beliefs. I don’t discriminate against anyone but I don’t believe the rights of groups should be forced on others.”"
Except for my groups rights he means.
“”I’m happy to stand by my faith and beliefs” said this pr!ck.
Ok then here is what Leviticus means…..
“Leviticus” is the Latin form of the Greek word ‘ Levitikon’.
Meaning the ‘ Levitical Priests ‘. The Priesthood of Levi. The Postexilic prophet Malachi , 2:6-7 , speaks of Levi as a covenant of Levi. , the commission of the priesthood , which he sees as having been violated in his day.
In the Bible the name ‘Levi’ is used for four priests.
There is also reason to believe Levi is a geographical term.
Levi is associated with the region of Midian. Midian was the region of Moses , and may indicated a possible location for the origin of the Tribe of Levi…aka…Levites.
The first descendants of Levi were Gershon, Kohath and Merari, and all played a role in guarding and serving the tabernacle.
Moses is said to have been a descendant of Levi, of the priestly Levites as were Aaron , Moses’ brother and Zadok.
Thus all three priestly groups , Levites , Aaronites, and Zadokites , traced their ancestry to Levi.
The Book of Leviticus ; is the third of the five books of the Torah- Pentateuch.
chapters 1-16 The officiation of priests in the Sacrificial Cult.
Chapters 17-27 The holiness of the Israelite Peoples.
Alluding to the fact that the Laws of Leviticus are unfair, ridiculous or imply that God was a Brutal God , an angry God ; is really attempting to place those who lived 2000 + or minus years ago in today’s ideas of justice and morality.
There are varying accounts of how Levi became a priestly group, the Levites.
The first is in association with the Golden Calf story.
After the “ Sons of Levi” killed the 3,000 men who were not on Yahweh’s side, Moses indicated that they had therefore entered the service of Yahweh.
The Son’s of Levi killed the 3,000 men for their own apostasy.
Modern day leadership does Not kill 3,000 men in this way. Even though that was a fairly common approach to dealing with enemies 2,000 years ago.
You must, when reading ancient text Not use the modern ideas of Law and order to judge those of those times. It’s simply Not realistic nor a fair way of judgement.
Reading the Book of Leviticus is like reading the Book of Revelations.
Neither text reveals the true intent of the authors of them , that existed in those times.
For example Revelations is an idealistic end times extrapolation of the Sibyline Oracles. The original Sibyline Oracles , for example; were replaced by Jewish forgeries around 80 AD after the real Sibyline texts were lost after the Jewish wars. The Roman Temple of Juno , that is the Temple of the Goddesss Juno the Roman Oracle, this was replaced with a ‘Church of Christ’; the Jewish Messiah .
At the Top of the steps leading into the Circular temple the Roman senate use to meet there. The Sibyline Oracles are Apocalyptic revelations. Though forgeries.
The politics of religion has shaped the politics of modern justice and history.
These four priests were directly responsible for the Crucifixion of Jesus.
This F”ck wit doesn’t even know what his belief is.
Just quotes tiny passages as re-interpreted time and time again for his tiny mind to handle.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm, straight Gary…..hmmmmm NOT so straight! No straight male would call another male a bitch. You need to get out of that deep dark closet you’ve been hiding in. What are you doing trolling gay sites? Prurient interest perhaps?
This Garry Cockrill fellow looks a bit like Dr Eldon Tyrell in Bladerunner.
Perhaps he wants us all to be Replicants!
As an Irish person I hate UKIP. During the second Treaty of Lisbon referendum campaign in Ireland, UKIP distributed leaflets full of racist nonsense and lies including scaremongering about Turkey and strangely enough, property rights. UKIP is not as far-right as the BNP but it either is certainly not moderate or would do and say anything to succeed.
What an absolute disgrace!!
For all those that choice to bully and discredit me:-
Mervyn King has just put my exact thoughts, points I was trying to make. Though I don’t think as drastic as 30 years, I still think the point is Very valid. So whoever is in next time is going to be Very unpopular not matter who it is. They may Very well be out for a Very long, long time.
So the point is whoever wins the next election will be Very unpopular and will probably be out of government for a considerable amount of time.
Who do you what out for a ‘considerable amount of time’?
The Tories? Or Labour?
Please think seriously about this before slagging me off again.
Do you want the prospect of nothing happening to gay rights, nothing more, nothing less, with quite possibly a Labour government afterwards?
Do you want the likely prospect of a Labour government, out of office again for a Very long time?
My Choice… Tory…
Then maybe Labour?
shut your eyes if you want too…. I will not!!
Think about it people!!
Hey Straight Gary – bet you wouldn’t want your ‘straight’ mates to know you post on here
The statistics are overwhelming that children do better in families with one of one father, one mother and children.
Wow. It takes an unbelievable level of incompetence to be this utterly, demonstrably wrong. Either that or he’s a liar. Not only are these statistics not over-whelming, they’re also non-existant. No peer-reviewed study has ever been carried out which showed children do better with mixed sex parents. Not even close. Maybe someone should email him and ask him to provide us with evidence for this slanderous nonsense.
Why don’t all you fags set up your own Poofter Party? Then you can stop squabbling like little bitches. The comments made were nowhere near as hateful as some posted on here. You are all so hypocritical, to think that everyone should have to agree with you.
He said gay families are inferior to straight families, and that he would use his power to forcibly marginalise us and discriminate against us.
Nobody here said anything even remotely as hateful as that. That is pretty damn hateful, after all. We only called him out on his hate. How is that anywhere near as bad? Oh, I get it. You don’t like it because we disagree with your ugly, bigoted views. Hypocrite.
I hope this isn’t some drive-by abuse, either. This “Straight Gary” sounds like an utter imbecile. I, for one, would rather enjoy watching him humiliate himself further. :D
Haven’t we been here before with US candidates who shout the loudest hatred, and then get caught hiding in the closet?
Thank you for clarifying who NOT to vote for in a 21st century secular democracy Mr Cockrim.
many hetero families are a failure as many ‘parents’ are abusive etc, the christians are the ones who discriminate and guys like this don’t like it that they can’t discriminate any more
plus sexuality isn’t a choice unlike religion
Breaking news: man has opinion. Gosh, that was exciting.
In other news, I once went out with a guy who was really irritating and I dumped him the next day. I bet Peter Tatchell, Stonewall and the militants above will be queueing up to call me a “homophobe”.
This issue of Christians being discriminated against is nonsense.
Everyone should be able to hold their own internal beliefs and follow their own internal desires as it relates to them. Christians can believe in Christ and go to Church. They can follow for themselves their own religious instructions.
The problem is that Christians, as others, wish not merely to follow their own desires. They wish to prevent others from doing the same. They seek not just their own internal preferences but also to external preferences relating to non-Christians.
So they want not merely to follow their own internal desires. They want to stop gay people following their own internal desires. They want to prevent us from enjoying gay literature or dramatic art. They want to prevent us from enjoying equality under the law. They want to prevent us from enjoying equality within the workplace. They want to prevent us from being equal citizens.
They want not only to own pearls themselves but also to stop us from owning them.
That is the fallacy of their peculiar brand of ‘diversity’. Diversity relates to everyone choosing their own internal choices. It does not extent to trying to prevent others from doing the same. That way, we can speak of diversity excluding those who want to interfere with others’ preference. They can follow their own desires. They should stop interfering with others following theirs.
Puul Stanton – he’s a politician unlike you and he’s a homophobe
did you miss that when you wrote that waste of time?
Garry Cockrill is probably yet another gay man who has chosen to take the easy way out and in cowardly manner force himself into a heterosexual relationship in order to fit in with the wishes of friends and family. If so, he has indeed chosen to live according to “the heterosexual choice” and is living a lie.
People like this think, “If I am living according to a choice, then THEY (the queers) are living according to a choice as well!”
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
WE are being honest. WE have integrity. We are acknowledging who we ARE, deep down inside. There is no choice involved. This is who we are. We are men who are first and foremost attracted to men, or we are women who are first and foremost attracted to women. And WE are not prepared to compromise ourselves.
But we are a continual embarrassment to people who have not had the guts to be who they really are. That’s why they try to put it about that we have simply “chosen” “a lifestyle”.
We haven’t. It’s a lie.
Where’s our resident UKIP supporter, the misanthropic Rob-N? It would be amusing to see how he chooses to field this one.
Mr Cockrill looks quite like Joseph Goebbels
UKIP squeaks that these opinions are “personal”. Get real: any candidate spouting any nonsense is actually amking policy (on the run) unless the party then dumps them (as Cameron did to Philip Lardner)
Tallyho! Where is the Mistress of the Foxhounds, our resident fool, Rob.N? Isn’t she here putting her lanky body into innumerable contortions trying to justify the party of Dishcloth, the arch-idiot Farage?
What is it with the emboldened lettering Eddy? Your views are no more important, valid or worthy than any one else making similar points on here, so please get off your perch and keep that screeching ego under control. The more you try to use such tactics to reinforce your point, the more of a bully your appear (as you – and your shrilling mate Will – area already known for on a multitude of topics). Just take a deep breath before you hit “Say it” each time and re-read what you are sending and you may not be so quick to act before you think. It’s all about composure my friend.
Trouble with UKIP is they’re probably getting desperate bcause they can probably see that the BNP may take a lot of their votes. They seem to be just jumping on any old bandwagon they think will make them popular.
Problem is I’m sure people vote UKIP because they think it lessens the risks of reprisals from the BNP image. Sounds like them and people will probably just think ‘oh well might as well vote for the BNP anyway’
Patchy, I perceive my views antagonise you. Don’t worry, eventually the pain will pass and you will see the light.
In the meantime, if you wish to use a little html coding in your posts you too are at liberty to do so. I would suggest it is you who has the ego problem. And don’t damn Will. He’s one of the finest members of this Forum. A truly sorted gay man. If you don’t like us highlighting things as they are, then tough.
We don’t do ourselves any favours by allowing commercial interests to pretend that the small number of visible scene going pink-pound-spenders are representative of all 3.6m of us.
I reckon some people like Garry Cockrill look at that commercial lifestyle — which IS a choice — and conclude that same-sex attraction is also a choice. Which obviously it isn’t.
I wonder how much we are shooting ourselves in the foot and preventing progress by letting devious gay marketing companies ignore and misrepresent the hidden majority of LGBT people who live less-stereotypical lives?
Eddy and Will are in no way bullies!
Gs – homophobes will always claim it’s choice no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary of that lie!
Thank you, Chester. Yes, we simply refuse to put up with tosh.
GS, I agree with you that the stainless-steel Soho-style gay cafe scene and the all-nude gay-nightclub scene DO constitute a lifestyle choice on the part of LGBTs and I agree with you that too often that particular kind of visible aspect is used to categorise the lot of us. Not only do gay companies and commentators categorise the lot of us according to that cafe and clubbing lifestyle, but so do heterosexual companies and commentators.
I confess to being the person who asked the question at the hustings in which Garry took part:
“There has been a great deal of publicity recently over the B&B owners who refused to accommodate a gay couple, whose stance was supported by the Shadow Home Secretary. Senior Labour and Liberal politicians have been scathingly in their condemnation and the Conservative leader’s support has been at best lukewarm – being keen to distance himself from the recent Conservative “Section 28″ policy. Every week politicians bend over backwards to acknowledge the good work being done by faith communities and every week there are new stories of people of faith having to suffer for sticking to their deeply held convictions. What will candidates do (or not do) to reverse this trend while encouraging faith communities in their mission to help the poor?”
Whether or not you agree with what Garry said, he was in my view he was the only candidate to get anywhere close to answering the whole question and understanding the quandary faced by many Christians!
Btw: the photo carried of Garry is a v.good one and the report was on the whole fair!
The scary thing is that these right wing bigots keep talking about ‘lifestyle choice.’ It’s well known that if you say something enough times, people start to believe it – no matter how false it is.
On the point some of you make that being gay is not a lifestyle choice. Who cares if it is. And is there some kind of scientific proof it isn’t. If I have chosen to be gay, so what? I choose to be gay. Choosing something doesn’t mean you should be able to discriminate against that person because it’s a choice.
And on the point of the ‘devious’ ‘gay marketing companies’ who are ‘sterotyping’ the ‘scene’ and thus creating homophobia. It sounds like you’re trying to blame the gay ‘scene’ for peoples homophobia – that sounds homophobic to me – blaming the gay community for creating our own homophobia. Don’t blame the ‘scene’. These people are homophobic because they believe in the bible, they think a god is disgusted that men want to put their dik inside another mans ass, that a man wants to suck another mans dik. Or is that just people on the ‘scene’ who have gay sex. Anyway, I’m off to the sauna now to get fuc*ed by loads of men.
@ Jay 6pac
the reason to avoid the “lifestyle” & “choice” words are that both are seen as changeable, thnce desirable (to be normal), thence necessary, finally obligatory: ie they’d have us wired up (again) for ECT.
We have to maintain that being gay is natural and part of the spectrum of sexuality, harmless, and fundamentally immutable. That is the only protection against the waverers who would change us if the could.
I totally agree that the “why”s and “wherefore”s and all sexual permutations shouldn’t matter; and in a truly civilised society it wouldn’t, but we have to live with what we’ve got and change it.
That’s my take anyway
John – what quandry? to be homophobic or not? Jay 6pac – they claim it’s choice so they can claim it can be unchosen via ex-gay stuff etc! GS – and yet the sexual stuff done by heteros is never used by Christians etc to condemn all heteros! there’s heteros who’s only interested in sex and yet the Christians never condemn or even mention them
My apologies if I haven’t fully understood your point in the response that follows – I agree that some Christians do get rather hung up over on “gay issues” and overlook hetero misdemanors and more pertinently a 1001 issues to do with social injustice.
If I were a Relate counsellor, I wouldn’t be advising a gay couple on how to improve their sex lives either, simply because according to my holy book to do so would be wrong. That is a quandary for many Christians, especially if it means losing my job.
As someone deeply involved in my local community working among the poor – both personally and part of the faith community, I do feel a conflict at times when politicians want us to carry on the good work yet leave matters of faith behind. That is also a quandary.
John, I’m sure your holy book has other “quandries”. How do you resolve them? What does it say about slavery? Racism? Sex with minors? These “quandries” appear in most christian and muslim bibles at the very least. There are a load of other “quandries” such as eating shellfish, or wearing mixed fibres, sowing mixed crops, and more. It seems to me that most religious folk choose the parts of their holy books to enforce, and ditch the bits they don’t want. Therefore, citing scripture as grounds for homophobia is false and the problem is really that these people are homophobic and want to continue being so, and are upset that the rest of the world think that people should not be stoned to death, hung or murdered for loving someone of te same gender. There is no “quandry”, there is just prejudice and religious retention of the same.
John – you are right in the first paragraph, the conflict with faith is resolved if you aren’t a bigot like too many are who want to do jobs and yet act like they can choose what duties to undertake! the bible is wrong anyway as it’s been mistranslated and misunderstood plus cherry-picked from, ‘homosexual’ was coined in 1868 I think and added in the 50′s
Jay6pac, you say “I choose to be gay”. That would indicate then that you are not actually a true gay man at all but that you are rather a bisexual, in that you could equally as well choose to be straight.
For true gay men there is no choice. Sexual relations with a woman range from simply not interesting us in the slightest through to filling us with repugnance. There is no choice in this. It is an inbuilt gut reaction.
Homophobes have used all sorts of methods to try and “rid” we gay men of this reaction to the opposite sex but it can’t be extinguished. For such men as us “choosing” to be straight is simply agreeing to ADD a layer of straight behaviour OVER and ABOVE our homosexuality. We would still remain gay, or lesbian if we are women.
I hope this makes the matter clear for you. :-)
And by the way, I like bisexuals. :-) Gays and lesbians can’t help being gays and lesbians, straights can’t help being straights, and bisexuals can’t help being bisexuals. It is true too that bisexuals cannot choose the fact that they HAVE TO or CAN choose between homosexual and heterosexual relationships! It would appear that you are one of those lucky people – although of course many bisexuals find themselves continually pulled both ways and that’s deeply frustrating for them.
Regarding your sentence “It sounds like you’re trying to blame the gay ‘scene’ for peoples homophobia – that sounds homophobic to me”, I think what the person was saying, Jay, is that OTHERS lock onto the very visible scene of the bars/clubs/saunas/soho-cafes and choose to believe that the behaviour that goes on in those places is typical of all gay men. Obviously it is not. And they are wrong to claim that it does.
People who typify all gay men according to those who frequent such place are already homophobic and that’s why they lock onto that one visible manifestation. They choose to ignore the fact that there are gay classical musicians, gay writers, gay plumbers, and so on and so on, who never have ANYTHING to do with the visible world of “sleaze” (hope you don’t mind my using that word).
“I’m off to the sauna now to get fuc*ed by loads of men.” Did you have a good time? We all of us have only so much time and so much creative energy. We can all choose to use it in different ways. Nobody HAS to get fuc*ed by loads of men. Now that’s a choice! :-)
John, if people want to believe in pixies, fairies, ghosts, elves, the supernatural, bunnies that can talk and all such nonsense and gobbledegook then they can. However it’s not grown-up and it’s not mature and therefore such make-believe has to be restricted to the privacy of the home. It cannot intrude on public life.
If a person wants to work according to such nonsense then they need to find some job that allows them to do so, although at the end of the day most jobs involve interaction with people who live in the REAL world, rather than the make-believe world, and so someone who believes in acting according to The Great Book of the Flying Pixies, for instance, is more than likely to have to work alongside a homosexual person at some point.
So if the make-believe is going to result in the homosexual person being insulted or treated as second-rate by the person who believes in make-believe then there is a problem.
It’s best to just practice the make-believe with friends on Sunday mornings and forget it in the real world.
I think what these posts indicate is we do indeed live in a ‘broken’ and ‘unequal’ society. UKIP’s policy is really quite straight forward and whilst I do not think this candidate meant to misrepresent it he clearly has.
UKIP believe that a truly equal society does not need laws aimed at positive discrimination. I am sure that there will be laws that Gays and Lesbians are opposed to. Do you for instance believe it is right that terrorists receive state benefits whilst awaiting deportation. The ECJ does.
As for the issue of hotes and B7B discrimination I would just point out it was the owners of ‘gay’ hotels were the biggest objectors to this legislation as they wished to exclude heterosexual couples. As a Gay or Lesbian person would you be happy staying in a hotel or B&B where you were clearly not welcome, you see the law can force operators not to discriminate but it cannot stop internal discrimination.
Prejudice on the grounds of gender, sexual preference, religion, race etc is clearly wrong. Legislation I am afraid does not resolve that people learning to live together will.
Do not judge a party by the comments of a few UKIP is a broad church.
@ Eddy – I agree and of course you’re right that heterosexual companies and commentators categorise us too.
@ Jay6Pac – let’s face it, much of the ‘gay lifestyle’ as promoted in the media and by marketing people is extremely shallow: partying, holidays, body fascism, well-off white (but tanned and manicured) gay men who have a knack for interior design and fashion. Yes I’d say that leads to ignorance and homophobia in some cases. Say you’re a parent and that is all you know about ‘being gay’. Would you want it for your child?
However I reckon enough of the heterosexual population now know a ‘real’ LGBT person (friends, family and workmates) not to be fooled by it.
“The Equality Act, the Sexual Orientation Act 2007, have made it possible for lifestyle choices to be placed above religious faith.”
No, dear. RELIGION is a choice – one’s sexuality isn’t.
And why stop at gay people? Look through your Bible and you’ll see there’s plenty of ammunition there to have a go at women, black people and the disabled. But obviously, you can’t get your mind off us, can you, Mr Cockrill?
I wonder why…
Chester, Eddy and Matt B
Having been involved in many forums when you don’t get comments from one day to a next, it is nice to be involved in one where people feel passionate about the subject even if expressing views that are different to one’s own.
I just wanted to pick up on the “pixie” and “multitudous issues” comments regarding my “holy book”, the Bible.
I agree there are lots of challenges about how to interpet and recognise there are many differences. All I can say, speaking for myself and many I hang out with, is that with every issue of life I try to look at in the light of what that book says. Sometimes I have to hold up my hands and say I don’t have a complete or satisfactory answer e.g. the question of suffering but when it is clear I try to live consistently with that “truth”.
Believe me, if I did believe it was fairy tales then I would rather be down the pub on Sunday than at church. And because I take it seriously, I try to apply it. If I were that sanctimnious I would disassociate with all the “sinners” and as I see it homosexuality is one of many, and then would probably die out of despair because I am the worst. But I am happy to follow the lead of the “friend of sinners” (Christ) yet (as he did) stand by all what is right and true – at least that is what I try to do.
Religion is something that someone decides to believe in, Sexuality is a natural and biological thing that people are born with.
how can they put someones BELIEFS infront of something that someone IS. i’m fed up of parties such as the BNP and the UKIP being increasingly voted for, because people are fed up of immigration and they think that if they vote for these parties it will stop, but they never consider any of the other idsgusting policies they have :@
People have the right to believe whatever they believe but people need to realise that they should not be able to take away the rights of others. You may believe that being gayis wrong but that gives you no right to deny services to gay people. Equality laws simply allow vunrelable groups to live their lives without interference from bigots.
I’m sorry, Mr. Cockrill, but the right to discriminate is not a “religious conscience” issue – its just discriminating, plain and simple. The rights of the individual are paramount, until those rights need take away the rights of another to exist, which is what you seem to be getting at. Religion is a personal thing, try to keep it that way, its in the interest of all society if you do. And I’m not going to address the stupidity of the term “lifestyle choice” – its as offensive and demeaning as it its non-factual.
Oh, and Patchy, Eddy makes infinitely more sense in one line than you do in your entire insulting paragraph, and you could take a leaf out of his book when it comes to articulate and intelligent opinions. Ironic you bander the “bully” insult when you seem to engage ion that behaviour yourself. Is that “shrill” enough for you? I can never tell.
Having heard Mr. Cockrill’s speech I am puzzled as to what all the fuss is about; I believe what he was attempting to say was something like equality is not equality unless it is for all; let’s have some fair and accurate reporting.
Homophobes and bigots seldom like to be called homophobes and bigots.
UKIP believe that a truly equal society does not need laws aimed at positive discrimination.
You think it’s alright for us to be denied services? To be kicked out of establishments for who we are?
Might as well tackle it on both fronts. And laws being passed against discrimination does tend have an effect on the people who grow up under those laws. In a generation’s time, I’m hoping homophobes will be as socially unacceptable as racists.
Having heard Mr. Cockrill’s speech I am puzzled as to what all the fuss is about; I believe what he was attempting to say was something like equality is not equality unless it is for all; let’s have some fair and accurate reporting.
Sorry, but when someone says -
“The statistics are overwhelming that children do better in families with one of one father, one mother and children. You just can’t get past that.”
- I think it’s pretty clear what he was attempting to say. Lies such as these are dangerous and completely immoral.
And what’s with this “not equality unless it’s for all”? Care to elaborate?
@Gay Dave, oh sorry, Straight Dave. Your secret’s safe with us :D
“Why don’t all you fags set up your own Poofter Party? Then you can stop squabbling like little bitches. The comments made were nowhere near as hateful as some posted on here. You are all so hypocritical, to think that everyone should have to agree with you.”
Politics has to represent all minorities. Minorities cannot represent themselves widely enough at a national level in numbers large enough to become a government themselves. That’s why they’re called minorities & need representation & protection from a representative majority. Why don’t you start your own ‘straight-jacket’ party see how far you get? You’re a majority aren’t you? Should be no trouble at all :D
Anyway it seems these minor parties will say anything in desperation to try & gain the hate & anger vote. Not so long ago I was concerned the BNP might actually gain a few seats this time around. Not so sure now. I think the electorate have swung more in favour of Nick Clegg & a hung parliament. I hope they have anyway. No more 5 year dictatorships. A break would do us good. Over 30 years of unchallenged overall majorities have damaged this country beyond recognition.
Straight Gary rather. I must have forgot your name instantly. I wonder why lol
Religious people will always brand gay with the words lifestyle and choice. That way they feel it gives them the Choice to discriminate. They also have no desire to change that because they feel it’s their right to show discrimination and hatred.
It’s no wonder the courts in the land are now waking up and seeing this is unacceptable. Religion needs to update or suffer the well deserved consequences.
I think you made a good point.
It was not so long ago that society treated gay people horribly but now it seems they same is now happening to Christians. It it seems to me another example of a pendulum swinging from one extreme to another instead of ending up in the middle.
Whether we like it or not, beliefs govern actions and while it would be ridiculous to accomodate every belief it does seem reasonable to me that we do so in the interests of an equal (cohesive) society.
Going back to my original question that led to this thread – people have done marvellous things for the poor and it is only because of their beliefs. It would (imo) be wrong to say keep those beliefs about helping the poor but abandon those we don’t like because of our own beliefs in gay equality.
Think about it – the legislative climate has shifted significantly in the last few years and it has meant amongst other things that some can no longer do certain jobs e.g. counsellor, registrar because of their beliefs, some may feel inclined to home school because of their beliefs, some may stop running adoption agencies because of their beliefs and some may stop employing people and running certain services because of their beliefs.
Lets work toward gay equality by all means but don’t insist that people who don’t believe that a gay lifestyle is perfectly alright to have to put their integrity on the line and act as if they did in order to appease the thought police.
“It was not so long ago that society treated gay people horribly but now it seems they same is now happening to Christians. It it seems to me another example of a pendulum swinging from one extreme to another instead of ending up in the middle.”
In this country it was because of Christians society treated gay people horribly. So what now that the tides turning against them somehow now its not fair?
It’s because of Christian attitudes gay people have been murdered, tortured, raped, imprisoned let alone being made to live a life that didn’t/doesn’t allow them to be themselves even now.
I don’t see gay people every behaving like that towards someone just because of their religion. All we do is speak out and show No-one should be treated this way.
Christian Chose their path, they chose what many in society dictates. There is absolutely no way it can be said it’s now turning on them because it’s not. I don’t see them being murdered, tortured to stop being themselves etc so lets not have this ‘feel sorry for Christians’ attitude.
homosexuality isn’t a sin John so quit with that lie!
Squidgy is right but the homophobic believers can never accept that
Lets face it we live in a country where Christianly is the basis of law, Yet how many don’t either believe or worship it? How is that fair?
People go on about the fear of Islam and Sharia Law but we are forced to live by Christian Law. Now they seem to slowly changing to a more common-sense Law it has to be good.
Britain should have British Law for all not a Religious Law for all who don’t follow it.
Chester, I suspect most people in this forum will agree with you but, as hard as it may sound, according to the Bible, sex between two people of the same gender is sinful, although there will be those who will interpret it differently.
Squidgy, you make some interesting points. My take on history is that minorities, those who fall foul of the ruling elite or don’t conform to societies norms usually do suffer one way or another – it is all a matter of degree – but does it make it right? I would have thought a cohesive society would want to accomodate the diversity that clearly exists in it.
I agree too that the judaeo-christian consensus that may have once existed may no longer do so and that has legal implications. What to replace it with is a major challenge. What is commons sense to you may not be common sense to someone else.
For any sad individual here who is still thinking of voting Tory, do read the following article which describes how the Tory Philippa Stroud set up a church that sought to “cure” homosexuals by driving out their “demons”! Stroud, standing for Sutton and Cheam, is in charge of the “Centre for Social Justice”, the Tory “thinktank” which was set up by the Tory Iain Duncan Smith and which guides Tory thinking. Here is further evidence of the REALITY of the Tories. You have been warned.
Weither you like it or not I was born gay so I consider myself one of “societies norms’. No-one should be made to excused because of the way they are born.
The difference is we are all born, man, woman, straight, gay . We are all born innocent and ready to learn. However religion is taught and in many cases along with the teachings of religion comes discrimiation and hatred. How is that in the best interests of a person, child or otherwise?
Although I’m not religious (you may have noticed) I do respect that there are Many LBGT people who do follow a religion. Whilst some are accepted a lot are not. Who is it for people to judge who wants to be religious? and who has the right to worship?
At the end of the day a better, progresive society is only going to come, it seems without the church because clearly religion fears it. It is that in itself that will hold back humanity from going onto bigger and better things.
Religion has a part to play If it chooses to move with the times. Otherwise it will be leave behind in the history books.
“as hard as it may sound, according to the Bible, sex between two people of the same gender is sinful, although there will be those who will interpret it differently.”
John, according to the bible, black people are so coloured becuase they are cursed, its morally acceptable to own slaves, and the Jews murdered god. Homosexuality is also as sinful (using the same “abomination” word) as eating shellfish. Put it in context.
Don’t quote passages from a book of contradictions as proof of anything. And allowing legal discrimination based on these passages is akin to legislation protection of witchcraft based on a Harry Potter novel as gospel.
The right to discriminate is not god given. If these people can’t work in a domain because it infringes on their “conscience”, then they have obvious recourse to prevent the conflict of interests:- get another job.
He said: “I’m happy to stand by my faith and beliefs. I don’t discriminate against anyone but I don’t believe the rights of groups should be forced on others.” Garry Cockrill
That goes both ways mate…..don’t you force your views on me!
did you miss my point John? it’s not even biblical! homophobia is unbiblical, added in 1950s and coined in 1868
Squidgy’s right that laws should be secular as secularism is rational unlike too many religions.
Squidgy – many notice Islam as other because they are Christian so they won’t condemn christianity
Yes totally agree.
The Philippa Stroud story has really rocked me. She’s in charge of formulating Tory SOCIAL JUSTICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AND she believes that homosexuality is a demon that can be cast out by prayer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now how does a person with beliefs like that get into such a high position as being IN CHARGE of the Tory’s think-tank on Social Jusice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Answer: because secretly, behind closed doors, the Tories all admire Philippa Stroud and THEY made her head of that think-tank!
“Danger! Danger! Danger, Will Smith!”
I’ll stick with Labour who have been behind us since 1997, thank you, Mrs. Stroud!
Chester, sorry if you feel I should have covered your point – I thought I had. I’m not sure what was so significant about 1950 and 1868 though – enlighten me if you wish.
I looked at the web definition of homophobia and it was: “1.Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men. 2.Behavior based on such a feeling.” So from that point of view I would probably agree with you that homophobia is unbiblical. However, my understanding is that condemnation of homosexual activity isn’t.
I am not convinced secularism is any more rational than religious beliefs. Both are based on beliefs which are open to debate.
I noticed mention above concerning biblical views on things like colour, witchcraft and shellfish. I could probably respond to all these points but then won’t we be getting further away from the point of why people should be allowed to act according to their conscience (providing of course it doesn’t harm others).
“to act according to their conscience (providing of course it doesn’t harm others)”
Precisely. And discrimination is doing harm to others. Ergo, laws that prevent discrimination surpass the rights of a few to discriminate, regardless of “belief”.
‘A parliamentary candidate for UKIP has claimed that his party would scrap “politically correct” laws allowing discrimination against gays and lesbians.’
For this to mean what pink News means it to mean, it needs a comma after “laws”. At the moment the sentence says that “politcally correct” laws allow discrimination against gays and lesbians, which is not what you mean.
Why on earth do these people get any publicity, the last time I emailed Nigel Farage from the UKIP party on wehther he wished to help us in our fight to get recognition of the British CP in France his assistant replied “…. How dangerous the EU’s autocratic structure is – considering that the Lisbon Treaty would confer statehood on it – is comprehensible only in terms of previous, but less cunningly disguised, totalitarian régimes.
The UKIP was elected in order to expose this danger and to oppose the continuance and growth of the EU’s jurisdiction. Consequently, Mr Farage votes against all EU-legislation and does not support Written Declarations calling for EU-legislation, however well-meaning they may appear.” They’re a rubbish party and of no use to anyone, their comments should be rejected as drivel and put straight into the bin …. they have no support in mainstream UK… why do they get so much publicity….
A counsellor who turns away gay couples on the grounds that they are an abomination is likely to exacerbate the very problems for which they sought counselling help: stigma is not, on the whole, a source of good mental health. I wonder how John squares such damage to others with his Christian conscience.
homosexual was coined in 1868 and added to the bible in the 50′s
Will – thank you for making your important point. I do see that as being the key issue for many. Personally speaking, acting according to principles of truth and righteousness should come first even if it means becoming a martyr. I reluctantly concede that this may lead to treating people differently because of their sexual orientation but never, I would add, from a position of superiority or malice or being unkind or unfriendly. Thinking aloud, the same consideration might apply in the case of an adulterer or a crook.
Alan – I personally think the Relate counsellor did the right thing even though it cost him his job. He obviously saw gay sex as being incompatible with his Christian beliefs and asked to be excused (it would have compromised his integrity to tell someone something that was acceptable but not in his view right) – if he were to counsel he could only tell what his conscience would allow and of course that would have created further problems. We don’t help people, whatever their mental state, by telling them untruths or what we believe to be untrue.
Thanks Chester. The version of the Bible used before 1950 would have most likely been the King James and I checked the word does not appear. The word does appear once or twice in more modern versions though, no doubt because it is the most appropriate modern translation of the original Greek.
#73 – “I noticed mention above concerning biblical views on things like colour, witchcraft and shellfish. I could probably respond to all these points but…” – go on I dare you to make an even bigger theological fool of yourself. Please. Are you seriously telling me you have a theological answer for not wearing mixed fibres? Your ‘holy book’ is a fairy story written by insane fools a long time ago. Believing it to be the word of god would be like someone in two thousand years thinking that harry potter was the messiah.
And you go on about how the religious help the poor. Pull the other one. You really think you can make people think you are a good person because you go on a soup run to help the homeless once a month (whilst trying to convert them to your vile ideology).
Christianity, Islam and Judaism have been the bedrock for every war waged over the last two thousand years. Millions of human sacrfices in the name of jesus, allah and jahweh. Religion is used to control the majority who are turned into slaves, by a minority who don’t even believe the bullsh*t they use to keep the upper hand. You sound like one of the slaves.
Jay, I will decline your request because based on past experience these tend to generate heat rather light. Let me dare you to read Proverbs 26v5.
John wrote “I reluctantly concede that this may lead to treating people differently because of their sexual orientation but never, I would add, from a position of superiority or malice or being unkind or unfriendly.”
Unbelievable. John, you are deluding yourself. OR you are having us on.
A religious person treats a gay person NOT as a person to be greatly respected and admired and loved and YOU say that this attitude does not come from a feeling of superiority, unkindness, and unfriendliness!?
You are suffering from a mental “disconnect”, my friend!
Are you gay?
Then respect yourself.
Dozens of gay people who have been indoctrinated with religion try very very hard to accommodate both their gayness and their religion, but it just doesn’t work.
Those few gay bishops who preach that the scriptures are all wrong and that Jesus actually loves gay people AND what gay people do when they have sex are just living in their own cosy and deluded little world.
Stop trying to act like the supreme pontiff of reason. It doesn’t bloody wash.
You’re behaviour is laughable.
You have no authenticity.
You are incongruent.
Argos, usually with angry people one manages to irritate I find it is better to respectfully say nothing and move on – even though I might want to take issue with much of what is said.
Much of that much in your case I will let be but your statement “A religious person treats a gay person NOT as a person to be greatly respected and admired and loved” shouldn’t go unchallenged. It may be true in some (maybe many) cases but a person who is truly following his/her Christian teaching will love regardless of the person’s sexuality. As for respect and admiration – there are gays I respect and admire and gays I don’t. It is exactly the same with straights. The issue is not one of sexual orientation but rather content of character – so stop talking such a load of £$%^&*.
On the point of difficulty in reconciling gayness and religious observance, I am not qualified to give a definitive view but suspect you may be right!
“Thinking aloud, the same consideration might apply in the case of an adulterer or a crook.”
Thanks you John for equating gays people with criminals and adultery. While you may not make that statement out of malice, as you say, you clearly say it out of unbelievable ignorance. May I in return compare religious people with diminished capacity? I too am a fan of “principles of truth and righteousness”, so in order to back up this statement, I will given you the scientific proof that the more religious someone is, the more stupid they are….
…unlike the bible, which is proof of nothing but mediocre storytelling.
Will, thanks for pointing out how my statement can be misconstrued. I thought afterwards I should edit it but I don’t believe there is a facility to do so. I merely wanted to make the point that in discriminating it isn’t merely a matter of targeting gays. In almost every area of life the issue of discrimination shouldn’t arise anyway. The area of conflict is when being called upon to endorse a gay lifestyle, just as one wouldn’t endorse sex outside of marriage or those who act in an unlawful way, such as breaking the 10 commandments.
Thanks too for pointing out the website. It looks interesting and worth looking at. However, I know too many religious people to endorse your statement equating more religious and more stupid even though as in most things there is also an element of truth in what you say. I think the statement “the bible is proof of nothing but medicre story telling” to be ridiculous as I have yet to see that proof. I notice the website cites Richard Dawkins “The God Delusion” and the verse in the Bible that came to mind is “the fool says in his heart there is no God”. Having rejected God, Dawkins proposing there is an underlying moral principle for the universe. How might I ask?
John – it’s not a translation anyway as the greek word doesn’t translate to that, it’s homophobes with an agenda and terrible translators and the relate counsellor has no integrity
“John, according to the bible, black people are so coloured because they are cursed, its morally acceptable to own slaves, and the Jews murdered god. Homosexuality is also as sinful (using the same “abomination” word) as eating shellfish. Put it in context.”
Did I miss the rebuttle to that, or has it been deleted as deliberate harassment and intentional disruption of the topic at hand?
We have had religious nutters on here before, haven’t we?
Any news about the anti-gay bill in Uganda, and the American vipers who composed it?
The UKIP spokesperson commented to PinkNews that:
“…… Mr Cockrill could be sent a copy of UKIP policy to clarify the party’s position.”
Also, hasn’t it just be proven in the Lord Carey/Gary MacFarlane issue that religious issues have no legal standing in Britain?
I wonder if any regular commentator on PinkNews threads is actually voting UKIP…a rather exclusive group when it comes to hospitality…I mean immigration.
“Are you gay?”
Did you get an answer??
After barging your way in here (without the least regard for the questions raised before your dramatic entrée in this debate), and proclaiming yourself to be the one to play the victim card at the hustings, you said:
“Whether or not you agree with what Garry said, (he was) in my view he was the only candidate to get anywhere close to answering the whole question and understanding the quandary faced by many Christians!”
We’ll take that to mean that the UKIP is incapable of understanding the quandary faced by some christians since the UKIP spokesperson did say to PinkNews that Mr. Cockrill’s tendency to babble does not represent the official party line, and that:
“…… Mr Cockrill could be sent a copy of UKIP policy to clarify the party’s position.”
So I take it the UKIP has lost another vote, e.g. yours.
Now, perhaps you could enlighten us by answering the points made at posts: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 16, 19, and 25…for beginners; just to make sure that we are all talking about the same Garry Cockrill.
Oh, and I don’t necessarily believe it was you who asked that question of Cockrill at the hustings…not do I believe the myths in your bible, sir.
Moreover, I seriously question your qualifications to use such ancient and irrelevant so-called sacred texts in support of your democratic political aspirations, but I must say you have utterly failed to convince me that you are remotely aware of the physical, psychological and moral pain stemming from being a victim of injustice.
As for understanding the quandary faced by the uncounted hordes of practicing christians in the world, I suggest you take that up with the Lord himself primary because Mr. Carey has recently grown in wisdom by leaps and bounds, and precisely because he did in fact support a supposedly victimized government employee, a Mr. McFarlane.
“The area of conflict is when being called upon to endorse a gay lifestyle, just as one wouldn’t endorse sex outside of marriage or those who act in an unlawful way, such as breaking the 10 commandments.”
Now, John, you wouldn’t be advocating laws for society based on a singular religion, now would you? That would be a state theocracy, a dictatorship. We’ve had them before and they failed. The state’s purpose is for the benefit of its people, not the ruling classes, or the selected few. The 10 commandments are personal rules for ones own life, its best to keep them that way – otherwise we run the risk off slavery coming back and we demonise black people for the “mark of Cain”, as advocated in the bible.
Thankfully we are moving to a society away from superstition, and the “absolute truth” of a written book, who’s contents were chosen by a Roman Emperor to consolidate his power base. When you chose to see past the dogma John, you too will be liberated from the narrow confines of a book written by men.
“However, I know too many religious people to endorse your statement equating more religious and more stupid even though as in most things there is also an element of truth in what you say.”
Indeed. When one has all the answers handed to them, one stops searching for the truth.
Either way, this is all academic. The law is moving in the right direction:- discrimination of an individual is not a right, the rights of an individual are paramount, unless those rights need to remove the rights of another to exist. This is true justice for all. In time you religious types will see why this needs to be, and how it benefits all of society…. you’re just a little slow to see this as you feel victimised for the first time in oh, 1,500 years. You’ll get over it.
Jean Paul: what right have you to say me or anyone else that we shouldn’t be engaging in these forums? It seems to me that you are happy for people to express their views as long as they meet your approval and the intolerance you despise in others you are showing yourself. Mr Cockrill answered my question and was the only one who did. Mr. Cockrill was rational in his response and there was no hint of gay bashing (see quote below). He is now being vilified in some quarters as a result. I feel quite justified making my points and helping to redress the balance. I don’t feel beholden to respond to the all the posts you highlight (no-one else does) and in fact, unless you are too obtuse to see it, I have tried to do so to a large extent and don’t feel the need to go over old ground in order to defend against your own vitriolic attacks.
Will: thanks for your comment – I might not agree with everything you say but I like the way you say it! Don’t expect me to fall for your Roman Emporer theory though – preposterous indeed! I should have responded to your website suggestion with one of my own: http://www.creationandevolution.co.uk/. I’m reading through Professor Spanner’s thesis now and would say here is a distinguish scientist, an intelligent man, and one who is prepared to tackle thorny issues without bias. But as I said earlier, when it comes to presuppositions we all have them (the honest position is to own up to doing so) – if I have the energy I’ll do an expose of those of Professor Dawkins.
No I am not advocating rules based on a single religion and you are right it won’t work and never has. I do worry though that in going away from the judaeo-christian basis for our legal system, we have not only thrown the baby out with the bath water but we don’t have anything worthwhile to replace it with!
Like you, I don’t like discrimination but I do like to be free to express what I believe and would like to be able to act accordingly. I’ll sign off by quoting what was imho the best quote in this whole thread: “Having heard Mr. Cockrill’s speech I am puzzled as to what all the fuss is about; I believe what he was attempting to say was something like equality is not equality unless it is for all; let’s have some fair and accurate reporting.” Melody (55)
you ignored my contributions John
many Christians only want Christianity to be in charge and damn anyone who is different! the judeo-christian basis is a epic fail that a kid can pwn! rational basis for laws is what is required
One day the world will look back at christianity and islam and judaism like we look back at the egyptians deities, the roman gods, the greeks pantheon, and they’ll laugh and wonder how people could have been so stupid to believe that cr4p. It’s just a pain that we have to put up with them.
To think there are still people in the world, and I’m talking educated people, who can be blinded by monotheism. I could leave a scathing theological post to John. I did sadly study theology for four years. But he’s obviosuly hurting, or lost, like all religious people, so I’ll leave the vulnerable alone.
Some of the vitriol posted here against religion go further then valid criticism of religious institutions stance on gay rights. Intolerance toward people of faith is bigotry plain and simple. We are all creatures of reason and faith – you may not acknowledge it but you act on faith every day of your life.
For those of us that are Christian and gay I can tell you that my faith informs my life every day and I believe I am a better person for it. I don’t believe my sexuality or my religion are incompatible and neither does my chosen Church, and there are many Churches who are supportive of gay rights.
I may be a voice alone here but it would be welcome to feel that as a gay man looking to live a life within my faith that others in our community support that “other” right too….
Chester: my apologies – I didn’t think you were looking for a reply or that one was needed. (Forgive me Jay for the theolgical post) but here are two translations for one of those difficult verses that would appear to condemn gay sex – 1Corinthians 6v9. Of course all of us are at liberty to make what we will of such texts (but I for one have to take it seriously and bring into the frame the rest of scripture because it is relevant).
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,” (King James)
“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders” (New International Version)
You will note it is the modern of the two translations that uses the word homosexual but both say near enough the same thing although you need a Greek lexicon to know exactly what the original says (and please anyone reading this thread don’t sue me for inciting hatred when all I am doing is responding to Chesters points (83, 96)) …
Regarding your remark that the Relate counsellor did not have integrity, I don’t know how you can say that – bigoted maybe but he acted consistently with his beliefs for to tell a gay couple how to have better sex life while believing that should not be an option anyway would have meant him betraying those beliefs.
As for your latest comment – I respectfully beg to disagree.
“Don’t expect me to fall for your Roman Emporer theory though – preposterous indeed!”
Hmmm. Strange the way religious types re never aware of the truth of the origin of their bible. Have you ever wondered why the gospel of St. Peter, founder of the Catholic Church, never made it into the bible, and yet others did? Who do you thin make that decision? I’m sure you are are of the historical significance of the Synod of Hippo and the Councils of Carthage which shaped the bible, what was “in” and what was “out”. You see, the bible was created by man, and is not more the word of god than a box of Kleenex tissues is I’m afraid. So, logically7, the rules in there are a belief structure, not to be imposed on the population as a whole, but in private. The way religion should be kept – behind closed doors.
If you chose to believe it is the “word of god”, good for you. But don’t expect others to follow rules set out in it. Quite frankly, I would be amazed that the creator of the universe would be so desperately prone to so much childish pettiness and glaringly obvious contradictions!!!!
Also, John, the website you put forward is preposterous. But I have seen this before…. from a rather dumb and odious creature that goes by the name of David Skinner who frequents this site form time to time, hen his medications allow. The classic mistake, and blatant show of their lack of any real knowledge, is how religious types maintain that Evolution is a “theory”. Its not. Its scientific fact. And a lack of “belief” in a fact, simply shows you don’t understand it, noting to do with the fact itself. The fact that you seek to support and promote websites that looks for small holes in the fossil records as proof that the whole theory is disproved, when the bible offers zero (and I mean ZERO) proof of anything factual, only serves to show me you’re not here to debate, you’re hear to preach the merits of a medieval theocracy…. and we’ve seen people like you here before. Thankfully, that concept is a dying breed.
Oh, and silly me, I forgot to mention the First Council of Nicaea…. the very one led by Roman Emperor Constantine I himself in A.D. 325, as the first effort to attain consensus in the church on what Christians believe.
A bible written by a man who’s empire was falling apart, so he used a unified religion to strengthen it. Hmmmm…. how curious that religious people fail to see the reality of the very man-made origin of their own “holy” book, made to serve n Emperor’s need for power.
“You see, the bible was created by man, and is not more the word of god than a box of Kleenex tissues is I’m afraid.”
Well said Will! And very true too. I’ve been reading up on your comments on the Council of Nicaea and the Synod of Hippo. Fascinating stuff! I had no idea that the bible was so, well, orchestrated.
Although I suspect that this guy John is here to bait. Funny you should mention David Skinner, I was thinking of him when I read some of John’s statements. This is exactly his style, bait in with gentle words, and then go for the “expose” of evolution and the preaching of that nonsense with is creationism.
I suspect a religious nutter here, folks, one we’ve seen before.
Will, frankly I am disappointed – I expected more of you. You have condemned the writings from the website I gave you without checking it out first – I suggest you do so and then criticise!
The creation verses evolution debate has become rather polarised and I am undecided were I stand on this although I believe this universe was created by the Creator. I cited Spanner because he is one of the few with the “right” credentials but does also look carefully at the science, something some creationists sadly fail to do. I don’t know David Skinner I am afraid – does he have a website so I can find out more?
I can see you have knowledge of church history but the thesis that the canon of scripture was decided on the whim of an emporer or religious elite is scant. There is ample evidence that the canon or at least the underlying beliefs was widely accepted in the late first and early second century.
In post 38 you did say:
In your view, yes. So, how many candidates have you questioned on the xtian quandary?
Regardless, your statement can only mean that the UKIP is incapable of understanding the quandary faced by some xtians because the UKIP spokesperson did say to PinkNews that Mr. Garry Cockrill’s answers – improvisations of which you seem to approve – do not in any way represent the official party line, and that:
…a UKIP policy which Garry obviously had forgotten to read before campaigning.
Question: Exactly how did my comment prevent you from speaking your mind, sir?
Question: Has the UKIP lost your vote since Garry’s vision does not properly represent the UKIP even though you agree with his unofficial claptrap.
Incidentally, you did barge in here (38), a complete stranger, waving your ‘confession’ and your victim card, a disruptive tactic we have all seen before and which we have come to expect from right-wing fundamentalist anti-gay religious nutters such as yourself, sir.
A tactic, I may add, which is but a small part of the strategy you are using to deny us our human rights – since gay rights are human rights – and to invalidate our efforts to hold responsible those, like yourself, who would attempt to discard our hard-won rights and to replace them with religious beliefs that do not have a footing in British Law.
Finally, Johnny, and referring to your post 92, kindly tell me where and when I said that you or anybody else should not be engaging in these forums? What exactly do you mean when you say:
“It seems to me that you are happy for people to express their views as long as they meet your approval and the intolerance you despise in others you are showing yourself.”?
What a terrible thing to say! Another one of your tactics??
Or perhaps you are simply projecting your own stern and pontifical intolerance into my humble reflections.
BTW, it’s very easy to edit a comment before posting it.
Time for my green tea, so I’ll leave you to converse with the fairies at the bottom of your garden.
“You have condemned the writings from the website I gave you without checking it out first – I suggest you do so and then criticise!”
I did. And I am appalled by its content. Its factually incorrect and uses many logical fallacies to bend and twist truths into a shape that suits a very puerile belief in a god and genesis creation. All very unscientific. This man is might be a “professor” in title, but I very must suspect he is not scientist, or he bought the title on the internet. The first rule of science, is that science is blind to bias…. something this man is dripping in. In my estimation, this infantile website is nothing more then a meagre attempt to force square pegs into a round how to suit the personal belief of an individual. The entire site is simple ridiculous and abot as scientific as a 5 your old child with a colouring book. Surely you’re not that blind that you can’t see that? Even someone with limited grasp of science can see that its an exercise in bending the facts to fit an unbendable and inflexible ideology? Please tell me you’re not one of ‘those types’ who accepts only what is bent and moulded into fitting a narrow vision of what Christianity says!?!?!?!
“I can see you have knowledge of church history but the thesis that the canon of scripture was decided on the whim of an emporer or religious elite is scant. There is ample evidence that the canon or at least the underlying beliefs was widely accepted in the late first and early second century.”
You are incorrect in that statement. There is ample evidence that Constantine and his bishops picked and chose the books in the bible (its why there are nearly 30 gospels, but only 4 were chosen – to fit the dogma laid out by the Council), overwhelming in fact. Its documented, and accepted as such by all but a few fringe historians. All other sects (and that’s what Christianity was, a sect) were removed or persecuted into submission. Even the Catholic Church accepts it. It was Constantine who first suppressed the many Christian sects into one ideology, and one ideology that suited him foremost, with a new concept of heresy which allowed him to dictate what was “Christian” or not. I am surprised you are so unaware of your own church’s history. Alas, I have found it quite common, among those ardent followers of a dogma, who do not ask questions as to the truth. Goes back to my earlier point:- if you have all the answers, or think you do, how would you ask any questions. Thankfully, I am not like that…. I take the time to see the flaws in a belief system that persecutes, discriminates, and holds a petty childish god as a moral compass.
I’m quite puzzled by you apparent “openness” on a gay site, or at least you attempt to do so, and your limited understanding of things like evolution and Christian history. I’m beginning to smell a rat here…. perhaps David has stumbled upon a truth that I am only noticing now?
using the bible to prove the bible is circular logic and not convincing
You don’t know me of course and I don’t know you but all I can say is that I don’t have a hidden or sinister agenda. I am keen to get to the truth and I have been surprised by the intensity of feelings (and no doubt lots of past hurts) of those contributing in this thread. I am not gay (although I work comfortably in the equality and diversity field) and maybe if I were I would understand better.
Of course I like to make my point but try to do so in a winsome way. Based on long experience I try to be mindful not to cast my “pearls before swine” or make points to people who are not listening. And I am not set upon having the “last word” either. I am happy with my exchange with Jean Paul, for example, to afford him that honour and the same goes with you in fact. Likely, I have spent more time on this thread than I ought but because good points have been made or (imo) needed to be made I have persisted.
I knew nothing about this website until I was told of the article following my question at the hustings. I was somewhat taken aback by some of the vitriol toward Garry Cockrill and (imo) wrong views being put forward and thus felt I should step into the “lion’s den” as it were.
I apologise for accusing you of commenting on something you haven’t read when you had. I myself have only begun reading the paper although so far my impressions are favourable. I will try to read it through to the end and, if I may, share your perspectives with my mentor. I will also look more closely at your “church history” points. Evolution and Church History are subjects I am interested in and know a lot more about than most but my knowledge is still far from complete.
It would probably be right, unless something really pressing comes up, to make this my last post in this thread (besides which it is fully back to work tomorrow) but now I know about this site I will look at developments with interest and also wish you and all the other guys (and gals) I have engaged with – well.
PS I am still undecided who to vote on Thursday. The “equality” issue does concern me but then there are lots of other issues too!
The arrogance of that last post from “John” is breath-taking, isn’t it! Absolutely breath-taking. He sounds like some lordly little bank-manager, some little jumped-up pen-pusher relishing having authority over other people! Simply incredible. Awe-inspiring, in fact!
“I am not gay”, he at last announces. So he rather kept that fact back, did he not. He came to stir things up. Well, good for you, Will, and others in clearly shaking his little cerebellum!
The world is full of thousands, literally thousands, of different religions, John. They nearly all believe in forms of the supernatural. Yet throughout the history of humankind no evidence whatsoever has been provided for the existence of anything, anywhere, of a supernatural nature. It is all hocus-pocus, John.
So, be a brave man, and ditch all the baloney and gobbledegook immediately. Flush all vestiges of religions from your system and down the pan where they belong.
You will then find a great vacuum in your life, but you can fill in with wonderful rational things and be a very very happy person . . . who does not beliee in nonsense.
UKip have little to be proud of. Readers of my Blog will soon see the party they are.
citizenfreepress dot blogspot dot com
If Hate Speech laws were enforced equally, then this site would be shut down. It is just an outlet for hysterical hate speech aimed at the majority of people.
When people as ignorant as this person open their mouths it is nt worthwhile to reply. Let them die in hate and bigotry.