Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Tory councillor suspended after being accused of homophobia

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. More from This is Bristol http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Councillor-s-homophobic-views-slated/article-2904113-detail/article.html
    including ‘Mr Windows said: … “I just don’t think we should make a fuss out of it. We should leave things where they belong, in the bedroom.” and also video of how disgusting others in the council found his comments.

  2. I dont believe his sorry -sorry he was caught.

    gav

  3. Mr Windows said he was not homophobic but was concerned that “confused” pupils could get bullied.

    Why was he only concerned about the ‘confused’ pupils getting bullied?

  4. It’s good to see this prejudiced man intending to learn something about a subject he clearly knows nothing about.

    I wonder how much of his life he has already devoted to mouthing of without burdening himself with facts.

    We do not need people like this as politicians – in any party.

  5. Stewart Cowan 19 Nov 2010, 1:41pm

    There will be no dissent in Airstrip One. You must submit to group think. Your opinion counts for nothing. You will apologise for expressing your beliefs if they are not our beliefs. Your career will be over if you say anything that contradicts your masters.

    Message ends.

  6. @Stewart Would you rather see kids getting bullied then? Is that what you believe is right?

  7. Keith Lynwood 19 Nov 2010, 2:01pm

    Ignorant arrogant arsehole…..or tory if you prefer.

  8. @Stewart: Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Oppinion do not give one free reign to say things that will lead to harming a person or group of people. This is particularly true if you are in a public position with many people listening to you and looking to you to make desicions.

  9. Now if only we saw news like this in occur within the United States… If an American conservative politician were to have said what he said, he would have been cynically defended and elevated by his copartisans for his “family values”.

  10. @ silly Steward Cowan

    Everyone is entitled to their private thoughts and opinions – but this is not a private individual here – this is a polititian – a representative of the people – mouthing bigotted prejudiced rubbish, the consequence of which, if let spread, would be to support bullying of children who are gay or perceived to be so. All because of his lazy prejudice.

    We should demand our politicians are in full command of all the facts before they forn their views and use their power of office to weild them over us.

  11. Oh, look, Mr.Cowan again trying to promote his ridiculous blog. How refreshing – another bipolar n.azi idiot. Internet spreading lies about you again, Stewart? Yes, they ARE all out to get you, aren’t they?

  12. “There will be no dissent in Airstrip One. You must submit to group think. Your opinion counts for nothing. You will apologise for expressing your beliefs if they are not our beliefs. Your career will be over if you say anything that contradicts your masters.”

    Actually Steward, you’re dead right here. The christian faith IS a draconian moment full of low life fascists. You were referring to that, right? I mean, what you said is the very definition of you faith is it not?

    Still wearing the tin foil hat?

  13. “The decision to voluntarily suspend the Conservative whip reflects his deeply held rejection of all forms of homophobia and his regret that offence may have been caused by his remarks.”

    But the old bigot is not apologising for being a homophobic bigot. He is merely apologising for the offence his homophobic bigotry caused.

    That is the standard non-apology, apology used by bigots. It basically says ‘I am a bigot. I remain a bigot, but I am sorry you are offended by my bigotry’.

    “He intends to use his time away from council business to meet with Stonewall.”

    Stonewall?

    Why are they involved. They represent no-one but their own 19,000 supporters?

    They better tell Mr Windows that they lack any mandate to speak on behalf of LGBT people.

    “Matthew Sephton, chairman of Conservative-affiliated LGBT group LGBTory, said: “Cllr Windows was wrong to make the comments he did. What he said was potentially hurtful to the many young people who suffer from homophobic bullying in their schools.” ”

    Wow – even the idiots at LGBTory are using the bigots opt-out. They are not condemning Windows’ bigotry. They too are using the coward’s charter of ‘Sorry that you are offended by bigotry. But we’re not sorry that our party tolerates and embraces bigotry.’

  14. Stewart Cowan 19 Nov 2010, 3:36pm

    I only come here to feel the lurve, you all know that, don’t you?!

    @Dave, what Stonewall ignores is the FACT that teenagers go thro’ stages and often one of those is same-sex attraction. That’s why the Councillor is concerned and he is right. (And I’m not a Tory, they disgust me.)

    @Wingby, politicians aren’t allowed their beliefs and conscience to tell them what to do? Are you sure about that? They just do what they are told by the party machine?

    “…would be to support bullying of children who are gay or perceived to be so.”

    Yes, quite: PERCEIVED TO BE SO. As I said to Dave, kids go thro’ stages so to label them as ‘gay’ when they aren’t or it is a temporary phase is horrendous abuse and dereliction of duty by teachers, etc.

  15. Stewart Cowan 19 Nov 2010, 3:37pm

    @Will – you have never heard of Godwin’s Law, have you?

  16. westcoastkid 19 Nov 2010, 4:21pm

    What a load of poop! Once again a homophobe is sorry over the fuss, not his words. I’m certain he is very much looking forward to his meeting with the folks at Stonewall. Ha-ha.

  17. Stewart Cowan -
    Same old, same old. You think school pupils are much too young to possibly know they’re gay, but I would guess you have no such reservations about their ability to know that they’re straight. You’re not addressing the real world, let alone the issue of bullying. Whatever ‘stages’ young people go through (and oh, do you accept that opposite sex attraction can also be a ‘stage’ or ‘phase’ that a young person can go through before discovering that his/her adult capacities are different? – Certainly happened to me), they should have the safety and respect to discover and decide for themselves what their sexuality is, without pressure from others. This, by the way, since you seem to walk around society with your ears plugged and your eyes shut, is overwhelmingly to make them conform to conventional heterosexual expectations and prejudices. This truly is the form that externally imposed ‘labelling’ takes. Among other things, Windows put the cart before the horse – letting children hear and talk to a respected public figure who is gay is a way to challenge pre-existing and entrenched bullying, not an encouragement to it. Evidence repeatedly shows that learning that lgbt people are ordinary 3-dimensional human beings who can be successful and admirable clearly reduces prejudice and discrimination. Do you share Windows’ concern about ‘role models for impressionable young people’? This is code for ‘young straight people can be persuaded to be gay’. If love and attraction were a matter of persuasion lesbian and gay people wouldn’t exist. We are bombarded by heterosexist assumptions and images from the cradle.
    Suspension of a party member in a public role who has clearly gone against a stated policy platform is also surely unremarkable. I for one am glad to see the Tories putting their money where their mouth is, albeit in a small local matter like this.

  18. @ Stewart

    Homophobic bullying is prevalent in schools and it’s difficult to eradicate because heterosexism is pervasive. Kids can’t bring themselves to tell teachers or parents about it, even if they’re not actually gay. So one effective way of dealing with this form of bullying is to let kids know that being gay isn’t the worst thing in the world. A respected actor such as Sir Ian McKellen is an ideal person to help get that message across. Don’t forget that the essential thing is to stop the bullying, which I think the other councillors made clear in the debate.

  19. Moving back to the original story, I find it encouraging that the Tory group on the council suspended him, and that he agreed to meet with Stonewall in order to raise his awareness. I suppose that takes a lot of courage and I congratulate him for that. Maybe there will be some redemption here. I sincerely hope so.

  20. Keith Lynwood 19 Nov 2010, 6:57pm

    I don’t understand why a straight man like Stewart Cowan has to come on here and write his blog posts. Lets just agree to disagree and you go back to reading the Daily Mail. The USA use the phrase LGBTQ for questioning. So that will cover any teenagers who do not know for certain about their sexuality.
    This councillor is a tory bigot no question….

  21. He looks like he is out of the ark and so are his comments… I really do think the cons have changed but only those under a certain age and this guy looks like he is one of the old types! Sorry to be ageist (and it’s not always and only the old ones) but having something like the house of lords with all those old peers from Thatchers time etc who never seem to want to retire and all these ageing tory councillors (it’s the same in my area there is a terrible old tory councillor) worries me…… will we ever get away from these old prejudices when these old farts are still in powerful jobs…I very very pleased though that the Tories have suspended him!!!! It’s very positive move!

  22. Oh don’t worry too much about Stewart Cowan – he’s a creationist who thinks that man and dinosaurs existed at the same time.

  23. Stewart Cowan 20 Nov 2010, 2:52pm

    @Adrian – and questioning things means I have no right to an opinion? “Dinosaur” is a 19th Century word – they were called “dragons” previously!

    @Riondo – “The idea that adolescent same-sex attraction will always become adult same sex attraction is quite incorrect. Data from the large USA ADD-Health survey (Savin-Williams and Ream, 2007) confirm that adolescent homosexuality/bisexuality both in attraction and behaviour undergoes extraordinary change from year to year. Much of this could be experimentation. The changes are overwhelmingly in the direction of heterosexuality, which even at age 16-17 is at least 25 times as stable as bisexuality or homosexuality, whether for men and women. That is, 16 year olds saying they have an SSA or Bi- orientation are 25 times more likely to change towards heterosexuality at the age of 17 than those with a heterosexual orientation are likely to change towards bi-sexuality or homosexuality. Under the most extreme conservative assumptions heterosexuality is still 3x more stable for men and 4x for women.” http://www.mygenes.co.nz/Change.htm

    Stonewall is recruiting when teens are at their most vulnerable.

    @Dave – you want children to believe that SSA is natural, when it’s not.

    @Keith Lynwood – the old “Daily Mail” insult. Thank you – I had given up hope of that one on this thread ;)

  24. I’ve never been the Tories biggest fan to say the least, their party in the past has been one of the leading obstructions to lgbt equality causing immeasurable suffering to our community over the years.

    However, while there are still clearly bigots in their ranks and while I do not trust they are the part to best champion our rights… I have to say I am defiantly pleased to see that the Tory Party tackles bigoted remarks by their members in appropriate and firm ways. Not so many years ago remarks like these made by Chris Windows would have been applauded by the Tory party or would have even have been the party line. I do not think the Tory’s are quite there yet but at least it is obvious their malice and bigotry is dying out.

    Perhaps Stewart would benefit from a meeting with stonewall, though perhaps more from a counselling session for closet cases. You know what they say Stew; ‘the dog that barks the loudest is normally the guilty dog’

    Can’t you see stew, you are a dying breed these days, you’re on the wrong side of the tide mate, while we thankfully are on the right side and there’s not much you can do about it but moan… and trust me we all revel in it.

    kisses

  25. “If love and attraction were a matter of persuasion lesbian and gay people wouldn’t exist. We are bombarded by heterosexist assumptions and images from the cradle.”

    Absolutely right.

  26. Also, don’t bother too much with Stewart cowan’s links to mygenes.co.nz (genes, Stewart? as a creationist, you don’t believe in genetics in the first place!)

    Dr Neil Whitehead is renowned for biased sampling, which his work doesn’t get taken seriously by peer reviewed journals.

    Here is one example of how his work is debunked
    http://wthrockmorton.com/2007/02/13/taiwanese-study-links-parenting-and-adult-homosexuality/

  27. Stewart Cowan 20 Nov 2010, 10:53pm

    @Adrian – You need to read my articles again if you think I don’t believe in genetics. Maybe you could address the issue in hand rather than repeatedly putting out straw men and red herrings.

    @Lee “the dog that barks the loudest is normally the guilty dog”

    That makes Peter Tatchell a screaming heterosexual.

  28. In my country – the USA he would be honored and quoted by the catholic church of the molestation, and the southern Baptists etc, who believed slavery was per the bible.

    When are you europeans going to disassociate in every way yourself from the HOmophobic Hate States of America.

  29. Jock S. Trap 21 Nov 2010, 7:05am

    “the dog that barks the loudest is normally the guilty dog”

    So glad you stated that coz your comments always seem to Want to be standing out to be the loudest. The fact you seem the need to come here so often, hiding behind your own boring over-ego’s self righteousness trying so hard to be the loudest proves to me (and many I suspect) that you are nothing more than a frghtened closet case trying to justify yourself, or as you put it a ‘guilty dog’!

    Just remember you are taught & chose your religious views and those you use against how people are born. It doesn’t take more than 2 brains cells to work out thats just plain wrong.

  30. Stewart – your blog makes you come across as another homophobic bigot so why are you here? having gays on tv shows to teach kids isn’t bad
    This guy got caught so it’s good the tories have acted

  31. Stewart Cowan 21 Nov 2010, 9:01am

    @Mr Trap – You “don’t get it” like the rest of your tribe – because it’s tribal. I was defending the Tory councillor, although why I should when he immediately suspended himself from his party, I don’t know, but anyway, he was concerned about the majority of children who are being fed Stonewall’s rhetoric when they are at their most vulnerable.

    It is apparently a crime now to be concerned about the majority, while falling over ourselves to eradicate the use of the word “gay” as an insult, because that is often the sum total of what this “homophobic bullying” is.

    @Steve – Ten years ago, 7 out of 8 Scots were opposed to this homosexual agenda. Like most ‘gays’ you just wish it was only about religion and not a far wider disapproval. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Souter#Section_28

  32. Stewart – Have you been consulting “the homosexual agenda” for this week again?
    http://www.bettybowers.com/homoagenda.html

  33. Stewart Cowan 21 Nov 2010, 9:45am

    @Flapjack – I prefer the homosexual agenda as set out in this article http://www.defendthefamily.com/pfrc/archives.php?id=8142838

  34. Stewart… please keep up, if you looked at our actual agenda you’ll notice we achieved all that between 3.33pm and 4.10 pm yesterday ;)

  35. Jock S. Trap 21 Nov 2010, 11:29am

    @ S. Cowan

    The way I see it is that this is a Gay new site for the LGBT community that you just seem to have to spend Soooo much time reading and commenting on. You bigotry is so loud and so false that is screams out as someone in complete denial! ie all the classic signs of a typical closet case.

  36. Stewart Cowan – “The idea that adolescent same-sex attraction will always become adult same sex attraction is quite incorrect. Data from the large USA ADD-Health survey (Savin-Williams and Ream, 2007) confirm that adolescent homosexuality/bisexuality both in attraction and behaviour undergoes extraordinary change from year to year. Much of this could be experimentation. The changes are overwhelmingly in the direction of heterosexuality, which even at age 16-17 is at least 25 times as stable as bisexuality or homosexuality, whether for men and women. That is, 16 year olds saying they have an SSA or Bi- orientation are 25 times more likely to change towards heterosexuality at the age of 17 than those with a heterosexual orientation are likely to change towards bi-sexuality or homosexuality. Under the most extreme conservative assumptions heterosexuality is still 3x more stable for men and 4x for women.”
    Utterly irrelevant to what I said in my post, and not a justification for hoary old slurs about teaching respect for l&g people and relationships in a homophobic society being ‘recruitment’. It’s pure projection. Heterosexist norms seek to ‘recruit’ everyone from infancy, as I said. That is why, in any case, your quote here requires close scrutiny. Lots of people are going to seemingly ‘become’ heterosexual in a culture which so overwhelmingly demands it. How do you distinguish these from the real straights? Oh, yes – in many cases an emotional crisis in later life through trying to live a lie.

  37. Stewart – I’ll comment on a peer reviewed article in a peer-reviewed journal, not junk on a website which anyone can put up, from an author notorious for basing findings on skewed data. Anyone can publish on the internet – even you. When you think of it, you may as well comment on what is written on the walls of a railway station toilet.

  38. Stewie go and pop a few of your happy pills and give those fingers a rest buddy. No one could care less about your opinions any more here or in the country at large. Keep your opinions off the internet and behind closed doors where they belong.

    We’re here were queer get over it. More of us than ever before are out of the closet, putting us back in is like getting tooth paste back in the tube… it’s not gonna happen wee man.

    Even the tories are working towards securing gay rights these days. Who do you have to lead your demented little revolution now? All three main political parties support our cause and I guarantee you over the next decade our rights will be the same as any heterosexual group in society and homophobic bigots like you will be rightly condemned to inhabiting the same gutters of society as the racists sexits and xenophobes, how’d you like em apples!

  39. And Stewart, you pretend you didn’t evolve. Whatever you write about genetics – genetic copying mistakes are the driving force of evolution – is gong to be wrong by definition.

    And yes, I’ve read your blogs, like this – http://www.realstreet.co.uk/2010/08/myths-and-hoaxes-1/ They are just too silly for words.

  40. like Riondo I too switched from straight to gay, and he’s right to point out the flaw in Stewart’s argument, which is that some people switch in the opposite direction from social pressure.
    Only when there is no such pressure can we derive any conclusion from the kind of research quoted by Stewart.
    Incidentally there is what I would describe as benign pressure for people to admit that they were always bi or gay, but just in the closet. I’m not sure it’s true. You can be bi and practising bi, but also be serially bi, and switch from being totally one to the other, as Stewart would have us believe is quite common, but in my experience is rather rare. It’s just embarassing for him that it’s not all one way traffic.

  41. “@Will – you have never heard of Godwin’s Law, have you?”

    Yes, its a convenient excuse to allow right wing lunatics like you some semblance of comeback for being called what you really are. It is only relevant when you’re actually not behaving like a fascist, Steward.

    As for the “Savin-Williams and Ream, 2007″ study you quoted, you really should read it all before quoting it to back up your superstitious ideology, Steward, rather than pick and choose the one liners that back up your own irrational brand of hate (not much unlike how you idiots read the bible actually). Perhaps a decent education to go with that paper, and we’ll all benefit?

    The paper does nothing of the sort to “confirm” that sexuality is fluid. More than likely you only select lines that suit you, to validate your irrationality and schizophrenic “gay conspiracy” theories. That fact that SOME adolescents experimenting does not imply ALL are, as the paper indicates. Also, the bias of internet surveys are never considered scientific, simply indicative. The author himself indicates social pressures as a potential key factor for this bias.

    And there are some scientific anomolies int his paper, which the author alludes to himself:-

    (1) The auther actually states “believe their current heterosexual orientation is now stable – and, according to the data it probably is”. i.e. he recognises clinical data to support sexuality is immutable.
    (2) Sources are internet surveys. This is not scientific. The author himself alludes to that by stating “However there are inevitable problems – frequently interviewees in the first wave could not be located again, and those who were not available might have been mostly same-sex attracted, for example, and this would skew the statistics significantly.”
    (3) The author himself actually states “one inescapable conclusion is that clinical samples of homosexual/bisexual people who find change nearly impossible” – clinical is another word for scientific data in this case. i.e. not using internet surveys!!!

    All this study finds is that some people will live in the closet due to social pressures, perhaps some experimentation at 16, and some will come out no matter what the social pressures is.

    In fact there is an overwhelming body of evidence to support that in almost every case, sexuality is immutable. You should read more scientific papers, Steward.

    Here’s another paper for you to read:

    “Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?” – Adams HE, Wright LW Jr, Lohr BA. – Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens 30602-3013, USA.

    Might make you have a look at yourself. Personally, homophobia at such a consuming level like you have, it is hardly surprising that its an attack on what you more then likely are trying to overcome, given your desperation to maintain homosexuality is so “changeable”.

    But lets be honest here. You’re religion is dying. Church attendance is down and falling. Its people like you that drive decent people away from christianity with schizophrenic paranoia and delusional conspiracies. And you ranting like a 16th century preacher on a gay site does nothing more than reinforce that.

  42. Stewart Cowan 22 Nov 2010, 2:06pm

    @Will – “Yes, its a convenient excuse to allow right wing lunatics like you…”

    I stopped reading there. Didn’t I tell you somewhere before that I don’t waste my time reading comments that include personal insults?

    Why would you want to right a big long post to a lunatic anyway?

  43. Stewart Cowan 22 Nov 2010, 2:08pm

    I mean “write” a big long post, obviously.

  44. Stewart Cowan 22 Nov 2010, 2:18pm

    @Tony – I don’t deny that some people go the other way. It’s a very complicated issue, which is the reason why youngsters should never be pressured.

    @Adrian – What you fail to appreciate is that there is a LIMIT to what mutations can do. In their desperation to get rid of God, scientists have overestimated the capability of mutated genes to form complex body parts.

    The Theory of Evolution has been compared to a whirlwind blowing through a junkyard and creating a Boeing 747.

  45. Stewart Cowan 22 Nov 2010, 2:25pm

    @Lee – Oh dear. Equating differences of opinion in the area of complex behavioural and relationship issues with racism. Null points.

    @Riondo – Heterosexuality IS normal.

    @Jock – I don’t actually visit this site very often and I comment on few articles.

  46. “Why would you want to right a big long post to a lunatic anyway?”

    I like proving ranting lunatics like you as idiots. A weakness on my part, but one I get a cheap thrill out of.

    Let me ask, why does a lunatic post such perverse things on a gay site, and hock a second rate blog full of religious nonsense, when the best you can expect is to be proven wrong?

    “The Theory of Evolution has been compared to a whirlwind blowing through a junkyard and creating a Boeing 747.”

    Oh dear. How embarrassing for you to say something like this in public. A typically foolish misunderstanding of the word “theory” in science, all too common from people like you alas.

    Let me educated you, as no doubt many have tried and failed to do so before.

    In modern science the term “theory”, or “scientific theory” is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, measured consistent with the scientific method. Notice the use of the words “empirical phenomena”. Do you know what that actually means? It means observed. Seen to be true. Observation, experience, or experiment. As in, evolution is observed.

    In short, evolution is no more a theory than a computer or a car is (by this I mean theory as defined as a “hunch” or “supposition” as your ignorant mind understands it), its a observed and studied phenomenon.

    I tried to keep this really simple, I know you don’t have a strong grasp of complex scientific notions.

  47. LOL @ Will #47. Great comment there. Poor Stewart, always the loser in these forums. That post made me giggle enough to nearly spit my coffee on my keyboard ;)

  48. “I stopped reading there”

    Hmmm, yes. And that’s why you’ll remain always an uneducated fool.

  49. @ stewie “@Lee – Oh dear. Equating differences of opinion in the area of complex behavioural and relationship issues with racism. Null points.”

    ohhh lardy daaa! You know stewie on paper it would in this instance and many of your other post seem like you have almost mastered the English language and have a ability to structure and present your points in a constructed manor. But again they have been printing dictionaries now for centuries so it is about time lard arses like yourself caught up.

    You ability to master the English language is unfortunately your only card i’m afraid because if you had any kind of intellect at all because if you did you would know that as in your quote, above, racism is not a black and white issue, pardon the pun, racism is very subjective much like bigotry and homophobia, if you believe someone to be a racist it is one’s point of view. Thankfully nowadays most people’s point of view is that discrimination based on skin colour or simply a person’s heritage is purely and simply wrong, however you as well as I know fine well religious nut jobs quite like yourself didn’t quite see it… to want of a way to put it more ironically, quite see it so “christianally.” if you would like to argue please provide some evidence against slavery and Christianity’s role because I have a lot of fodder with which I would happily refute.

    Now there seems to be some imaginary moral pedestal that you so wrongly and smugly sit upon especially with regard to our sexuality, my overall point as I tried to explain before is you are on the losing side mate, homophobic bigots like yourself are increasingly being relegated to the margins of society with the racist and fascists. My question to you is do you believe there will be any difference between a homophobic bigot and a fascist racist? the three largest political parties all supporting our cause, an ever increasing population tending towards our support, the country’s laws gradually being rewritten in our favour… my answer to you is there is no difference and seen overwhelmingly and rightly so the population will condemn you to be the scum that you are, and I think if you for a minute cut the jazz and silly words you might realise it too

    kisses x

  50. @ Stewart
    Who says, there is a limit? Where is this ‘limit’? Can you demonstrate this?
    Your quote, from JBS Haldane – looks at the probability of arriving at the state of evolved life now. It doesn’t refer to the chances of complexity evolving over billions of generations, cumulative selection resulting in tiny step changes. That’s relatively easy to explain. It’s no surprise to find over 40 versions of the eye having evolved independently in nature.
    Your objections to complexity have been obliterated many times over but most decisively in ‘Creationism’s Trojan Horse’ – Barbara Forrest / Paul Gross and ‘Climbing Mount Improbable’, specifically ch4 and ch5, by Richard Dawkins, among others. The question is rather, why you are determined to ignore all the evidence.

    You’ve stated previously on here, that your being born again helped you recover from alcoholism (so far, so good). But isn’t the real reason why you ignore all the evidence, that you have invested your energies in your beliefs for the purpose of your salvation? And that, if evolution, the absence of a creator were true, and homosexuality were natural and harmless after all, you fear there would be nothing to stop you reaching for the bottle before lunchtime?

  51. Stewart Cowan 23 Nov 2010, 12:59am

    @David – “I stopped reading there”

    “Hmmm, yes. And that’s why you’ll remain always an uneducated fool.”

    On the contrary. People who insult others tend to have nothing worth hearing, therefore I use the extra time to read more worthy items, thereby becoming more educated.

  52. Stewart Cowan 23 Nov 2010, 1:21am

    @Lee – you cheated. You left the insult to the end so I’d read your whole comment.

    Thank you for the initial compliment. I’m not sure if it’s my first one ever on PN.

    Christianity’s role in slavery? Wm Wilberforce, a Christian, spent years of his life on having black slavery abolished. Apart from that you have obviously picked up a bit of scripture incorrectly, probably from the internet without actually checking the context.

    I am not homophobic. Clearly I don’t have a ‘phobia’ or fear of homosexuals. I don’t believe you should be engaging in same-sex behaviour – that’s neither a phobia, nor hatred.

    But words come and go and people give them the meanings they want in order to verbally tar and feather someone unfairly.

    “My question to you is do you believe there will be any difference between a homophobic bigot and a fascist racist?”

    How would I know? I’m neither. Anyway, I don’t know what you mean by those words as you have already mislabelled me.

    I’ll tell you what though, once we have sharia law in Britain and Europe you’ll expect people like me to save people like you from being put in jail and given 500 lashes or worse.

    In order to get what you think is “equality” (i.e. takeover) you had to totally change society and that included our Judeo-Christian heritage and laws. The homosexual movement (and feminists and others) has created a vacuum and it is being filled with Islam.

    I know that secularism cannot work because it never has. Almost every political system in the history of the world has been designed to keep the people down, especially so-called secular states. Lenin said, “Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.”

  53. Stewart Cowan 23 Nov 2010, 2:08am

    @Adrian,

    I think there is a limit because life is far too complex and also because of the lack of transitional fossils.

    When I was saved from alcoholism, I believed in the Theory of Evolution. That was nearly 13 years ago. I have only been a Creationist for the past six after studying and pondering things I had never learned before. Most people who “believe” in the Theory of Evolution actually do so purely from a position of faith.

    “The question is rather, why you are determined to ignore all the evidence.”

    You can find evidence which points to the TofE and Creation. It’s just that the former gets 99% of the airtime and class time.

    The main reason I have never reached for the bottle (despite temptation) is because I know I would be unlikely to survive another descent into that hellish abyss. I would be as the dog returning to its vomit. It’s not how I want my life to be regardless of anything else.

    And anyway, as I said, I’m a born again Creationist!

  54. “Most people who “believe” in the Theory of Evolution actually do so purely from a position of faith.”

    Oh, dear. Anyone who believes evolution is a “faith” is speaking form a position of ignorance. Did you even GO to school????

    Why is it always someone “saved” has to debase their argument to one of ignorance. Its like you he gave up his intellect with the bottle.

    Thankfully most people outside middle America see “creationism” for what it is, a proof less belief system based in simplicity and ignorance of science. There is no “choice”:- one is based in fact, the other is a children’s story.

  55. “Most people who “believe” in the Theory of Evolution actually do so purely from a position of faith.”

    Oh, dear. This is just a lie. Well, religion and lies go hand in hand. Anyone who believes evolution is a “faith” is speaking form a position of ignorance. Did you even GO to school????

    Why is it always someone “saved” has to debase their argument to one of ignorance. Its like you he gave up his intellect with the bottle.

    Thankfully most people outside middle America see “creationism” for what it is, a proof less belief system based in simplicity and ignorance of science. There is no “choice”:- one is based in fact, the other is a children’s story.

  56. “Most people who “believe” in the Theory of Evolution actually do so purely from a position of faith.”

    Oh, dear. I sincerely hope you don’t actually believe this lie. Well, religion and lies go hand in hand. Anyone who believes evolution is a “faith” is speaking form a position of ignorance. Did you even GO to school????

    Why is it always someone “saved” has to debase their argument to one of ignorance, like it a trade off:- be saved but you have to drop your IQ to that of a bin liner.

    More proof of that famous study that more more religious you become the less your intelligence becomes.

    Thankfully most people outside middle America see “creationism” for what it is, a proof less belief system based in simplicity and ignorance of science. There is no “choice”:- one is based in fact, the other is a children’s story.

  57. “Most people who “believe” in the Theory of Evolution actually do so purely from a position of faith.”

    Oh, dear. I sincerely hope you don’t actually believe this lie. Well, religion and lies go hand in hand. Anyone who believes evolution is a “faith” is speaking from a position of gross ignorance. As you have zero proof of creationism is anything but a children story, and evolution has overwhelming proof of its existence, once and only assume you are either deluded or were brainwashed by those you turned to after your “recovery”.

    Although given your paranoid schizophrenic type of conspiracy theories, I would suspect something else amiss here.

    More proof to back up that famous 2008 Lynn and Nyborg study that more more religious you become the less your intelligence is. Point in case here.

  58. Stewart Cowan – ‘Heterosexuality IS normal.’
    Capitalising banal nonsequiturs doesn’t help you.
    The ‘normal’ does not necessarily equate to the ‘good’ or ‘worthwhile’. Though, of course, for very many heterosexuals and bisexuals, it will indeed do so. Just as homosexuality does for very many gay and lesbian and bisexual people.

  59. Who is “Stewart Cowen?”

    What we know so far about the man:

    * He lives in Scotland
    * He is a creationist
    * He moved to the south-east in 1985
    * He has had left wing and unionist sympathies
    * He is married but believes women should not embrace feminism
    * He has hijacked the Richard Dawkins website comments section
    * He is ashamed to show his face on his blog “real street”

    Slowly closing in on you Stewart . . .

  60. Stewart Cowan 23 Nov 2010, 1:39pm

    @Adrian,

    I tried posting this in the wee sma’ hours, but they were in the process of changing the website.

    I think there is a limit because life is far too complex and also because of the lack of transitional fossils.

    When I was saved from alcoholism, I believed in the Theory of Evolution. That was nearly 13 years ago. I have only been a Creationist for the past six after studying and pondering on things I had never learned before. Most people who “believe” in the Theory of Evolution actually do so purely from a position of faith.

    “The question is rather, why you are determined to ignore all the evidence.”

    You can find evidence which points to the TofE and Creation. It’s just that the former gets 99% of the airtime and class time.

    The main reason I have never reached for the bottle (despite temptation) is because I know if would be unlikely to survive another descent into that hellish abyss. I would be as the dog returning to its vomit. It’s not how I want my life to be regardless of anything else.

    And anyway, as I said, I’m a born again Creationist!

  61. Stewart Cowan 23 Nov 2010, 1:41pm

    JohnK,

    My address is available on my business websites.

    Come on round for a cuppa.

  62. Stewart Cowan 23 Nov 2010, 1:47pm

    Ah… sorry, the original did go through.

  63. “Most people who “believe” in the Theory of Evolution actually do so purely from a position of faith.”

    Oh, dear. I sincerely hope you don’t actually believe this lie. Well, religion and lies go hand in hand. Anyone who believes evolution is a “faith” is speaking from a position of gross ignorance. As you have zero proof of creationism is anything but a children story, and evolution has overwhelming proof of its existence, once and only assume you are either deluded or were brainwashed by those you turned to after your “recovery”.

    Although given your worrying inclination towards paranoid schizophrenic type of “gay conspiracy” theories, I would suspect something else amiss here.

    More proof to back up that famous 2008 Lynn and Nyborg study that more religious you become the less your intelligence is. Point in case.

  64. “Most people who “believe” in the Theory of Evolution actually do so purely from a position of faith.”

    Oh, dear. I sincerely hope you don’t actually believe this lie. Well, religion and lies go hand in hand. Anyone who believes evolution is a “faith” is speaking from a position of gross ignorance. As you have zero proof of creationism is anything but a children story, and evolution has overwhelming proof of its existence, once and only assume you are either deluded or were brainwashed by those you turned to after your “recovery”.

    Although given your worrying inclination towards paranoid schizophrenic type of “gay conspiracy” theories, I would suspect something else amiss here.

    More proof to back up that famous 2008 Lynn and Nyborg study that more religious you become the less your intelligence is. Point in case.

  65. There are actually tonnes of transtional fossils – gaps are being filled all the time. All fossils are transitional in any case.

    If you believe ‘in’ evolution – then yes, you take it as faith. I believe evolution, because of the evidence. I any case, as Will mentioned, the research into the genome backs up what the fossil record tells us.

    It seems the evidence ‘for’ a divine creation seems to be simply gaps in our understanding: I don’t know how it happened, therefore God did it! You are the one who claims to have all the answers, without having properly eliminated all the other plausible explanations. And in any case – you, Stewart are the one who needs to explain at least 2 major creation events – not only how the cosmos emerged from nothing, but how its designer also emerged from nothing.

    If ever you are proved right – and I don’t seriously entertain such a prospect, it would simply open up another avenus for further investigation and how that creator evolved.

    you ar welcome to prove me right about creation anytime you like of course ;-)

  66. Paul Redding 23 Nov 2010, 6:31pm

    I have being reading this thread with some amusement, I have to say.

    Mr. Cowen, I suspect you may have some issues to address personally, you lack of acceptance of discussion designed to enlighten you is rather indicative of some learning difficulty. I say this as a medical professional, not to insult.

    Let me explain: your point on “transitional fossils”.

    There are plenty of these in the fossil record, despite your refusal to see them. I hate to break it to you, but your acceptance or refusal of evlution as fact detracts from it not one bit as a reality. I suggest you visit a museum.

    Evolution requires not faith, just a willingness to see and understand the evidence (as Will above correctly points out, your lack of understanding of the word “theory” in contemporary science is the issue here), and let me give you some examples:-

    All living organisms share the same family tree. This fact is backed by evidence such as:
    - Archaeopteryx, a missing link between reptiles and birds (new specimens of birds have been found in Spain and China, which are some 30 or 40 million years younger than Archaeopteryx, and they are more bird-like, exactly as an evolutionist predicts)
    - mammalian hearing structure, which evolved from reptilian jawbones
    - the animals of the Galapagos, isolated from the rest of the world
    - DNA profiles of life forms, present and past and the correlation between them

    The last point above is not up for debate, its proven and observed. To deny evolution as fact is only demonstrating an ignorance of observable evidence, nothing more. Proteins in the bodies of all organisms, and indeed DNA and RNA, the fundamental molecules of life, carry records of evolutionary transitions.

    Some proven examples of transitional fossils are: Nautiloids, Cephalopods, Attercopus, Pikaia, Dalpiazia, Amphistium, and Tiktaalik. All showing transitional traits. There is an extensive list if you took the time to educate yourself.

    In contrast, you affirmation that creationism is a valid “theory” is nothing of the sort, as it has only one thing to back it up:- people like you say it’s true because it has to be. This is hardly evidence. Its it hardly conclusive.

    The real issue here, and I believe Will has intuitively touched on it, is that in your supposed recovery from alcoholism, you turned to religion and as some form of “payment” for your cure, you have accepted blindly and in pure faith what less than learned individuals say.

    I find it curious that you seem able to use a computer to spread your half truths on a blog, when in fact the origins of computing utilised the VERY SAME scientific menthods in their creation and advancement as in the understanding of evolution. Curious how you don’t seem to understand how a computer works, and yet you accept it as such, and yet evolution has the same evidence of existence and yet you believe in a “belief” structure instead with zero basis in reality.

    I am sure you have taken medication at one time, medication that utilises the SAME DNA ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES that are used to show how evolution works, and while you understand neither the medicine nor evolution, you accept one without the other.

    I would agree with the suggestion made by some above that you take some time to educate yourself, as your preaching nonsense on a gay site its hardly commendable. Its in fact quite tragic.

  67. Well, between Adrian-T and Paul Redding, I think you both have pointed out better then I could what I was going to say on this farce of an argument with that homophobic muppet.

    Creationism is a belief structure. And like all beliefs, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with belief, until that is you start to try push aside established fact with superstitious nonsense. I for one do not want to live in a world full of theocratic morons who scream at god like fools at every eclipse they see.

    Thankfully, people like Steward are a very small minority in Europe, they had their day. It was called the Dark Ages. And with good reason.

  68. I think what is particulary interesting is that Mr Cowen does not want to show his face on his website . . . Mr Cowen may be a “Creationist”, but he also appears ashamed of his views . . . ?

  69. Will, the best way to deal with fundamentalists, it to concede to them that, they could be right, if the evidence were strong enough.

    Of course, the evidence in favour of someone who takes the bible as total truth has a hell of a job on his hands, to prove the deity, to prove which deity and how he knows the mind of that deity. (The argument goes no further than stage 1) Were it not for Stewart we would not have had wonderful interjections from Paul and yourself.

    BOOK TIP: Sam Harris, ‘the moral landscape’

  70. Stewart Cowan 26 Nov 2010, 3:09pm

    Adrian,

    I know evolutionists who freely admit that there aren’t many, if any, transitional fossils.

    “I any case, as Will mentioned, the research into the genome backs up what the fossil record tells us.”

    I haven’t been reading Will’s comments. Life’s too short.

    What the fossil record tells us is that the world has been populated by completely formed creatures.

    “You are the one who claims to have all the answers, without having properly eliminated all the other plausible explanations.”

    “All” what other explanations.

    “And in any case – you, Stewart are the one who needs to explain at least 2 major creation events – not only how the cosmos emerged from nothing, but how its designer also emerged from nothing.”

    Time probably doesn’t exist outside of this physical universe. Only an almighty Creator could produce something special out of nothing – a sort of cosmic can’t cook, won’t cook!

    “If ever you are proved right –”

    Stop there. The time for repentance will have ended.

    “… it would simply open up another avenus for further investigation and how that creator evolved.”

    You’re stuck in the mind-set of evolution. It’s man’s observation which has spiralled out of control and into the realms of the ridiculous “goo to you” theory.

    You can re-read my articles on Creationism and hopefully appreciate that you have been sold a lemon with the TofE.

  71. Stewart Cowan 26 Nov 2010, 4:12pm

    Mr. Redding,

    “I suspect you may have some issues to address personally, you lack of acceptance of discussion designed to enlighten you is rather indicative of some learning difficulty. I say this as a medical professional, not to insult.”

    You may not have considered that I have heard it all before. Medical professionals used to consider same-sex attraction as a mental condition. Some still do.

    “I suggest you visit a museum.”

    London’s Natural History Museum is my favourite.

    “Evolution requires not faith, just a willingness to see and understand the evidence.”

    Evolution doesn’t require faith. The powers invested in it by scientists most certainly does.

    I have written about Archaeopteryx several times. It is a fully-formed bird. I find it impossible to believe that a reptilian lung, for example, can gradually change into an avian lung. Maybe you can try to explain this.

    “To deny evolution as fact is only demonstrating an ignorance of observable evidence”

    I get told off by evolutionists for saying that they claim the TofE to be a “fact”. Genuine ones admit it’s just a theory. The only observable evidence is small changes via evolution.

    “There is an extensive list if you took the time to educate yourself.”

    Very funny!

    “In contrast, you affirmation that creationism is a valid “theory” is nothing of the sort, as it has only one thing to back it up:- people like you say it’s true because it has to be. This is hardly evidence. Its it hardly conclusive.”

    Not at all; the evidence shows it is true.

    “The real issue here, and I believe Will has intuitively touched on it, is that in your supposed recovery from alcoholism, you turned to religion and as some form of “payment” for your cure, you have accepted blindly and in pure faith what less than learned individuals say.”

    I already had faith before I touched drink, so that’s a dead-end argument.

    Yes, I do seem able to use a computer. Totally irrelevant, other than the Almighty gave me intelligence.

    “I am sure you have taken medication at one time, medication that utilises the SAME DNA ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES that are used to show how evolution works, and while you understand neither the medicine nor evolution, you accept one without the other.”

    Not sure how this means we have evolved from slime. Another red herring.

    “I would agree with the suggestion made by some above that you take some time to educate yourself, as your preaching nonsense on a gay site its hardly commendable. Its in fact quite tragic.”

    I didn’t raise the subject ;)

  72. Stewart Cowan 26 Nov 2010, 4:16pm

    John K,

    Why are you so concerned that you don’t know what I look like? I don’t know many bloggers who put photos of themselves on their blogs.

    If I was ashamed of my beliefs I wouldn’t use my real name. My face is irrelevant.

  73. Stewart . . . I simply do not bye that!!!

    If you were not ashamed of your beliefs – you would not hide your face from what you preach . . . !!!

    Owning your beliefs by proxy . . . is not the mark of man of substance and honour which you claim to be.

  74. “…Today it takes a miracle for any reasonable person to believe in the Christian religion.” (David Hume – a truly great Scot)

    Stewart: “Time probably doesn’t exist outside of this physical universe. Only an almighty Creator could produce something special out of nothing – a sort of cosmic can’t cook, won’t cook!”

    - Again, how do you know this? You’re just filling in the gaps that you can’t explain. A god must have decided to come into time and space at a certain time though. According to you, 6012 and 2010 years ago.

    AT: “If ever you are proved right –”

    SC: “Stop there. The time for repentance will have ended.”

    - I agree here – though more accurate to say, by the time you will have been able to prove your hypothesis, hell will have frozen over.

    AT: “… it would simply open up another avenus for further investigation and how that creator evolved.”

    SC: You’re stuck in the mind-set of evolution. It’s man’s observation which has spiralled out of control and into the realms of the ridiculous “goo to you” theory.

    - alas, evolution is based on facts. The building of a crane is easier to explain than the magical appearance of a skyhook. You make it more difficult by simply pushing the problem of ex nihilo one stage back. If an almighty god could have existed forever, why can that not be possible for – a lump of coal, a strand of DNA? surely these latter, comparatively simpler items are easier to explain. Why can they not exist forever, but the creator of them can?

    Face it Stewart, the heavens get emptier with evert scientific discovery, with every fossil discovery, and the DNA record, the comparison of junk DNA codes, is enough to say beyond doubt, that purposeless, godless evolution happened. :-)

  75. PS Stewart – if I recall, you are a screen printer based in Stranraer…what makes you, an expert on flags and squeegees and colour mixing, so sure you have more knowledge than the best of today’s biologists, when none of your writings has appeared in a peer reviewed journal? it sounds too good to be true!

    PS Yesm it would open up more lines of enquiry – my mind set, is to keep asking and doubting, not to shut down the mind and pretend i have all the answers!

  76. Stewart Cowan 28 Nov 2010, 4:07am

    John K,

    If I may say, that is a very strange attitude. I looked through a selection of my books, fiction and non-fiction, and the majority didn’t have a photo of the author(s) on the back cover. I guess they must be hiding something…??

  77. Stewart Cowan 28 Nov 2010, 5:27am

    Adrian,

    “…Today it takes a miracle for any reasonable person to believe in the Christian religion.” (David Hume – a truly great Scot)

    He believes in miracles. Great!

    “A god must have decided to come into time and space at a certain time though. According to you, 6012 and 2010 years ago.”

    I don’t have all the answers as to why and when everything which has happened has happened.

    SC: “Stop there. The time for repentance will have ended.”

    “- I agree here – though more accurate to say, by the time you will have been able to prove your hypothesis, hell will have frozen over.”

    It will never do that. If your sins aren’t forgiven, you can’t do anything other than co-exist with them forever, without rest.

    “- alas, evolution is based on facts.”

    “Evolution” is an observable fact. The Theory of Evolution is a theory.

    “The building of a crane is easier to explain than the magical appearance of a skyhook.”

    That’s interesting. If it was a foggy day and you saw that skyhook and no crane, you would immediately be able to tell that it wasn’t some supernatural appearance, but something which had been designed and made because of its shape and the way it moved.

    Even many evolutionists will admit that the DNA in creatures makes it look like they have been designed.

    “You make it more difficult by simply pushing the problem of ex nihilo one stage back. If an almighty god could have existed forever, why can that not be possible for – a lump of coal, a strand of DNA? surely these latter, comparatively simpler items are easier to explain. Why can they not exist forever, but the creator of them can?

    Firstly, the “Big Bang” is said by some to have happened ex nihilo. It’s something that I can laugh about – they can believe something as big as the universe came out of nothing, yet they refuse to submit to the belief in a Creator.

    Which brings me to my second point – how could He have lived forever? As I have already suggested, time is a measurement in the physical world.

    “Face it Stewart, the heavens get emptier with evert scientific discovery, with every fossil discovery, and the DNA record, the comparison of junk DNA codes, is enough to say beyond doubt, that purposeless, godless evolution happened.”

    Actually, the opposite is true. Darwin recognised that the major problem with his theory was the lack of transitional fossils. We still have that problem and I think always will.

    The fossil record then as now – same with the living world – is full of completely formed creatures (i.e. creat(e)ures).

    This is why we see scientists who are desperate to find fame by declaring they have discovered a “missing link”. They put two pieces of bone together (a la Piltdown Man) and say, oh look: it’s a bit this and a bit that. Nobel prize, please!

    In Darwin’s day, a living cell was considered no more than a microscopic blob of goo. More recent discoveries reveal them to be as complex as cities. Something Darwin could never have imagined.

    Do you think Darwin would have stuck with his Theory had he known about, for example, the electric motors which drive bacterial flagella (tails)?

    Scroll down to “The Flagella” http://www2.hawaii.edu/~johnb/micro/medmicro/medmicro.2.html

    We offer a screen printing service, yes, but that hasn’t prevented me from studying other things endlessly thanks to the internet, DVDs and books. You could equally ask yourself how your beliefs and opinions were formed.

    Good – keep asking questions and I’ll try and answer them here or elsewhere.

    The Creator has revealed himself in many ways.

  78. “We offer a screen printing service, yes, but that hasn’t prevented me from studying other things endlessly thanks to the internet, DVDs and books. You could equally ask yourself how your beliefs and opinions were formed.”

    Stewart . . . the internet is not a peer reviewed Journal.

    I would question any, so called learning gather from the internet alone!

  79. Stewart Cowan 28 Nov 2010, 8:28pm

    John,

    You would rather believe the nonsense spouted in the mainstream media and state education?

    …and I linked to the University of Hawaii in my previous post.

  80. Oh. My. God. This is laughable.

    “Darwin recognised that the major problem with his theory was the lack of transitional fossils”

    Yes, Darwin was over 200 years ago. We’ve got something called progress, including DNA analysis.

    “I find it impossible to believe that a reptilian lung, for example, can gradually change into an avian lung. Maybe you can try to explain this.”

    LOL. This is the stupidest statement I have heard in a long time. Well done. Where do you begin?????

    I love the way you just dogged every factual statement made here by puerile comments like “not true”. LOL! Marvellously intelligent! And the way you ignore anything with evidence by, well, ignoring it.

    One word to you: school.

    Try it.

    You might sound one bit less ridiculous than you already do.

    Adrian, Paul, this guy hasn’t a clue what he’s talking about…. debate with fools makes fools out of intelligent people simply by their engagement with them,

  81. Will . . . exactly

  82. Paul Redding 30 Nov 2010, 6:16pm

    I dropped in to see how our little conversation was going to enlighten our friend in the dark, and much to my disappointment, its nothing more than the same embarrassing dribble from Cowan as before. Remarkable how closed minded he is. I am not surprised one bit that when it comes to being diagnosed with an apparent mental health issue, he states “I have heard it all before.” Why, of course he has. Pity he didn’t follow any medical advice given, then he might stand a chance to work on that rather limiting and dysfunctional world view he clings on to. Still, you can only bring a horse to water.

    On his points regarding evolution as a “theory”, that has been explained to him twice and yet he persists with a layman’s uninformed view of that definition. The rest was uneducated garbage not worth a response from any learned individual.

    To Adrian, the difference better science and religion is this:- science uncovers facts and tries to employ evidence and to unravel what we don’t understand, and let the evidence stand for itself. Its the mechanism by which science “convinces” others of the validity of a theory, for want of a better term, to allow them to provide their own evidence and reason if they disagree, until consensus is made. Religion on the other hand, of which Steward here is the lowest possible example, insists on reason to be stifled, and to others forced into belief. Logic and evidence is irrelevant. I suspect its more to do with appeasing a weakness in the individual – “the more they believe as I do, the more I appear right” mentality.

    Steward needs help, not debate. He clearly has a learning difficulty, perhaps dropped out of the education system too early, and is struggling with a world too advanced for him, or the apparent mental health issues he seem to all too proudly display in a gay site. He needs our pity, and a long session with a clinical physiologist.

    Take comfort that he is a very small minority, and thankfully advances in humanity will continue to leave him and his misplaced anger behind.

  83. Time to ignore Stewart, folks. He is one of dogmatic Christianity’s many victims. Remember that this religion encourages the view that believing unsupported assertions is actually virtuous(provided that they are Christian, of course). This is probably its most mischievous characteristic.

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