Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Christian hotel owners to appeal ruling

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I hope they lose this appeal and it costs them big time and they have to sell up! That would be so cool!

  2. Its hardly a surprise as the Christian Institute and the Christian legal fund are looking to advance a political agenda.

    This is about trying to get a legal ruling that will allow Christians to discriminate in public life.

    Imagine the the police office, fireman, ambulance person, nurse or doctor being able to refuse to help you because they have a religious conviction against who you are. (this already happens in the USA)

    This is what the CI & CLF hope to achieve by continually pressing these types of cases.

    This is the real agenda and its all christian.

  3. the Christian Institue is relentless in trying to claw back special privileges for religious bigots that they are losing to equality.
    They don’t like to be treated the same under the law as everyone else and feel terribly hard done by, persecuted even, any excuse to continue to play the faux victim.
    I don’t think they have a foot to stand on legally, they are clearly in the wrong.despite all the subjective and emotive propaganda they have been wallowing in on the pages of the Daily Wail and despite the popular prejudice against gays that this paper has been stirring up .

  4. the right to appeal is a right given even to the most notorious and obnoxious convicted criminals in this country. it is one of our valued freedoms. so no real surprise there. But they still broke the law. An appeal shouldn’t change that, unless all this ‘ruthless gay lobby’ nonsense influences the judges. which it well might. that’s why it is dangerous.

  5. Andrew Stevens 25 Jan 2011, 7:24pm

    Let them appeal as either way we win. European law states we are able to have a civil partnership which equals the same rights as marriage.If the Bulls win and we lose Europe will have to will have to change the law and allow Gay people to get married to allow equal rights. This will not go down well with the religious fruit cakes !!

  6. Dr Robin Guthrie 25 Jan 2011, 7:37pm

    “I hope they lose this appeal and it costs them big time and they have to sell up! That would be so cool!”

    notagain

    I do not hope what you wish for.

    As much as I dislike the route this old couple took albeit supported by the CLC and CI and probably encouraged by them, it is already clear that Gay rights are becoming a matter of derision in the media, all supped up by the thick and ignorant.

    As EU law stands, they have zero hope of overruling this but public opinion is much more powerful and important.

    And we have to live in the public sphere.

    And at the moment homophobic media fueled public opinion is winning the argument.

    This is a very tender legal, religious and sociopolitical balancing act, and stupid comments like yours does nothing to help it.

    I have no truck with this old couple other than their failure to recognize UK legal requirements in the provision of goods and services.

  7. Wouldn’t it be a far more loving and Christian thing to do if the CI had instead given the thousands of pounds used to fund this case to charities, hospices and the homeless?

  8. Have the Christian Institute ever won a court case? (I am genuinely asking the question – I can’t seem to see anywhere where they have…)

  9. I don’t care about balancing acts….these 2 are filth and if anything they are making a sick joke of christianity.

  10. They just don’t get it do they? They broke the law. If you break the law you pay. Maybe we should all appeal to change the law so we can discriminate against anyone for anything for any reason-colour, race, religion, sex, sexuality, job, class.In other words, the only way they can win an appeal is to have the laws of discrimination repealed completely and introduce a new one for two classes of humans – them and us.
    The real problem here is that these religions wouldn’t have a reason to exist unless they had something to fight against. They should thank God that we’re helping them on that score.

  11. I feel sorry for all involved, and I think that the defendants are being used by the fundamentalist lobby.

    The apparent difference, or confusion, as the judge politely put it, between their oral evidence on whether they would have allowed the men to share a twin bed room, and the court papers and statement drawn up by their legal advisors, stating they would have allowed them to if one had been available, suggests that maybe their advisers were attempting to make them look less anti-gay than they actually were. Noetheless the judge felt all parties were acting in good faith and we must accept that.

    There don’t appear to be any obvious legal grounds for the appeal, so it’s perhaps more about publicity and fundraising for the fundamentalist pressure group sponsoring it. It costs the defendants nothing as they have said all the costs and damages are being paid for them by the wealthy backers.

  12. “I have no truck with this old couple other than their failure to recognize UK legal requirements in the provision of goods and services.”

    Well, nor do any of us. But they started this by breaking the law. How many ways does it have to be said? They broke the law. I’ve seen it said on other sites that it would be all right if they stated their position on their website. But it’s not all right. That’s the modern equivalent of ‘no blacks, no Irish’ and it is against the law. They broke the law. It doesn’t matter if they’re just an old pair of pensioners. The law is the law. It doesn’t matter that they go to church. They broke the law. Are we clear?

  13. On the website of the Christian hotel owners it now says

    Here at Chymorvah we have few rules, but please note that as Christians we have a deep regard for marriage(being the union of one man to one woman for life to the exclusion of all others).
    Therefore, although we extend to all a warm welcome to our home, our double bedded accommodation is not available to unmarried couples Thank you
    (http://www.chymorvah.co.uk/bookingform.html)

    Is this not written evidence that the couple are descriminating based on sexuality…by not recognising civil partnerships as being equal to marraige

  14. I don’t think their backers are paying for the damages, only the legal bills (although they claim to have received gifts that will help them pay).

    I don’t see why some people here are wishing this poor couple harm. Although they are obviously in the wrong here, i think they’re only ill-advised and old-fashioned. They don’t seem to be able to see the difference between freedom from discrimination and freedom to discriminate, just like the majority of people who support them.

  15. Interesting to see the BBC taking a philosophical approach to the case, in favour of the gay couple!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12275094

  16. So I wonder where they would stand with myself?

    I’m a trans-women and a lesbian and still happily married; As I have yet to apply for my GRC (soon :)) I am sadly classed a male according to UK law and married!

  17. @Kevin — although their site says what you quoted now, the wording has changed. In June 2008 it read:

    “Here at Chymorvah we have few rules, but please note, that out of a deep regard for marriage we prefer to let double accommodation to heterosexual married couples only – thank you.”

    http://www.archive.org is a marvellous thing ! Though the old wording was reported in the papers at the time.

  18. Laurent Comtell 25 Jan 2011, 8:45pm

    Dorks!

  19. What a disgrace, I hope they double the fine. What an attention seeker she is, old boot.

  20. Actually, can we stop with the “poor old couple”. They are not living in a council flat on basic state pension. They own a HUGE house in its own grounds. They take in guests at £80 per person per night. Those damages are well within their pocket. They’re not ‘poor’ in any sense.

  21. This appeal appears to be based on the myth that homosexuality is a belief as opposed to a sexual preference that people are born with.

    Unlike being a Christian or choosing to interpret the bible in a way that advocates discrimination in the provision of goods and services nobody chooses to be Gay!

  22. de Villiers 25 Jan 2011, 9:13pm

    > An appeal shouldn’t change that, unless all this ‘ruthless gay lobby’ nonsense influences the judges. which it well might. that’s why it is dangerous.

    You can’t influence an appeal court judge. The ‘ruthless gay lobby’ nonsense is in no way dangerous in that regard.

  23. My understanding was her husband was very poorly why would she want to pursue something is unable to win.

    Anyway spent all your money hope it cost tons and you lose -which you will EU law is very clear

  24. “You can’t influence an appeal court judge. ”

    It would be nice to think so. But appeal court judges are human. And its possible they might be Daily Mail readers.

  25. Gav, Mr Bull’s medical problems are not relevant to the issue. They are not caused by the ongoing case. Still doesn’t make them ‘poor’ and they deserve no special sympathy because of it. Do you think they would sympathise if Mr Preddy was ill? They’d probably say it was God’s judgement on him.

    Come to think of it….

    Funny they never seem to think of it that way, isn’t it!

  26. Low life crud! If her husband is so ill maybe he should concentrate on recovery ,rather than evil hate and bigotry. I’m sure the christians will use it to further their victim role scenario. Surprisingly i have had the misfortune to meet a GAY CHRISTIAN who sympathises with them.

  27. de Villiers 25 Jan 2011, 10:34pm

    > “You can’t influence an appeal court judge. ”

    > It would be nice to think so. But appeal court judges are human. And its possible they might be Daily Mail readers.

    I very much doubt it. And even if it did happen to be on the train on their journey to work, I doubt that they would consider it had much intellectual rigour.

    Each division of the Court of Appeal has dismissed similar appeals. It is worth reading this short refusal of permission to appeal: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/B1.html

  28. david skinner 25 Jan 2011, 10:37pm

    Peter and Hazelmary Bull, who, until recently ran a Christian bed and breakfast business in their family home in Cornwall, have been ordered to pay £3,600 to two “gay” men, Martyn Hall and Stephen Preddy for refusing them permission to simulate marriage acts, albeit using sodomy in their double beds. They also face financial ruin, the closure of their business and the loss of the home. Mr Bull is undergoing a triple heart bypass. It is alleged that Mr and Mrs Bull have contravened the Sexual Orientation Regulations (2007) that outlaw discrimination in the provision of good and services on the grounds of sexual orientation. It must be noted, however, that the Bulls have a policy that denies anyone a double bed who is not married, whether gay or straight.

    What the Bulls are actually guilty of is not sexual discrimination, because those who identify themselves as homosexuals are welcome in their home. In refusing a double bed to all, but those who are married according to the definition laid down in the Bible, two thousand years of Christian teaching and currant law, the Bulls are only guilty of gender discrimination. But there is no law stating that it is a criminal offence to discriminate in the provision of goods and services on the grounds of gender. If that were such a law, girls and boys, men and woman would be forced to share the same public showers and changing rooms. Hospitals would be forced to open mixed wards again and Clothing manufacturers would only be allowed to produce unisex clothes. Gender differentiation would be completely banned
    The Bulls make no enquiry into the sexual proclivities, leanings, tastes or appetites of those who sleep in their double beds; they can, for all the Bulls know, have a yearning for all kinds of strange flesh and material. All that the Bulls demand is that the occupants of their double beds are one man and one woman married to one another, forsaking all others until death parts them (not a man and man, a woman and woman, four women and two men, a brother and sister, a grandmother and grandson, a man and dog, a man and his lesbian bicycle, or a goat and a welsh transdresser). This definition of marriage has not changed – unless there is something the present government and judiciary are unaware of but which the judge, Andrew Rutherford is aware.
    Mr Martyn Hall and Stephen Preddy, urged on by the gay liberation lobby, Stonewall and the gay centred Equality and Human Rights Commission, argue that the civil partnership in which they presently live and move and breath is identical to that of marriage . Indeed Andrew Rutherford, who judged the case at Bristol Crown Court has said as much. So why is there still a huge demand from gay liberationists, like Peter Tatchell, demanding gay marriage if they have already achieved it ?

    One small detail that many have missed here is that the marriage between a man and woman is not merely a badge of social acceptance, or the root to receiving tax and other benefits. Marriage is not a means to getting something else. It is a good in its own right, in the same way that child is good in its own right . It is the marriage of sperm with eggs, which in turn produce a marriage of genes and chromosomes, which in turn miraculously produce a marriage of personal traits and characteristics that truly fuse into one new life, that of a child . But marriage does not stop with the couple, for it also means a marriage of new relationships, creating uncles, aunts, cousins, grandparents. All these relationships make a strong cohesive and stable society. One which those who pull the strings of gays , wish to destroy.

    Two men, three men, five men and a donkey or man with a bicycle or pavement, fusing their sperm with excrement or axle grease, do not produce new life – only the production of HIV, AIDs and a trip to St Barts Hospital to the bum department.

    The propaganda put about by Stonewall concerning highly inflated figures for homophobic violence ( much of which is carried out by gays on gays) will more than likely, with these two individuals, Martyn Hall and Stephen Preddy, become a self fulfilling prophecy. I would imagine that they will viewed as pariahs by the community in which they live. Their victory, I would imagine, will be hollow as pride turns into shame.

  29. david skinner 25 Jan 2011, 10:45pm

    The Bulls hold to deeply held Christian convictions, which is why they refused the two men a bed. Not because they were homophobic but simply because the Bible says that only a man a women who are married are permitted to share a bed and presumably have sex.

    This belief is not held by a small cult, an archaic cultural eccentricity but is common to most of the worlds great religions, whose adherents when added up come to 84% of the world’s population . Atheists, humanists and secularists who would claim that they are not religious come to 16% and no doubt even a proportion of these would think that marriage between and man and women was the rightful context for sex. So when people say that people who take the Bible seriously in this country are a tiny minority, this arrogant and presumptive lie, with respect to the global scale, has to be robustly refuted.

  30. de Villiers 25 Jan 2011, 10:48pm

    > It must be noted, however, that the Bulls have a policy that denies anyone a double bed who is not married, whether gay or straight.

    The Bulls refuse to allow a double bed to gay persons who have been in a civil partnership. They would allow a bed to heterosexual persons who are married.

    The neutral sounding measure discriminates against gay persons who, by their orientation, are unlikely to get married. Therefore, it excludes by its definition, gay persons from being able to occupy a double room.

    You are wrong in saying this is gender discrimination. By allowing a married man and woman to take a double bed, they are not treating either the man or the woman less favourably on the grounds of gender.

    Similarly, the Bulls would refuse to allow a lesbian couple or a gay man to take the double room. In this instance, they would treat both the gay man and the gay woman equally – by the refusal to allow them the room.

    The difference in treatment is based upon the couple being or not being married. As gay people by their class are excluded from being married or are unlikely to be so, the outcome of this policy is to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation.

    Insofar as the rule may also have discriminated against single persons or unmarried couples, this is not an protect category against which it is unlawful to discriminate.

  31. de Villiers 25 Jan 2011, 10:50pm

    - a protected category

  32. So even if we had the legal name marriage and not CP in the UK would they still think they have a right to refuse gay married couples simply because their Christian definition of marriage would always be between men and women and as such Chrisitans should be allowed to chose wether to accept someone’s legal civil status……..Is this appeal over the words CP or the fact that they would never recognise gay couples as being in the equivalent of a marriage ……Agree with one of the comments above, why don’t they spend their money on a more Christian cause, like looking after the poor and needy and not on some vindictive elderly Christian couple trying to prove a point…Is this what Christian charities are all about, it’s a real shocker to me!

    Who the hell funds these nasty charities!

  33. de Villiers 25 Jan 2011, 10:52pm

    > The Bulls hold to deeply held Christian convictions, which is why they refused the two men a bed. Not because they were homophobic but simply because the Bible says that only a man a women who are married are permitted to share a bed and presumably have sex.

    Even if true, that is entirely irrelevant.

    In these cases of discrimination, the law forbids discriminatory conduct not by reference to the actor’s motives, but by reference to the outcome of his or her acts..

    Acts may obviously have discriminatory effects – outcomes – as between one group or class of persons and another, whether their motivation is for good or ill.

  34. david skinner 25 Jan 2011, 11:05pm

    Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
    1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, and to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
    2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others ( such as gays).

    However the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion has to balanced against the rights of others on the grounds of gender, race, age, disability colour, language, national or social origin, and sexual orientations.

    The first obstacle for the Christian is the apparent conflict between religion and all the other protected characteristics. Characteristics defined by faith such as religion are deemed to be subjective and therefore do not carry as much weight as those defined by science (much of dodgy and bogus) such as race, age and gender which are deemed to be objective and absolute

    Falsely, mistakenly and deceptively, Homosexuality is deemed to be immutable and comparable to race, but this is a false comparison. A man might think and experience himself to be all kinds of things such as being a homosexual, the Queen of Sheba or a teapot, but unless we can put him a laboratory and measure his homosexual or teapot characteristics scientifically, we must assume that this reality exists only in his head.

    So where were we ?

    Oh yes, Article 9: “Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others ( such as gays).”

    But the last thing that the gay lobby want is any kind of protection, least of all from their own behaviour. Instead they want us all to follow them in breaking down all sexual categories and moral barriers associated with the purity and chastity of traditional marriage between one man and one woman . In their sight, traditional marriage is an oppressive institution which either has to change to accommodate their behaviour or be got rid of. The freedom they want is the freedom to destroy marriage and the family as understood for at least two thousand years which they see as an oppressive and restrictive institution.

    Peter Tatchell in one breath talks about the need for sexual orientation differences to be recognised and affirmed , but then in the next demands that we all become gay. He does not want equality with straight society or to be invited in on straight society’s terms ; instead he wants everyone to become like him would all become like him. Differences then would no longer exist. Indeed the book, Different Families, produced by Stonewall only talks about lesbian families.

    Listen folks there are no gays, lesbians, bisexuals, trans sexuals, trans gender, necro sexuals, homosexuals, objectumsexuals, paedophiles, incest sexuals and a multitude of other sexuals. There are only men and women cursed with unnatural desires. The men of Sodom were not homosexuals; they men, brute beasts who were hot on anything.

  35. david skinner 25 Jan 2011, 11:23pm

    Listen folks , gays and lesbians are not by definition excluded from marriage.

    Self identified men and self identified women are absolutely no different from ordinary men and women with regard to their reproductive equipment, equipment that does not end with private parts, but involves instincts, heart and mind.

    I know of a case where a homosexual and a lesbian come together to produce children but then go away to spend time with their same sex partners. The last I heard this was tearing them to bits because, essentially they really wanted to be proper parents to their children.

    The difference between gays and straights lies in the mind – no where else. Being gay is not a happy state of affairs and if someone feels uncomfortable with it no one, absolutely no one, has the right to stop them from being released these compulsions .

    One final thing, marriage is not some kind of academic name or an invention of society. It is a creational ordinance that has existed since the begining of man’s history.

  36. @David Skinner . . . do not insult our intelligence with this ridiculous masturbatory rant.

    If you must argue a point, to develop further your homophobic and heterosexist view of the world;
    at least choose a clearly defined propostion.

    Arguments which are incoherent, and lack a consistency of logic through to conclusion; will simply be ignored.

  37. DS – yeah and keep them short and snappy mate…anything longer than a few paras is just boring!!

  38. de Villiers 25 Jan 2011, 11:48pm

    > However the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion has to balanced against the rights of others on the grounds of gender, race, age, disability colour, language, national or social origin, and sexual orientations.

    No – only the freedom to manifest it is to be balanced. The holding of a belief is not subject to the qualification.

    The Bulls are free to hold their beliefs. They may not, however, manifest them in a way that is contrary to law.

  39. “… we prefer to let double accommodation to heterosexual married couples only – thank you.””

    What is absurd about this is that a couple (of any gender, married or not) could perfectly well have had a twin bed room and had night after night of sex without being barred, if we are to believe them.. So it’s just humbug.#

    What we have here is a war by proxy between the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and the so-called Christian Institute. The legal costs have already probably passed £60,000, send the next stage – which may not settle it – will take this beyond £100,000. But that will not satisfy either side, win or lose. It’s a battle for minds, with the Daily Mail leading the charge for ‘Christian values’ and ‘decent people’. Lord save us!

    So it is important the EHRC wins, but vital too the argument is won in the public media by reasoned argument. Some people out there seriously think this is all manipulated by Stonewall; as if!

  40. Steve@GayWebHosting 26 Jan 2011, 12:01am

    I have just reported the posts for moderation… Here is what I said…

    “This is pure, insulting, homophobic poison…… This is really well past the mark of decency.. We see articles in PinkNews about some minor ´celebrity´ having uttered something which (might) be considered by some as mildly homophobic… Yet here we have to look at raw naked homophobia on your own comments section. Please remove this raving bible-bashers posts and ban further ones from him.”

    I am sorry, but I really do not choose to read Pink News to be confronted by such ´christian´ drivel.

    “Two men, three men, five men and a donkey or man with a bicycle or pavement, fusing their sperm with excrement or axle grease, do not produce new life – only the production of HIV, AIDs and a trip to St Barts Hospital to the bum department.”

    This is just plain insulting… and blatant homophobia. We would not stand for it anywhere else, so why here?

  41. @david skinner — now I thought you were going to provide some evidence to support your claims ?

  42. @Steve@GayWebHosting.
    Quite right, the flaming Christian fundamentalist trolls here are are more than tiresome with their unintelligible overlong homophobic rants, the site is becoming much more popular for important discussion and by now does require better moderation, some moderation, are there any moderators on this forum at all?.

  43. If the couple were unmarried and the owners recognized civil unions then i would agree they should of abided by the house rules but in this case the couple were in the closest thing to a marriage gays can get and the owners did not recognize it, that discrimination and as its a public business and not a privet one they have to abide by the laws which say civil unions have to be recognized as marriage like in business. Let them lose again for their bigotry.

  44. I hope they lose their appeal, the hateful bastards. Tired of their fundamentalist sense of entitlement.

  45. The sad thing is that before I started reading articles like this I actually thought Chrisitan charities and the word Christian meant compassion, love your neighbour, support and so on….You’ve got to wonder why on earth they are so obsessed in these types of cases, it certainly makes me think twice which xmas charity card etc I buy….I want my church to be supportive of all , I don’t want my Sunday donation wasted on this tpye of crap….They seem to driving people away from Chrisitianity ad its true message…does the general public really support these type of people, CPs/marriages are both generally accepted as a good thing etc and equivalent and yet on the CI website they still regard MPs who voted for the CP as something that was morally unacceptable….

  46. The Skinner troll needs a good bitchslapping.

  47. I donated £500 to the Bulls today, they were really grateful, as were the Christian Institute. They are super guys there.

    I hope the win the appeal.
    The EHRC are a tax guzling quango and need to be got shot off. They no nothnig about Equality, and they lost the last court appearance against the BNP.

  48. Everyone has a right to be discerning. even christians. Gays are getting more contemptible every day with all your self righteousness. Want to be wrapped up in cotton wool and to be completely protected from society and anything society wants to throw at you . Grow up.

    What about their rights as a business owner???

  49. Skinner. You’re a c u n t. Now f u c k off before I k**^ you.

  50. dave wainwright 26 Jan 2011, 4:34am

    They are looking forward to pinning the imminent death of Mr Bull on this “ATTACK ON CHRISTIAN FAITH”, they are really stirring it up in the mail and mail group thisis sites ,
    see the comments sections
    http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/news/Hotel-victory-gay-couple/article-3117725-detail/article.html
    and
    http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/news/Hoteliers-facing-bankruptcy-discriminating-gay-guests/article-3134797-detail/article.html

  51. He can burn in hell. F the lot if them these so called Christians have more in common with Satan

  52. @skinner – I am happy to be gay actually so I dunno why you lie gay isn’t about happiness, it’s the homophobes who hurt people!
    this couples rights as a business owner are meant to obey the laws of the land which is British laws not their cherry-picking, even the bible say to obey the law so it shows them and the christian institute don’t know the bible
    when they lose then it’ll be cool

  53. Billy wingarden 26 Jan 2011, 8:04am

    skinner- it would be nice if you stopped trying to force your beliefs others.

    Christianity has a sordid history from the crusades against the muslims that murdered 40 million of them, to Hitler, born and baptised catholic, who has yet to be excommunicated by his church.

    Christianity is the evil of evils, corrupt, cause of probably a quarter billion murders over the ages.

    That so many follow it is proof that we evolved from the animals. And the process needs to be ongoing.

    In general, in canada btw, these types of cases are lost by rhe religious types.

    And what are the bulls going to do when two men or women rent a room with two beds – come sneaking in at night, chekcing on their patrons.

    Probably to gawk and get all hot and bothered watching a naked same sex couple spooning.

    People who are too interested in what consenting adults do in their bedrooms is the perfect definition of P E R V E R T

    BTW, I’m thrill aht all of my 3 children, as well as their st8 spouses are aethists.

  54. “Being gay is not a happy state of affairs and if someone feels uncomfortable with it no one, absolutely no one, has the right to stop them from being released these compulsions”

    Being stupid is not a happy state of affairs either, and its why no one should be denied education to improve their mental agility. So it begs the question David, in the light of overwhelming evidence againt your stand point, and the free availability of edcuation, why do you persist in flaunting your stupidity in public for all to see?

    Oh, yes, sorry, you believe in the 6,000 year old earth and Adam tickling the throat of a vegetarian Velociraptor in a big garden. Silly me. Schooling obviously wasn’t high on your priority list.

  55. “What about their rights as a business owner???”

    And you just said “grow up”??? Their right to a business is only when you follow the laws governing that business. Its why no one has the “right” to start up a heroine distribution plant legally.

    Does this simple concept elude you, radical53? Too difficult to understand the basic nuisances of law, no? Bless.

  56. The moderate christians better speak up now

  57. david skinner 26 Jan 2011, 8:18am

    Harry, why should I cast pearls before swine? No matter how much evidence I put before you , it will make not a jot of difference. You would simply choose to disbelieve it – not because you were incapable of understanding it, but simply because you don’t want to. This blindness is both self – induced and supernatural. You will only believe when the Muslims, for whom you will have acted a catalyst, dominate this country and drag you out into the street for a demonstration of Shariah law. Only then will you believe, by which time it will be too late for you.

    The only thing between Britain and Islam is our Christian faith and tragically both the secularists and liberal wings of the church have all but destroyed it over the last fifty years or more. Gay bishops and clergy, with flapping capes and gowns are leading the charge down the Gadarene slop.

    Churchill in his famous piece that he wrote on Islam in 1898, River War, said that the only thing between the West and being taken over by Islam was our superior technology. On this he was wrong, as has been proved. The only thing that will save us from Islam is repentance and an acknowledgement of Jesus Christ as manifested in the Bible, in history and through the witness of the martyrs through the centuries.

  58. Jock S. Trap 26 Jan 2011, 8:21am

    The Christian Institute will not settle until they have the ultimate power to discriminate against whoever they want without being prosecuted for it.

    In other words they want the right to be above the law and above anybody else in society. I suspect there aim is to take this to the Supreme Court.

    Lets hope common decency prevails and these ignorant people are forced to finally follow the law that is set there for Everyone.

  59. Oh, now he’s on about Islam. What a surprise. Its not unusually for bigots to have a wide portfolio of things to hate/fear, rarely do they just focus on one.

    Tell you what David, you stick to believing in “supernatural” and conspiracy theories, and let the rest of us get on with more important things like driving you sanctimonious bigots into the wilderness.

  60. James I agree there should be an alternative Christian viewpoint on this, one that is normal and moderate and not so damn hateful…….giving the go ahead for the Christians to spout out crap and to continue its discrimination is causing more harm than good I feel…I wish the laws had been tighter and not as relaxed as this, I’m beginning to think that as long as you say you are Christian and you word your adverstising in such a certain way then you can continue to harass and discriminate against gay people…I thought this was a test case that would hold and am pretty disappointed that it’s going to an appeal…however,optimistic I am about it…

  61. david skinner 26 Jan 2011, 8:29am

    People talk about the law and that you should obey it.

    Well the good and law – abiding people of Germany did just that during the 30’s and 40’s. The whole nation obeyed the law and watched their neighbours, colleagues and even family members carted off to the gas chambers.

    The good and law – abiding people of America and Britain, during the 17th, 18th and even 19th century obeyed the law and took part in the slavery of millions of black people.

    The good and law- abiding people of Britain, obey the law and allow over 200, 000 babies to be butchered in their mother’s wombs every year.

    One day the law will also find that you are guilty of breaking the laws of the State and its elite rulers, and they will not even have to send the police around to collect you at 4.00 am; you will simply say goodbye to your family and walk into the gulag.

    There is a law above that of the state and as a Christian I have to obey God, not man.

  62. Jock S. Trap 26 Jan 2011, 8:36am

    @ Rose

    People are making out that because of this case brought by the Gay couple the owners now face financial ruin.

    However the B&B couple claim they are paying £2,800 a month on a 25 year morgage on a £81,000 property. The sums don’t add up because on a 5% interest morgage that actually would add up to around £4,000 a year of which £330 is monthly payments.

    Being that this couple claim to have had this property for quite some years if their figures are right it would suggest that their business problems started a long time ago.

    Far from the claim that this case may see them loosing their property, I think they are using this case to boost their income of the backs of discrimination. I feel they are using their Christian beliefs to try and take the high ground, with the view that Christianity cannot lose and make money out of it to prop up their business problems.

    May not be true but it’s the way I see it.

  63. Jock S. Trap 26 Jan 2011, 8:39am

    Good grief, David Skinners back I see. What is it Mr Skinner a quiet month for your blog? Coming here lookin for ammo by any chance? or has that twitch in those loins got the better of you again? Opps sorry that make me feel sick!

  64. david skinner 26 Jan 2011, 8:40am

    People talk of Christians trying to impose their views on the rest of society. Ridiculous; it is Hegelian Marxism and gay ideology that fall on us daily like black atomic dust. It comes out of the TV and radio and it is sweeping through our education system.

    The hypocracy of the bigotted and gay militants who say we should have open and honest debate on this whole issue are the ones, like the many contributors on this site who would silence any dissent, is breathtaking. All those who have got their nickers in a twist over one solitary Christian turning up on this site, as they pour obscenity and personal abuse on me clearly do not want debate. Well that is their choice but please do not claim that you want freedom of speech and thought, when all you want to impose is not dhimmitude ( though that is just around the corner) but sodhimmitude.

  65. Jock S. Trap 26 Jan 2011, 8:42am

    They said on the tellybox yesterday that only 16% of people get the Daily Hatemail. I mistook that and thought they meant that 16 was the average IQ level of the Daily Hatemail reader!

  66. “All those who have got their nickers in a twist over one solitary Christian turning up on this site”

    LOL! Oh, boo-fcuking-hoo!

    Its a gay site. You’re are unwavering in your hatred of gay people. Egro, its you who cannot debate. So, what do you think you should do, David? Put the words “lost” and “get” together for starters, you will find no converts to your superstitious nonsense in here, in fact you’re brand of crap is dying like those dinosaurs that all snuffed it 6,000 years ago.

    The very notion that an offensive reptile like you is the injured party is a sign of your mental state, David, and quote frankly laughable.

  67. de Villiers 26 Jan 2011, 8:47am

    > There is a law above that of the state and as a Christian I have to obey God, not man.

    > Well the good and law – abiding people of Germany did just that during the 30’s and 40’s.

    In a free country there is a distinction between the law’s protection of the right to hold and express a belief and the law’s protection of that belief’s substance or content.

    The law offers protection of the Christian’s right to hold and express his or her beliefs. By contrast it does not, and should not, offer any protection of the substance or content of those beliefs on the ground only that they are based on religious precepts.

    The general law may protect a particular social or moral position which is espoused by Christianity, not because of its religious imprimatur, but on the footing that in reason its merits commend themselves.

    The Judaeo-Christian tradition, has exerted a profound influence upon the judgment of lawmakers as to the objective merits of social policy. But the conferment of any legal protection upon a particular moral position on the ground only that it is espoused by the adherents of a particular faith, however long its tradition, however rich its culture, is now wrong.

    It would impose compulsory law, not to advance the general good on objective grounds, but to give effect to the force of subjective opinion. This must be so, since in the eye of everyone save the believer, religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence. It may be true but the ascertainment of such a truth lies beyond the means by which laws are made in a reasonable society.

    We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion – any belief system – cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens; and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic. The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law; but the State, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself.

    So it is that the law must firmly safeguard the right to hold and express religious belief; equally firmly, it must eschew any protection of such a belief’s content in the name only of its religious credentials. Both principles are necessary conditions of a free regime.

  68. “What is it Mr Skinner a quiet month for your blog?”

    You mean all 4 of his readers were sedated for waking up the other patients in the ward with their jesus-screaming, Jock?

  69. david skinner 26 Jan 2011, 8:53am

    God is always forgiving
    Some people are forgiving
    But God’s laws of morality and nature are never forgiving.

    Psalm 2 says.

    Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
    The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
    Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
    He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision.
    Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
    Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
    I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
    Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
    Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.
    Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
    Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
    Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

    Oh, and let us not forget that the Christian Institute relies upon private subscriptions, which are limited.

    Whereas the Equality and Human Rights and Stonewall are funded by the public whose coffers are a bottomless pit. The public is actually funding its own destruction.

  70. de Villiers 26 Jan 2011, 8:58am

    David,

    Repeating religious tracts is not argument. It is the equivalent of trying to shout down the person opposite you.

    I would hazard that most contributors on this board are not theologians and are in no position to enter into a debate on the particular religious texts to which you refer. For you to quote them baldly is to hide behind a blanket of security without putting forward any actual argument.

    The religious text is not the argument itself. The debate is the role of religion in a free society and its interaction with the law. With that, you have made no real attempt to engage.

  71. david skinner 26 Jan 2011, 9:03am

    The Sexual Orientation Regulations ( SORs, or should that be SORES?) were not handed down from heaven, like the Ten Commandments as self evident truths. They were overseen by people, like the ex-anarchist, Marxist ideologue and lesbian, IVF mother, Angela Mason – hardly someone whom you would wish to meet on a dark night. In her younger days she was in court for attempting to blow up leading members of the Conservative party. She was Stonewall’s first chief executive in 1992, until 2002, when she moved on to work in the Department of Trade and Industry.
    It was here, in 2006, whilst she headed up the Women and Equality Unit, that she oversaw the writing of the Sexual Orientation Regulations . She also helped to create the ECHR and is one of its commissioners – the very organisation, using public funds, that is determined to trample the human rights of Mr and Mrs Bull – and of you and me.

    The present Chief executive is a bully boy who would not be out of place in Hitler’s Gestapo. I refer of course to Ben Summerskill.

    The zeal with which Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of Britain from 2007 – 2010, continued to suppress the freedom to criticise homosexuality through the use of police intimidation and the possibility of a seven year prison sentence was hardly surprising when we see that every leading political party not only has gay MPs and their supporters on every frontbench, but at the heart of power in Downing St.
    In the Labour government there was the “straight” Maria Eagle, the ex – Parliamentary under Secretary of for justice, charged with delivering the Equality Bill, and her lesbian, twin sister, ex – Secretary to the Treasury, Angela Eagle. There were homosexuals such as Chris Bryant, the ex – Deputy Leader of the House of Commons and Ben Bradshaw, the ex – Secretary for Culture, Media and Sport – not to mention Peter Mandelson, the puppet master and ex -secretary for Trade and Industry ( department responsible for the SORs) and ex – European commissioner for Trade. Nick Brown, was chief whip for making sure Labour MPs vote the way they were told to. Then there is Ray Collins, the General Secretary to the Labour Party and the the erstwhile Head of Strategy and Planning, Spencer Livermore. There is also Michael Cashman, MEP for the West Midlands and member of Labour’s National Executive Committee and Kirsty McNeill, the ex – Political Adviser, No10 Downing St.

  72. Is he just cutting and pasting nonsense now? Cut’n’Paste, the resource of the desperate and those who lack debating skills.

    Ironic he should reference Hitler, given Skinner’s hate for other religions and gay people is identical to Heinrich Himmler’s hate for the Jews. Of, course, Himmler didn’t repent either, and though he was doing “god’s work” too. Many similarities between him and our less then erudite pal here.

    Except Himmler would never use such awful and humourless puns and word plays.

  73. david skinner 26 Jan 2011, 9:11am

    Not so De Villiers, the gay, or not so gay community do not engage in reasoned debate. They hided behind mantras like ” tolerant”, inclusion, non – discrimination, equality , progressive, 21st first century. Wave any of these cards and reason becomes suspended. But the real ace in the pack is to accuse someone of being “homophobic”. That one produces total and absolute paralyisis.. Actually, I forgot gays, like Elton John, hide behind celebrity, entertainment and humour.

    De Villiers I don’t hide and I have to tell you that just as you refer to the gay ideology transcriipt and manuel, I refer to the Bible for my guidance.

    If you think that the Christians who even as I write are being murdered and raped in their thousand in Muslims countries are hiding behind their Bilbles , you need to get out a bit more.

  74. Jock S. Trap 26 Jan 2011, 9:12am

    Yep think that well be it Wills.

    What all this boils down to in plain and simple speak is….

    Christians (not all) have spent years, decades even centuries murdering, torturing, raping, starving… the list goes on, all in society they disagree with. If they truly believed in the Bible they would follow it. Instead they’ve used it for power, discrimination and abuse.

    Now that society is finally fighting back (not physically mind) and saying that this chistian behaviour is not acceptable in a decent society the christians, so used to their barbaric ways, are having temper tantrums because like all control freaks they resent looking any control.

    Having been in relationships with control freaks its actually not hard to see the similarty. When a control freak senses they are losing control thats when they usually turn to violent and abusive means to rein in the control.

    Sound familar?

  75. Jock, you’re quite right. Of course, David Skinner is a prime example of an old fool who can’t understand the world around him and is riddled with paranoia and fear as he approaches his deathbed. Its a sad state of affairs, but one unfortunately common amongst older people that live in fear, and one that the medical community could offer him help with if he wasn’t so deluded.

    I quite enjoy his rants, the prove to me his kind are a dying breed, and we’re on the winning track in the battle for the support of reasonable people. And ranting like he does on a gay site at his age is, well, just embarrassing… Like an old person who urinates on themselves in public.

  76. de Villiers 26 Jan 2011, 9:17am

    The problem with your reference to the self-evident nature of your religion is, as stated above, that religious faith is necessarily subjective. It is incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence.

    Whether or not the tenets of your religion are correct, the ascertainment of such a truth lies beyond the means by which laws are made in a reasonable society.

    Your individual conscience is free to accept religious, dictated law. The State, however, if its population is to be free in a democracy, must reject the acceptance by its origin of religious law and must consider itself what laws are appropriate to enable and guarantee a free society.

    Therefore, the law should protect the right of religious persons to hold and express their religious belief. However, it must also refuse to protect such a belief’s content in the name only of its religious credentials.

  77. This is a comment made by Skinner on one of those fanatical jesus-freaks sites: “What is an intellectual idea is to presuppose that the marriage of semen and excrement will develop into anything other than deadly bacteria.”

    Bacteria. Indeed. Is there anything as odious and malignant than a person like Skinner?

    A christian he is most certainly not.

    In fact the best thing he can do for society is expedite his death, and stop wasting resources that could be better used for a more deserving individual.

  78. the poverty sisters 26 Jan 2011, 9:31am

    Gay staff Paid off to keep quiet by London Aids Charity – lets face it equality is a load of B*ll*cks

    CRUSAID E-MAIL HIV STAFF”GET ANOTHER JOB WITH A BETTER EMPLOYER” ! ! ! !

    Crusaids HIV staff request a Contract of employment with correct start month & removal of someone else’s AIDS Diagnosis from Staff Appraisal….to Trustees & advised to “GET ANOTHER JOB WITH A BETTER EMPLOYER”
    From: irenwick@liberty.co.uk
    To: XXXXXXXXXXhotmail.com
    Subject: Crusaid discussions
    Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 13:20:47 +0000
    Dear XXXXXXXX,
    Thank you for the email that Robin has forwarded to me as you have requested. I am fully aware of the issues you have raised and hope that your meeting with Robin in January will resolve these for you.
    I understand that there is an issue with the given start date on your contract of employment. I also know that you have pointed this out to Robin and that he has offered to look at and amend this for you. However you have included this in your formal complaint and under the procedures that we have in place, this must be handled in the meeting. No-one has at any point inferred or indicated as your email suggests that your job is being terminated.
    We are aware of the importance of stress in the management of the HIV virus. However when a formal complaint is lodged, we do have to follow the procedures we have in place. It is the trustees’ view that a speedy meeting according to our procedures that can resolve your concerns is the best way to deal with the current situation. I understand that Robin has made himself available to meet with you at the earliest convenient time.
    Crusaid Head of Dept Charity e-mail to HIV Police Panel Member…..
    “pendantic,uncooperative and causing stress hassle and pain to alot of people” …..If Crusaid is so bad get another Job with a better employer”
    Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:12:56 +0000
    From: RobinB@crusaid.org.uk
    To: xxxxxxxxxxcrusaid.org.uk; xxxxxxcrusaid.org.uk; hotmail.com
    I want to see the two of you in the meeting room tomorrow at 10 am. No excuses. I sincerely hope that this email conversation has not been widely distributed.
    Robin Brady
    Chief Executive
    From: LGILMORE@hamlins.co.uk
    To: XXXXXXXaol.com
    Subject: RE: Thank You Invitation to Crusaid Events
    Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 10:31:55 +0000
    Dear
    XXXXXXX
    Thank you for the email As you know I am co-chair of Crusaid as
    well as their legal adviser .I am writing this to you in the latter capacity as
    Crusaid’s solicitor . THAT WAS THE END
    Crusaid THEN Sends Letter requesting feedback AND DONATION to HIV Police Panel Member after advising them to “GET ANOTHER JOB WITH A BETTER EMPLOYER !!!!

    To: Crusaid Trustees
    After your high court injunction e-mail which as you can imagine was very distressing,followed by a letter from a Head of Department a few weels later at Crusaid about being “the lifeblood of all we do, we could not go on without you” which is very kind of you all at Crusaid I received a few weeks later a letter from the CEO of Crusaid requesting a small donation and feedback on the running of the Charity with a pre-paid envelope and the CEO in their letter to me advising me in writing that Crusaid values feedback and to use the new e-mail address feedback@crusaid.org.uk could I therefore respectfully request you and the Board of Trustees’ clarify to me what sort of feedback on the running of Crusaid you and the CEO would like me to provide you with and I will then give your written request for feedback on the running of Crusaid the attention it deserves.
    From: Laurence Gilmore (LGILMORE@hamlins.co.uk)
    Sent: 20 November 2006 18:26:10
    To: xxxxxxxxxxxxhotmail.com)
    Robin
    What is this about and why is he on circulation lists!!!
    Best as ever,
    Laurence
    Tel: 020 7355 6102
    From: LGILMORE@hamlins.co.uk
    To: xxxxxxxxhotmail.com; Angus.Hamilton@btinternet.com
    CC: AElliot@ukcoalition.org; guscairns@blueyonder.co.uk; bforbes@ukcoalition.org; AKeightley@ukcoalition.org
    Mon, 26 Mar 2007 17:52:53 +0100
    Dear XXXXXXX
    I have written to you today. We discussed this matter…. An error occurred. I dealt with it swiftly. … you are going on the walk….which is MARVELLOUS!

  79. The Bull’s are hypocrites. Not simply for their “adherence” to their faith which is a cherrypicked scandal at best (if you follow the bible you must follow all of the bible, not just the bits you want to; cheap grace doesn’t get you saved). No, their hypocrisy is literal. They allowed an unmarried couple to share a double-room in 2006, despite the couple’s obvious unmarried status. Unluckily for the Bull’s, the man was a council member of the National Secular Society, one Dr Ray Newton. No rings on their fingers, different surnames, and not a peep about Peter and Hazelmary’s “married couples only” policy.

    These two sanctimonious hypocrites are the same as all other fundamentalists, they pick and choose their beliefs to satisfy their own prejudices, and ignore the majority of what is written in the bible. For this they can hardly be called Christian. Indeed, these types of people usually completely ignore the basic teachings of Jesus, their saviour and lord, and turn to the Jewish law of Leviticus and Deuteronomy for thier sad kicks. Which of course, they selectively read and follow without thought or care for their arrogance.

    And no, I don’t believe the Christian Institute, nor the Christian Legal Fund (what a joke that is) has won any discrimination cases, mainly because they seem to be fighting against the law (not to mention the words of their saviour and lord).

    And people, Dave Skinner? The words imbecile and irrational plonker spring to mind. Obvious troll is way too obvious, so please leave him be and allow him to return to his lair under the billy goats bridge with his insubstantial tail between his legs. You can’t debate sensibly and logically with a fundamentalist they simply have no common-sense nor a desire to adhere to objective criticism. Emotional ranting is the best they can muster when their dearly held beliefs are challenged, rather like SWP and NF members. And you can’t compile an intelligent argument from a book that has so many inconsistencies and flaws in it that you could sail HMS Belfast through its loopholes. So just leave the poor little gibberant alone will you, with his gibberish, and his prejudices.

  80. The Heretic Philosopher 26 Jan 2011, 9:36am

    @ David Skinner

    The Divine Command Theory

    Questions of right and wrong, good and bad, virtue and vice are the kind of things that we might expect to lose sleep over: abortion, euthanasia, human rights, treatment of animals, stem cell research…a never ending list of perilous and supercharged issues. More than any other area, ethics feels like a minefield – treacherous terrain where you expect to be tripped up at any moment, yet where stumbling might prove very costly.

    Paradoxically, though, for many people the business of moralizing is, on the face of it, more like a stroll in the park. In the minds of millions of people morality is inextricably tied up with religion: this or that is right or wrong for the simple reason that God (or a god) has ordained that it should be so; good is good and bad is bad because God says so.

    In each of the three ‘religions of the Book’ – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – the system of morality is based on ‘divine command’: it is for God to command, humans to obey; God imposes on its worshippers a set of moral injunctions; virtuous behaviour requires obedience, while disobedience is a sin. Surely such a code of ethical rules, underwritten by God’s own hand, should banish the concerns that beset subjectivist accounts of morality – the nasty suspicion that we are making up the rules as we go along?

    “No morality can be founded on authority, even if the authority were divine.” A. J. Ayer, 1968

    The Euthyphro dilemma – Without God, of course, the divine command theory immediately collapses, but even allowing that God does exist, there are still a number of serious problems threatening the theory. Probably the gravest of these is the so-called Euthyphro dilemma, first raised by Plato some 2400 years ago in his dialogue ‘Euthyphro’. Socrates ( Plato’s mouthpiece in his dialogues) engages a young man named Euthyphro in a discussion of the nature if piety. They agree that piety is ‘whatever is loved by the gods’, but then Socrates poses a crucial question: are pious things pious because they are loved by the gods, or are they loved by the gods because they are pious? It is on the horns of this dilemma (usually expressed in monotheistic terms) that the divine command theory is caught.

    So, is what is good good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good? Neither alternative is very palatable to the divine command theorist. Taking the first part: killing (say) happens to be wrong because God commands it, but things might have been otherwise. God might have ordained that killing is OK or even obligatory, and it would have been – just because God said so. On this reading religious observance adds up to little more than blind obedience to an arbitrary authority. So does the alternative fare any better? Not really. If God commands what is good because it is good, clearly its goodness is independent of God. At best God’s role is that of moral messenger, passing on ethical prescriptions but not the source of them. So we could go straight to the source and happily shoot the messenger. At least in the role of moral lawmaker, God is redundant. So when it comes to morality, either God is arbitrary or God is irrelevant. Not an easy choice for those seeking to make God the guarantor or sanction of their ethics.

    A common counter attack on the Euthyphro dilemma is to insist that ‘God is good’ and therefore that it would not command evil. But this line of attack risks circularity or incoherence. If ‘good’ means ‘commanded by God’, ‘God is good’ will be virtually meaningless – something like ‘God is such that it complies with its own commands’.

    More promising, perhaps, is to take the phrase to mean ‘God is (identical with) good(ness)’ and therefore that its commands will inevitably be good. But if Godness and goodness are one and the same, ‘God is good’ is utterly vacuous: no light has been shed and we have gone in a circle – an example, perhaps, of God’s fondness for moving in mysterious ways.

    (From 50 Philosophy Ideas You Really Need To Know, by Ben Dupre)

  81. Good post Jennifer.

    What I want to know is if god is so omnipotent, and hates gays so much, as our enlightened Skinner says, why did he allow this case to fail? Surely he could/would have influenced this in his favour?

    So, the fact the case was won for equality and civil liberties, means that god, if he exists, actually doesn’t agree with Skinner. Which makes Skinner a liar.

  82. If Peter and Hazelmary Bull should win this apeal, the judgment will set a precedent for countless claims discrimination would be rampant.

    If the appeals court rules that the Bull’s are allowed to ban gay couples from sleeping together in the same room, it will open the floodgates to a deluge of similar religious-motivated claims for exemption from the equality laws.

    “Businesses would grind to a halt, and social cohesion decline, as religious fundamentalists of all hues claimed the right to discriminate on faith grounds. Our equality laws would soon be in shreds. Discrimination would become rampant again. It would be hugely damaging to harmonious community relations.”

    Mr Tatchell also said: “Peter and Hazelmary were offering a service to the public by providing hotel accommodation. Everyone who provides services to the public should do so without discrimination. That’s the law. People of faith cannot legitimately claim exemption from equality laws that apply to everyone else. “

  83. david skinner 26 Jan 2011, 10:26am

    Heretic Philosopher, you seem to have drowned yourself and us in sophistry, much of which will just make the eyes glaze over.

    Jennifer, you’re just too kind; I don’t deserve such praise. I am truly humbled and regard any insult from you as true flattery.

    Will, it is Hegelian and Marxist philosophy that is incommuncable. The Bible though not always the easiest book to understand, in essence is understood by children and so called half wits. The Bible appeals to everyone, from great scientists and astronauts to savages living in the jungle. And as for God not showing up to defend the Bulls, neither did to save Christ from the cross. What was it he cried to his Father in Heaven?
    ” Why have you foresaken me?” And yet we know that that was not the end of the story . He arose from the dead and conquered death, Satan and sin.

    Tell me Will, I could engage with you for hours on passages from the Bible. God has spoken; he is not silent. but I doubt whether you could communicate to me what lies behind gay ideology. Tell me for instance what it has to say about ontologiy, epistemology and moral, the three pillars of all philosophical thought. I could tell you and it is prettey horrible.

  84. How many starving and sick childrens lives could the Christian Institute save with the tens maybe hundreds of thousands of pounds they are happy to spend on funding their hatred of gay people?
    It’s plain to see what is more important to them. I’m glad Christianity is a dying religion in the UK. They might wake up one day and see why.
    Christian = Hypocrite.

  85. David Skinner wrote

    “the gay, or not so gay community do not engage in reasoned debate. They hided behind mantras like ” tolerant”, inclusion, non – discrimination, equality , progressive, 21st first century”

    . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    David . . . Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians like your self do not engage in debate, your comments are evidence of this.

    David . . . Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians like your self do not hide behind sin and hatred, you shout it loudly and call it Christian doctrine.

    David . . . there is nothing more intolerant, discriminative and regressive; than the hate filled rhetoric you continue to spout on these sites.

  86. David . . . once again your ramble on incoherent – how did you ever managed as an “Art Teacher”?

  87. @david skinner — “Harry, why should I cast pearls before swine? No matter how much evidence I put before you , it will make not a jot of difference. You would simply choose to disbelieve it – not because you were incapable of understanding it, but simply because you don’t want to.”

    Try me. Put yourself to the test.

  88. “And as for God not showing up to defend the Bulls, neither did to save Christ from the cross.”

    i.e. god is useless, or doesn’t exist. Its simple logic. If he could, he would. If he can’t, then he’s not god, or even there in the first place.

    “The Bible though not always the easiest book to understand, in essence is understood by children and so called half wits.”

    No, its believed by children and halfwits. Only the uninformed believe in a book that condones murder, rape, incest and slavery. Bible is irrelevant its contradictory nonsense. That’s is your ideology, Skinner, and its a vile one, repugnant to a civilised individual like myself. Make no mistake you are no christian. even christians would shun you.

    Lets not forget you think the earth is 6,000 years old, despite all scientific knowledge to the contrary, and the only “proof” you have on your side is a silly children story about a talking snake and a naked chick…. again I refer to the “halfwits”.

    “but I doubt whether you could communicate to me what lies behind gay ideology.”

    Gay ideology???? Since when is seeking a life free from discrimination and personal harm from the likes of you “gay ideology”? You mean democratic ideology. Yes, one of support of human rights and freedoms from persecution. That’s what separates me from you, Skinner, and ultimate makes me a better person than you can even comprehend.

  89. The Christian lobby complains that Christians are being discriminated against.

    The Bulls and there backers need to think very carefully.

    If they eventually win the right to discriminate then others will have similar arguments to discriminate against them.

    As Christianity is a shrinking religion in the UK this push for special rights will eventually cost them.

  90. @davidskinner…seriously…yawn…

    David you are sending me to sleep with your droll diatribe of stupidity.

    Did anybody elses eyes glaze over after reading the rubbish that david skinner copied and pasted from someone else and then tried to pass it off as his own.

    David…seriously…if you insist on writing crap…at least have the audacity to write your own crap!

  91. all skinner is posting is I hate queers and pink news allows it what the point of this site?

  92. @david skinner – the only ignorant one is you with your homophobic rantings

  93. David Skinner can suck my plums,
    I wouldn’t dignify this trolls flaming comments by engaging with him.
    But if you find it entertaining drawing out his pathetic and lunatic comments do as you please.

  94. “This is hard work folks.”

    You’re telling me, talking to you is like taking to an imbecile.

    Time’s up Skinner, democracy is trumping theocracy.

    And while you’re at the dentist, ask him what’s wrong with your brain stem, and why it doesn’t work properly with that malignant growth in your head you call a brain.

  95. Daid Skinner does have a point. Where *are* the gay voices of dissent? Where are the queer-identified people who believe that queer sexualities don’t really exist??

  96. @david skinner — “No matter how much evidence I put before you , it will make not a jot of difference.”

    “This is hard work folks.”

    Then what on earth are you hoping to achieve ?

  97. “Then what on earth are you hoping to achieve?”

    I think he wants some kind of validation that his persecution of innocent gay people (which he describes as “bacteria”) is actually god inspired and we somehow thank him for the privileged…. like David Koresh demanded similar validation his of his followers. They had to shoot him because he was mad too.

  98. Jock S. Trap 26 Jan 2011, 12:02pm

    “Then what on earth are you hoping to achieve ?”

    He’s hoping to get an audience so he can spew his warped comments and Bible bashing in the hope of provoking a reaction as ammunition so he can use it against us on his blog. He has no interest in debating, it is purely self-interest so he thinks he can discredit the LGBT community. I’m sure if no-one agrees with him soon he’ll change his name so it looks like someone is.

    Like leopards never change their spots, some christians never change their destructive, devisive, discriminating attitudes. As usual they never see there actions are just wrong, always easier to blame everyone else.

    It’s all Very sad really!

  99. The Heretic Philosopher 26 Jan 2011, 12:07pm

    @ David Skinner..its called the philosophy of ethics. Do you have a valid counter arguement to the issues and questions this extract raises or not?
    You raised the issue of divine command theory with this statement: “as a Christian I have to obey God, not man.”
    You asked for proper debate, I have provided a valid philosophical counter arguement to your statement. Now its your turn.

  100. Well, as a straight person who thinks marriage is a good thing, but not essential in today’s world, and never before had any bug to bare with Homosexuals, have read a lot of these posts and will go away thinking, ‘heterosexuals and Christians, be afraid, be very afraid’

  101. @DavidSkinner. Civilised people would argue that it is someone who blindly follows a chosen faith that is ignorant to the point of delusion or possibly deluded to the point of ignorance.

    There is no such thing as ‘gay ideology’. The right not to be persecuted or oppressed by a small number of bigoted fundamentalist christians is in fact simply a civilised ideology espoused by liberal or moderate religionists, atheists, homosexuals, heterosexuals and people of all races.

    The vast majority of the country unanimously agree that secular law is the only law that can work in a multi-cultured, multi-belief society. Would you be happy to live by Sharia Law? No. Thought not! Do you think that a devout muslim would for one second allow you to dictate that they live under a theocracy. Never.

    Whilst you have a right to be a christian (if that is what floats your boat). You do not have the right to force your extreme religious interpretations onto others.

  102. @ Ade

    “heterosexuals and Christians, be afraid, be very afraid”

    How so? What do you think heterosexuals and Christians have to fear?

  103. Terrified of equality is the only possible answer, the prospect of not being specially privileged to discriminate against others.
    Fear of a level playing field.
    Equality is so terrifying!
    Be afraid be very afraid.

  104. Helen, exactly right. This IS about so called “christians” or others like them who want an exception to the law in public life. That’s at the core of it. NOBODY is above the law, not even the monarch. Religious denominations have absolutely NO right to impose what they think should be the law based on a belief system. Religious beliefs are chosen, learned behaviour, nobody comes into this world that way, their’s is a chosen lifestyle, ours is not even a lifestyle, its who we are, we’re born that way.

    If they believe that a supreme deity created us (last time I checked it was our parents), then they are already at odds with the christian belief in regard to loving their neighbours, exercising charity towards all and forgiving those who offend us. My view is that they are hypocrites of the worst kind.

  105. @Dave Wainwright:
    “They are looking forward to pinning the imminent death of Mr Bull on this “ATTACK ON CHRISTIAN FAITH”, they are really stirring it up in the mail and mail group thisis sites,”

    Yes, Peter Bull is ill but it has no bearing on the legality of of this discrimnination case.
    Still as you say, I imagine the Daily Wail and the Christian Institute are secretly hoping for road kill so they can simultaneously canonise Mr Bull and demonise gays and lesbians.
    The poor chap is probably worth more to them dead than alive in terms of emotive anti-gay propaganda.

  106. “It was equal rights for gays wot finished him off… repeal gay human rights”
    …they’ll be saying.

    I certainly hope it doesn’t come to that however discriminatory the Bulls are.
    I have an acquaintance of a similar age who recently had a 5 bypass operation, if Peter Bull recovers well from the bypass operation he could have another good 15 yrs or more, I hope so.

  107. The CI must be paying the old boot. You couldn’t mark her with an axe.

  108. Funny how Ade uses the word “homosexuals” instead of “gay”…. and yet he maintains to have no issues there.

  109. @Ade — when you say you’ve “never before had any bug to bare with Homosexuals” that’s not entirely true though. For example, on the ‘Gay couple win case over hotel ban’ thread

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/01/18/gay-couple-win-case-over-hotel-ban/

    you said “… gay rights, gay this and gay that, no one is ever going to convince me that being homosexual is a norm, because it just isn’t, nature does not make allowances for one sex relationships”.

  110. LOL! Harry, very well spotted! I had an idea that anyone that can’t bring them to use the word “gay” usually is a bigot, and Ade is clearly that case. How embarrassing for him.

  111. Dave North 26 Jan 2011, 3:06pm

    Skinner.

    Please just F..k off……………..

  112. Dave North, didn’t you hear? Mr. Skinner needs to go to the dentist. Probably to have his teeth removed because his mouth got infected with all the excrement that spews out of it.

  113. Every time I read the rants of David Skinner, I think of this poem:

    Hate has burned a gaping hole;
    The rancid reek of charring flesh
    Is dancing on my very soul.
    And as the rising fumes enmesh
    My crumpled heart, I play the role
    Of crabby fart, gassing off
    A diatribe; bleeding out a
    Bitter part: an ugly twisted man.

    (Copyright Mark R Slaughter 2009)

  114. I do wish that people commenting here would realise that David Skinner is seriously mentally ill, in that he is suffering from religious mania. It is not possible to debate rationally with those who are irrational, which is what lunatics like Skinner clearly are! Ignore what he says for it can have no relevance to sane, rational people.

  115. I’m going to take my boyfriend to Cornwall and get intimate with him in the single bed! I will make him howl the place down for hours! When I’m done I will wipe my d*ck on the curtains! Worth £80 I say! Any one wanna join me?

  116. The last Pride March in London had over 1 Million attendees!

    Imagine if they turned nasty, the police would not stand a chance.

  117. If you thought David Skinner was paranoid?

    Come and join the debate with another Fundamentalist who is threatening to publish our debate in his local newspaper

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/01/18/gay-couple-win-case-over-hotel-ban/

    His name is John, he is an Essex based Plymouth Breathren Minister

  118. Looks like the UN are on our side David Skinner.

    Ban Ki Moon, UN Secretary-General’s remarks to the Human Rights Council 25 January 2011

    We must reject persecution of people because of their sexual orientation or gender identity ? who may be arrested, detained or executed for being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.

    They may not have popular or political support, but they deserve our support in safeguarding their fundamental human rights.

    I understand that sexual orientation and gender identity raise sensitive cultural issues. But cultural practice can not justify any violation of human rights.

    Women’s treatment as second-class citizens has been justified, at times, as a “cultural practice.” So has institutional racism and other forms of inhuman punishment.

    But that is merely an excuse. When our fellow humans are persecuted because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, we must speak out.

    That is what I am doing here, that is my consistent position.

  119. “Come and join the debate with another Fundamentalist who is threatening to publish our debate in his local newspaper”

    Hey JohnK: there can’t be many Plymouth Brethren ministers in Essex who engage with Pink News from time to time, so I guess you mean me … so hear this from the horses mouth as it were … while I have sympathy with the B&B owners and Mr Skinner come to that (would you expect anything else?), I can also see the other other side of the debate, However, I HAVE NO INTENTION of publishing as you suggest (where did you get that from btw?)

    If you can’t answer, an apology for misrepresentation would be nice :-)

  120. @John — “However, I HAVE NO INTENTION of publishing as you suggest (where did you get that from btw?) ”

    I don’t know, but I’d suggest that the comment under the name ‘John’ on this thread:

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/01/18/gay-couple-win-case-over-hotel-ban/

    that was published on 26 January 2011, 10:51am and says:

    “4) I reserve the right to publish the outcome of our debate on my website and local Newspaper (along with any unreasonable comments made by other gay members – which will be ignored). Please make note!”

  121. “Two men, three men, five men and a donkey or man with a bicycle or pavement, fusing their sperm with excrement or axle grease, do not produce new life – only the production of HIV, AIDs and a trip to St Barts Hospital to the bum department.”

    David Skinner: there is a lot you say I agree with, some I’m not sure or disagree, and I do sympathise with you – I’ve been there myself :-) – having stuck my neck out and then being vilified – but then this might be expected as most of the folk here do have strongly opposing views after all.

    But do you really need to make comments like the above? – just stick to the facts (i.e. truth) and be as gracious as you can (respect those who see it differently) – I’m sure that’s what the good book would teach us!?

  122. Harry: I’m still a bit confused – I couldn’t see anything in thr link that contains the comment JohnK alleges I made. I appreciate all of us can get it wrong but also we need to keep to the facts and not invent new “facts” to make a point.

  123. @david skinner — you say you want debate:

    “The hypocracy of the bigotted and gay militants who say we should have open and honest debate on this whole issue are the ones, like the many contributors on this site who would silence any dissent, is breathtaking. All those who have got their nickers in a twist over one solitary Christian turning up on this site, as they pour obscenity and personal abuse on me clearly do not want debate. Well that is their choice but please do not claim that you want freedom of speech and thought, when all you want to impose is not dhimmitude ( though that is just around the corner) but sodhimmitude.”

    but then you say:

    “Harry, why should I cast pearls before swine? No matter how much evidence I put before you , it will make not a jot of difference. You would simply choose to disbelieve it – not because you were incapable of understanding it, but simply because you don’t want to. This blindness is both self – induced and supernatural. You will only believe when the Muslims, for whom you will have acted a catalyst, dominate this country and drag you out into the street for a demonstration of Shariah law. Only then will you believe, by which time it will be too late for you.”

  124. @John — in answer to your question, “I’m still a bit confused – I couldn’t see anything in thr link that contains the comment JohnK alleges I made. I appreciate all of us can get it wrong but also we need to keep to the facts and not invent new “facts” to make a point.”:
    In the comments section of the link:

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/01/18/gay-couple-win-case-over-hotel-ban/

    there is a comment under the name ‘John’ that was published on 26 January 2011, 10:51am and says:

    “4) I reserve the right to publish the outcome of our debate on my website and local Newspaper (along with any unreasonable comments made by other gay members – which will be ignored). Please make note!”

    which I think is in response to JohnK’s comment of 26 January 2011, 5:38pm:

    “If you thought David Skinner was paranoid?
    Come and join the debate with another Fundamentalist who is threatening to publish our debate in his local newspaper
    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/01/18/gay-couple-win-case-over-hotel-ban/
    His name is John, he is an Essex based Plymouth Breathren Minister”

  125. Trouble is, the right-wing Christians of this country are going to throw hundreds of thousands of pounds behind this appeal to try and make damn sure they win it and set a precedent, i.e. that Christians may act according to all of their delusions in public.

    And they’ll be able to quote the “great” Peter Tatchell too in their defense, for Tatchell recently publicly proclaimed that homophobic remarks made in public by Christians should not be punishable.

  126. Harry, JohnK
    I think I’ve figured out what is going – the comment made in the discussion thread referred to, was by John BUT IT WASN’T ME. I suppose I need to change my name :-) I would be highly surprised is this usurper John is also a Plymouth Brethren minister from Essex as JohnK suggests :-)

  127. @John — I guess so ! Prompted me to sign up to Gravatar service and get a picture which is a lal more unique.

  128. Thanks Harry. I like your graphic but not sure I understand it!? Anyway, you’ve inspired me to look into this gravatar business myself – I guess it is fairly straightforward!?

  129. @John — yes it’s very straightforward.

    My icon ? Well, just a some local street art !

    By the bye — would someone tell me how I get bold and italic text in my posts ?

  130. “By the bye — would someone tell me how I get bold and italic text in my posts ?”

    Harry, use html tags, for example for bold put before and after what you want to emphasise in bold (remove the spaces, I had to add them so they would not be interpreted as tags)

    e.g. bold produces bold

    Same for “i” (instead of b) for italics.

    So, now you can write things like:- Dave Skinner is a total idiot and is vile creature beyond redemption.

    Hope this helps…. 101 web design :)

  131. Bugger, I though that might happen. Sorry Harry, it disregarded the spaces and interpreted my tags as, well, tags.

    I’ll do the same example again Harry except with full stops (remove these when you want to use)

    For bold put before and after what you want to emphasise in bold (remove the full stops)

    Same for “i” (instead of b) for italics, italics text

  132. Okay, that totally didn’t work either. Let me write in english, and hope you get the jist:

    Type your text to bold

    (if this doest work I’ll just post a link…… grrrrr)

  133. Thanks Harry

    Trying to see if my Gravatar works.

    I also would like to incorporate bold, italic and also smilers – anyone can point the way?

  134. ….aaaaaand it didn’t work either. Any use of tag wit or without spaces is interpreted as a tag, so that’s why they were removed from my posts.

    Here’s the link: http://www.tizag.com/htmlT/htmlbold.php

    I really should have done this first time, instead if looking like I was writing gibberish. Hope this is of some use Harry, ignore the last three rubbish posts.

  135. Thanks Will
    I guess it works then
    bgcolor=”rgb(0,0,255)”
    what about smileys :-)

  136. Phew! Thankfully! I was beginning to look like an gingering idiot there. And one Dave Skinner is enough.

    The posts only accept (I think) b and i tags. I have never seen an underline or colour tag being used.

  137. gingering??? I mean gibbering. What’s wrong with me tonight….

  138. What a joke 26 Jan 2011, 7:47pm

    The CHRISTIANS should put a sign outside saying
    NO GAYS ALLOWED.

    The KKK like signs that say
    NO BLACKS ALLOWED.

    The N4ZI’S like signs that say
    NO JEWS ALLOWED.

  139. The Heretic Philosopher 26 Jan 2011, 8:54pm

    @ David Skinner…I’m still waiting for you to provide a counter arguement to the Euthyphro Dilemma. Are we having a reasoned debate or not?

  140. @John . . . Apologise

    I thought this was you posting on the thread below, especially since you have the same name. I can see that the Pinknews system of allowing multiple names is proving taxing

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/01/18/gay-couple-win-case-over-hotel-ban/

    Also, I was sure the guy on the above thread (Who I understand is not you), had mentioned he was a Plymouth Breathren Minister

    Apologise once again, no offense meant.

  141. fedupofthis 26 Jan 2011, 9:37pm

    Is it true that gay couples have been besieging the B&B since this ruling to drive this couple out of business completely?
    I see there is a second B&B case with another couple being sued (Mail today).
    Are you looking to make war for peace, when you already had peace?

  142. @fedupofthis

    Are we besieging the B&B?
    Are we making war for peace?

    I see that your accusations towards us (Pinknews readers), are based on stories you read in the DailyMail!!!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350607/Christian-hotel-owners-turned-away-gay-couple-face-business-ruin.html

    DailyMail 26th January

    “‘I’m not a prude, but I’ve been shocked and hurt by the language used,’ Mrs Bull told the Daily Telegraph.”

    ‘”One told me I was an abomination and would go straight to hell. These people know nothing about my lifestyle, and I’ve been astounded by their cruelty.”

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    Does the newspaper say that gay people are making nuisance calls to the B&B?

    Do Christians never call homosexuals an abomination, and never say that they will go straight to hell.

    “fedupofthis” . . . what is your point exactly, apart from accusing every one on pinknews of harrassing the B&B owners?

  143. @ fedupofthis:

    I think you are reading too much Daily Mail sensationalism, do yourself and evryone else a favour and buy a better quality newspaper from now on if you want to be taken seriously.

  144. david skinner 26 Jan 2011, 10:15pm

    The connection between homosexuality and Bolshevism is well document but so also its connection with fascism. Perhaps it is the femmes who are Marxists and the machos who are jack booting fascists.

    No matter, one of the icons of the LGBT History month, apart from Jesus Christ, Elizabeth 1 and Winston Churchill is Ernst Roehm. How extraordinary that this brutal homosexual should be held up by the Schools out team as hero of equality and tolerance.!!

    I believe that johann Hari, an out gay man has it right when he talks about gay fascism. These pathetic individual Martyn and Preddy Ben Summerskills stormtroopers.

    But maybe Will will not accept this as evidence, simply because it is an inconvenient truth.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-strange-strange-story_b_136697.html

    http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id12.html

  145. So David . . .

    Heterosexuals . . . are never interested in facism!

    Heterosexuals . . . never practice facist politics!

    Heterosexuals . . . never become facist leaders of facist parties!

    David . . . how odd!!!

  146. David . . . good to see that you are still . . .

    ((( Paranoid !!!)))

  147. The Heretic Philosopher 26 Jan 2011, 11:16pm

    @ David Skinner…what is your counter arguement for the Euthyphro Dilemma?

  148. david skinner 26 Jan 2011, 11:26pm

    Johnk you are missing the point, I am not talking about the remaining 98-99 % of the population. Of course they can be fascists, paedophiles, adulterers, marxists. But not all 98-99% would identify with either extremists. What I am saying is that Sue Sanders and Tony Fenwick of Schoolsout clearly do identify with Ernst Roehm, otherwise they would not have named him as a gay icon.

    And listen, JohnK , you might identify yourself by your sexual tastes and appetites, but I do not. The heterosexual was an invention of gay proselytisers during the 19th century. The word was coined by them after they had thought up the equally bogus evolutionary classification of homosexual.

    JohnK I identify myself as a man, not a welsh dresser or welsh cross dresser. Just a man. Maybe Johnk, you will supply us with scientific proof that you are gay. If being gay is a scientific truth then surely this would bear scientific analysis.

    But the truth is that the gays have got the words back to front. They are the heterophiles whilst the majority of society is homophile. If we use the correct Greek definition of the prefix “homo, ” Homophobia would mean that we had a visceral hatred and fear of sexual relationships between people of the same kind – mankind (that includes two constituent parts: male and female: the woman was formed from the man : she was bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh).

    Homogenous, homosexual relationships therefore mean those that are uniform, stable harmonious, pure, alike, balanced, comparable, compatible, consistent, equal, same, solid, fixed, connected, continual, equable, even, firm, habitual, immutable, invariable, perpetual, steadfast, steady, together, unalterable, unbroken, constant, of a piece, true, undeviating, unfailing, even, unvarying, enduring, persistent, faithful, and dare I say complementary, – in the same way that a lock and key, plug and socket, man and woman form two constituent parts to form a complete whole. Homosexuals are therefore the 99-99% of the child producing population.

    Check it out yourself with a thesaurus.
    Our gay and liberal accusers are therefore the ones who are homophobic. Not us.

    What we can however be accused of is being heterophobic, for if we use the correct Greek definition of the prefix “hetero”, heterophobia would mean that we had a visceral hatred of sexual relationships that were antithetical to those which were homogenous and all of piece. Heterogeneous, heterosexual relationships are, according the dictionary and thesaurus, different, inconsistent, queer, disparate, conglomerate, discordant, diverse, perverse incongruous, inharmonious, mongrel, odd, complicated, promiscuous and motley compared with us straights, the homosexuals.
    Even straight sexual relationships can be amongst these queer heterosexuals for apart from lesbians, bisexuals, transexuals and transgender there are indeed those who are engaged in masturbation and even auto sodomy using a cast made from their own penises (the ultimate in gay sex). There are also multiple relationships for an indeterminate period of time, thus expanding the class of sexual behaviour and relationships into the polyamorous and polygamous – both straight and gay. However there are other groups wanting to join diversity legions such as those that are incestuous – both straight and gay. There are also paedophiles pushing for their human right for acceptance, both straight and gay (Tatchell et al). Beyond that are the zoophiles – both straight and gay. Finally there are the objectumsexuals – both straight and gay. The woman married to the Eiffel Tower is presumably a lesbian because its gender is feminine, la Tour Eiffel.
    We are not ashamed to call ourselves heterophobic; but unfortunately our adversaries, through self-induced insanity, are incapable or unwilling, to reason any longer.

  149. “The connection between homosexuality and Bolshevism is well document but so also its connection with fascism. Perhaps it is the femmes who are Marxists and the machos who are jack booting fascists.” – David Skinner

    Skinner is the reincarnation of Hitler as this is almost an exact copy of what Hitler said about Jewish people. Its clear Hitler is hero of Skinners to be plagiarised by him!

    Thanks for giving us the link between Evangelical Christianity and fascism

  150. The Heretic Philosopher 27 Jan 2011, 12:09am

    David Skinner, what is your counter arguement for the Euthyphro Dilemma?

  151. The Heretic Philosopher 27 Jan 2011, 12:20am

    Here is some analysis and discussion of the Euthyphro Dilemma for those who may not be familiar with it:

    http://www.bookrags.com/essay-2005/2/20/185114/430

  152. @Will — thanks ! So I’m hoping that just adding HTML should do the trick.

  153. @Will — thanks also !

    @John — nice Gravatar !

  154. @fedupofthis — no idea. Why do you think anyone on this forum would be able to answer your question, unless you believe there is a conspiracy between its members ?

    Please provide a link to the article you mean in the Daily Mail.

    Not sure what you mean by “war” and “peace” — please clarify.

  155. @david skinner — “And listen, JohnK , you might identify yourself by your sexual tastes and appetites, but I do not. The heterosexual was an invention of gay proselytisers during the 19th century. The word was coined by them after they had thought up the equally bogus evolutionary classification of homosexual.”

    So I’m not sure whether you think homosexuals exist ?

  156. John – plymouth brethern bloke

    I thought you lot weren’t supposed to use computers, that’s a bit naughty!

  157. I am may to lazy to read through all of the comments here, but I have a question – which may have been asked before:

    Could a gay-owned B&B ban Christians to sleep together, or even visit their establishment all together? Could you just imagine the torrents of hate-speech from the church leaders, for this “obvious discrimination” on their faith. Perhaps people would then see how stupid this is, on their behalf? Or perhaps not.

    Gay people are more tolerant than that – aren’t we?

  158. “those who are engaged in masturbation and even auto sodomy using a cast made from their own penises (the ultimate in gay sex)”

    There it is folks, the classic Davis Skinner. Eventually, after he exhausts his cut repository of paste “wisdom”, he invariably gets into the real workings of his mind: obsession with sordid sex and his imagination in this area is quite graphic, as you can see. All his posting follow the same course. Every time.

    A very disturbed old man, is Mr. Skinner.

    I believe the vernacular expression is pervert.

  159. “I thought you lot weren’t supposed to use computers, that’s a bit naughty!”

    Hey, usurper John, don’t believe everything you read in the papers – this PB thinks it fair game to develop and use technology providing what one does personally is in order to glorify the almighty!

    “Gay people are more tolerant than that – aren’t we?”

    Shorrrdal: I would like to think that is the case – there certainly is no excuse for anyone to harrass these guys, especially given the law seems to be on your side! As I read it, the Bulls were imposing their own values and sincerely held private morality, in their own home i.e. only married couples in the traditional sense can sleep together – but given it is a business too and the law on equality is as it is there are restrictions in doing so … and that is where we are right now!

  160. Sorry but that plymouth brethern thing took me back to when I was in the Shetlands and some PB nutter stared wildly at me shouting the devil is in the room…scary!

    Also used to have a friend whose father was a “pay for a preacher” PB and used to go around preaching for money, he actually was told to bugger off by his fellow PBs in the highlands becuase he had a car radio so using the computer seems a bit strange if they’re so nutty about radios…..

    My friend was actually great , straight also but got one hell of drama from his PB parents once becuase they discovered a mag in his room with the word gay in to and thought he was one to…poor bugger!

    They’re all mad!!!!!!!!!

    sorry to get off the subject but bloody hell a PB posting on PN…

  161. “especially given the law seems to be on your side!”

    Hard earned, don’t you think? And still people are being murdered around the world simply for being gay and discriminated against for loving someone that is no-one else’s business, and all because some bile-ridden moron read it in an old book somewhere that god told him to.

    What you mean to say, is its about time the law finally stopped persecuting gays based on unfounded personal beliefs structures.

  162. “in their own home”

    Again, this is wrong.

    What is wrong with the neural patterns in the heads of religious people that they cannot, no matter how many times they are told, understand the simple definition difference between “place of business” and and a “home”?

    Really, its not that hard.

  163. (John, my disdain is not directed to you by the way, it might seem so after reading my post, its a “global comment”)

  164. david skinner 27 Jan 2011, 8:28am

    Harry you ask do homosexual exist? You could go on and ask whether heterosexuals exist? The answer is no. You could also ask where paedophiles, zoophiles, necrophiles and all the 30 paraphilias listed on the American Psychological Associations site exist? The answer is no, as far as a paraphilia being an innate, immutable fundamental and genetic characteristic of a person – as it would be with racial characteristics. But is there heterosexual, homosexual, paedophile and cannibal behaviour ? Yes, there certainly is. The theory that we are evolutionary programmed and determined to be fundamentally different kinds of human being lies in the warped and perverted minds of people like Professor Michael King from the Royal College of Psychiatry. Evolution is a theory without any written laws or mathematical formula. Hence conveniently it can never be tested.

  165. David Skinner, motivated by hate and jealousy of a gay former boss.

    Get over it, David – you’d feel a lot better. All that bile is poisoning YOU not us. You must have a very unfulfilled life to spend so much time on a site full of people you despise, and so much time writing petitions to victimise LGBT people.

    Not to mention the constant obsession with gay sex.

    Please continue with your faux-educated rants. You alone do more to turn people from Christianity than most anyone else on the internet. The irony’s lost on you – you speak of wanting to return to some imaginary golden age Christian society, yet every word you write simply serves to turn off more and more readers from Christianity completely.

  166. You’re stupidity astounds me, Skinner. Really, its does.

    “Evolution is a theory without any written laws or mathematical formula”

    Wrong.

    This is based on your lack of understanding of the word “theory”. The word theory, in science, refers to an explanation of reality that has been thoroughly tested so that most scientists agree on it. Theory is different from a working hypothesis, which is a theory that hasn’t been fully tested; that is, a hypothesis is an unproven theory.

    Ergo, evolution is an observable reality

    “Hence conveniently it can never be tested”

    Of course it’s been tested, you moron.

    And DNA is the undeniable and tested proof of evolution. Its not up for debate since the discovery of DNA. The DNA of the cell’s mitochondria that has been used to construct evolutionary trees with absolute certainty. Genome researchers at the University of Chicago have identified more than 700 regions in human DNA where apparently strong selection has occurred, driving the spread of genes linked to a broad range of characteristics.

    Another stunning example of how staggeringly stupid, blind, and blinkered you understanding of the world around you is, David.

    And I’m laughing at you for making such an embarrassing display of ignorance in public. Truly astounding how stupid you actually are, and how proud you are of that lack of education.

    Stick to dirty and sordid little escapades in your mind, Skinner, its what you obviously best at…. a meagre talent, but its your only one it seem.

  167. @david skinner — I actually asked whether you thinkhomosexuals exist.

    1. Are you saying that people who’s behaviour is homosexual are choosing to behave in that way, i.e. it’s not a genetic thing ?

    2. If so, why ? What’s you evidence ?

  168. So according to David Skinner homosexuals don’t exist… ergo he’s currently arguing with figments of his imagination.
    Well, no surprises there at least.

  169. “So according to David Skinner homosexuals don’t exist…”

    According to him, evolution doesn’t exist either, despite been proven wrong so many times.

    So, if David is so limited in his understanding, and so immune to seeing proof, and so clearly wrong so often, how on earth should anyone take him seriously? He’s incapable of learning, he’s obviously very uneducated, unable to process evidence, and his twisted anger is clearly a mental health issue.

    And the obsession with sordid sex, well, that’s a whole new area of disturbed! Skinner a sexual risk to the public if he thinks like that – sooooo far from normal. its not funny any more.

  170. @ Will – concur about his obsession with kinky sex.
    Reminds me of the old joke about the guy on the psychiatrists couch…

    PSYCHIATRIST – Look at the random inkblot and just say the first think that comes into your head. What do you see here?

    PATIENT – Two naked people and an alsation going at it like dogs on heat.

    PSYCHIATRIST – and this one?

    PATIENT – lots and lots of dildos stuffed into a blow up sex doll

    PSYCHIATRIST – and this one?

    PATIENT – an S & M swinger’s party in the middle of a dirty protest

    PSYCHIATRIST – Mr. Smith, you appear to be obsessed with sex

    PATIENT – I’M obsessed with sex?!? You’re the one with all the dirty pictures!

  171. @John: Do stupid people only know the art of making fun of things they don’t know – but not talk about the argument at hand?

    MY NAME IS SKORRDAL – you poor thing. No one taught you how to use Copy/Paste?

  172. Second B&B owner sued for turning gay couple away

    Michael Black, 63, and John Morgan, 58, sparked a national debate last year when they were turned away from the Swiss B&B in Cookham, Berks, by owner Susanne Wilkinson.

    Mr Black and Mr Morgan, who have been partners for over seven years, have launched legal proceedings against Mrs Wilkinson and have pledged to donate any damages they win to Oxfam.

    Mr Black said: “I think the two cases are important as it shows that discrimination is not acceptable anymore, that is a significant change in public opinion from 30 or 40 years ago.

    He added: “The legal situation is that breaking the sexual discrimination act is not a criminal offence so there would be no consequences for the B&B owner unless we took legal action.

    “We want to enforce the rule and make sure people can’t break the sexual discrimination act and get away with it.

    “We’re not trying to stop anyone from observing their beliefs but to make it clear that their beliefs should not conflict with the discrimination laws in this country.”

    Full article here:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/8283651/Second-BandB-owner-sued-for-turning-gay-couple-away.html

  173. SKORRDAL: sorry I mispelt your name before – it is an unusual one would you not agree? but was baffled by the quote that preceded – it wasn’t from me (again too many Johns). Actually, I was agreeing with you i.e. the need to be tolerant that is. Given how badly gay folk have been treated in the past, now they have won many rights (not all), I would think plain courtesy will pay dividends in the longer run.

    (usurper) John (no offence meant) – yes I am afraid the annals of PBism is full of people doing crazy and unacceptable things but mustn’t put people in the same group – there have been / are a lot of really good people in the PB (but I guess I am a bit biased) :-)

  174. Thanks for that link, Pavlos.Nice that they pledge to donate any damages to Oxfam.

  175. david skinner 27 Jan 2011, 5:05pm

    Will says that evolution is an observable reality. Well, let me present the results of an experiment, carried out during for the past thirteen years of a British government dominated by gays, to test gay evolutionary theory.

    The quantifiable results are:

    A government sponsored industrial genocide of 200, 000 babies per year.

    Widespread abuse of children (many of whom are in the care of social services that can no longer cope);

    Government unwilling to stem the flood of pornography into every home and school in Britain,

    Government funded agencies like the Family Planning Association that are leading our children into promiscuity and homosexuality;

    Huge increase in paedophilia and pederasty

    A national health service already creaking under the strain of treating teenagers for abortion; STIs, alcholism, drug addiction and mental diseases, often leading to suicide.

    Teenage rape gangs and levels of nihilistic violence and murder demonstrated by teenagers that were even rare amongst adults.

    Parental duty of care, authority and power being taken out the hands of parents and placed into the hands a the state that is increasingly day by day looking like Marxist Russia .

    The deliberate and wholesale deconstruction of the family and marriage.

    Huge rise in divorce, 1.5 million children abused or neglected, children taken in care, children running away from home, huge numbers of parents with serious addictions that range from taking drugs to the lottery, the rise in homelessness, rising poverty, serious debt .

    UNICEF ranking Britain bottom of a league table for child well -being across 21 industrialised countries.

    4th November 2010 Iain Duncan Smith said .Kids from broken families are suffering poor outcomes and are is costing the nation up to a staggering £100 billion a year,

    After thirteen years of government dominated by gays, Britain has a prison population at bursting point, …….and the spectacle of homosexual MPs, like Chris Bryant in their underpants on Gaydar, looking for lust.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yHZEVZxDa4

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QERyh9YYEis

    http://darwinconspiracy.com/article_1_rev2.php

    http://creation.com/john-r-rankin-mathematical-physics-in-six-days

    http://creation.com/dawkins-weasel-revisited

  176. LOL! Is that rant of utter nonsense supposed to count as some kind of rational counter argument to evolution?????

    How hilarious!

    And pathetic.

    You’re lack of education is truly astounding, Skinner. Couldn’t even manager one rational response. How disappointing. Tut tut. Its no wonder why you and your kind of dogmatic fools are a dying breed and your religion is the domain of the mentally challenged.

  177. @david skinner — I have to ask: what’s “gay evolutionary theory” ?

    Does it relate to Darwin’s theory of natural selection ?

  178. “Does it relate to Darwin’s theory of natural selection ?”

    Seems, according to Skinner and his disturbed mental state at least, gay people created the theory of evolution.

    I wonder if we also created the theory of gravity too? We gays… so talented. So educated.

    One things for sure, Skinner is not a mentally well individual. He’s an excellent case for approving abortion up to the 280th trimester.

  179. Ignore the david skinner trolls. They are desperately masturbating in the hope they have the privilege to have a meaningless, online, ranting interaction with lgbt.

  180. Happy for the result :)

  181. David wrote

    “Well, let me present the results of an experiment, carried out during for the past thirteen years of a British government dominated by gays, to test gay evolutionary theory.”

    David . . . are there no gay men or lesbians in the Con-Lib coalition then?

  182. DS: “The deliberate and wholesale deconstruction of the family and marriage”

    Ooh, yes, because that’s nothing to do with all the STRAIGHT people getting divorced, is it? I mean our mere presence makes them do it, doesn’t it? All our fault obviously.

    You need help, David. You really do.

  183. More gibberish from skinner – that the economic meltdown was because of gays, rather than hot blooded, and very oversexed straight investment bankers, and the failed policies of hundreds of straight politicians and their overwhelmingly straight advisers, especially US Republican ones.

    Some people are best being bypassed – ridiculed, sworn at, and left to rant and rage and left to wait for the end times, while the rest of normal society gets on and enjoys life.

  184. The Heretic Philosopher 28 Jan 2011, 2:26am

    @ David Skinner. Do you have a counter arguement for the Euthyphro Dilemma?

  185. The Heretic Philosopher 28 Jan 2011, 2:31am

    @ David Skinner. I have asked you about 6 times now. Do you have an answer or are you just being rude and disrespectful?

  186. “Do you have an answer or are you just being rude and disrespectful?”

    HP, Skinner is unfortunately has very genuine mental health issues. I am sure you can see that for yourself:- The paranoia, misdirected rage, totally irrational statements…. and of course, repeatedly ignoring anything that might challenge his delicate and ludicrous world view. He’s not able to focus on anything other than what he rants about. We’ve all seen it many times in here.That and the fact the man just cuts and pastes material, so very little of what you see here hasn’t already been seen before. Kinda like a bot.

    While I admit, I get a cheap giggle out of Skinner (he helps pass a day in work when I have budgets to compile), his mental stability is not of course a laughing matter, he needs serious help. The man is actually mad.

  187. Brilliant article by Johann Hari
    Johann Hari:

    ” Why is it wrong to protect gay children?”

    Touches on the B&B discrimination story as well .

    “To justify their discrimination against gay people, these few homophobes concoct a scenario in which they are The Real Victims”

    http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-why-is-it-wrong-to-protect-gay-children-2196470.html

  188. Heretic Philosopher: “@ David Skinner. Do you have a counter arguement for the Euthyphro Dilemma?”

    HR in an earlier post you gave a link to a discussion on the Euthyphro Dilemma but unfortunately I tried it but it didn’t work. But this did intrigue me and without wanting to offer myself as Mr. Skinner’s (or anyone else’s) apologist, I did feel enthused to find out more about this dilemma.

    I suppose what the Wikipedia entry says, serves as a good starting point:
    “The ancient Greek philosopher Euthyphro developed a theory of moral correctness stating that, “what is pleasing to the gods is holy, and what is not pleasing to them is unholy.” In other words, “what God approves of is morally right, and what God disapproves of is morally wrong.” This form of thought, known as the Divine Command Theory, is perhaps among the most basic of theories relating morality and religion. Plato challenged this conjecture by asking, “Is what is morally right, right because God approves of it or commands it, or rather, does God command it because it is right?” Both possibilities are contradictory to the theory itself by imposing conditions that result in the disproving of God. This question, known as the Euthyphro dilemma, has no commonly accepted solutions”

    Without wanting to dodge the question or miss the point, there will be many who agree on many (but not all) of the moral questions of our day for both reasons: ie. God says what is right or wrong or we judge something to be right or wrong for whatever reason but without needing to refer to God.

    Myself, I tend to the God side of the argument because I am sceptical of relativism and making judgements based merely on reasons like if feels right, society or my peers say so, but recognise that there are those who believe in God who are more moral than me (I would say it is because we are made in the image of God).

    I need to get more into philosophy mode before attempting to unravel the dilemma (maybe not a wise thing given the dilemma has been posed and there is no consensus, ever since Plato put the notion forward).

    But forgive me if I have missed anything, but what relevance has this on David Skinner’s comments or “readers comments on …”?

  189. Pavlos: The article you refer to is well written and contains some poignant examples.

    Bullying is wrong, whatever type it is, and schools do well to combat it because of the misery inflicted on the bullied and the unacceptable behaviour the bullies needs to be challenged.

    I would have thought that any right thinking parent, albeit one who doesn’t feel gay relationships are right because of their religious beliefs etc., would see this. I would imagine also that most such parents would want to find ways to combat homophobic bullying, as with any other bullying, but not at the cost of imposing beliefs they do not hold.

  190. I should have said earlier: “do not believe in God”.

    HR: spotted more of your argument so will look at this further.

  191. “as with any other bullying, but not at the cost of imposing beliefs they do not hold.”

    Why would one need to impose beliefs to oppose bullying? Bullying is bullying, and preventing it does not compromise the belief of anyone, other than of a person who believes in bullying. What you said is truly odd, John.

  192. Why would one need to impose beliefs to oppose bullying? One shouldn’t need to, which is my point.

    Bullying is bullying, and preventing it does not compromise the belief of anyone, other than of a person who believes in bullying. Agreed – it shouldn’t compromise anyone’s beliefs.

    Will, my point is that it is right to teach school children about gay relationships if it helps tolerance and understanding and prevent bullying (which I think on balance is what happens), but not that gay relationships is right and a traditional religious understanding on the subject is therefore wrong.

    I know I am treading a fine balance here but I think there is a balance to be sought. I think the “notorious” Section 28 was akin to a bringing in a sledgehammer to crack a nut. But the concerns over the indoctrination it was meant to prevent now again rise to the surface because of its repeal.

    I think it is right and necessary to teach children to respect and understand those whose inclinations are gay, and of the unacceptability of homophobia, but to indoctrinate kids into thinking that gay relationships are acceptable when according to traditional christianity they aren’t, is wrong. At least children should be shown both points of view.

  193. “but not that gay relationships is right and a traditional religious understanding on the subject is therefore wrong.”

    I am not arguing that you are wrong here, John, but I do not accept that you can teach tolerance by teaching intolerant positions as a “viable option”. A religious belief must be thought as just that, an opinion, and a view. Not something set in stone. The very mention that gay relationships are “unacceptable” but tolerable is wrong, intrinsically wrong, as its is a form of “passive aggressive discrimination”. There is nothing wrong with gay relationships, other than in the poisoned mind of a bigot. An obsession for the bitter and the foolish and the weak minded.

    There is not quantifying here, children must be thought that discrimination/bullying is wrong, and that religion is not an authority on any subject relating to removing individual inalienable human rights, especially when they use the bible as selective proof to back up discrimination.

    Just because a lot of people believe god said it’s okay to discriminate, does not make it right, it just makes it more offensive to a civilised mind.

  194. @John — “I think it is right and necessary to teach children to respect and understand those whose inclinations are gay, and of the unacceptability of homophobia, but to indoctrinate kids into thinking that gay relationships are acceptable when according to traditional christianity they aren’t, is wrong. At least children should be shown both points of view.”

    And how would you teach people not to homophobically bully gay kids whilst also teaching them that Christianity things gay relationships are wrong ?

    You can’t just say children should be shown both points of view — that implies both viewpoints are equally valid. Why do you think that a viewpoint that encourages homophobia has any kind of validity ? What is your reasoning behind that kind of opinion ? I’m assuming you critically analyse your thinking, so what process lead you to this conclusion ?

  195. @John — and you talk about indoctrination. Would you care to comment on how Christianity carries on down through the generations ?

    You talk about a “traditional religious understanding”, yet the views of religious people on gay marriage vary considerably. Why pick just one and use it characterize all religious views ?

  196. A CHALLENGE

    Perhaps you might like to try and sharpen your debating skills further, by engaging with us in dialogue with another Evangelical Fundamentalist Christian on the following thread.

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/01/18/gay-couple-win-case-over-hotel-ban/

    We have nearly reached the 500 mark. The main theme of the argument is “John’s” insistence that he publish our debate in his local newspaper, and on his private website; with a string of conditions in which he controls and edits the content of the debate to promote the Christian Victim agenda.

    . . . . . . . . . . .

    AN APOLOGY

    (I understand there are many Johns at the moment on these threads, so no disrespect to John or any Johns on this thread; I understand that you are not the John I am referring to – so to speak)

    . . . . . . . . . . .

    A REQUEST

    Since John lost the debate on the above thread a few days ago, he is now resorting to a subtle bullying tactic. John thinks he can take our words out of context, in service of promoting the idea that Christians are now victims of gay bigots.

    Come and let John know that free speech is about freedom of expression, not censorship; or one side representations devoid of dissenting views.

  197. “You can’t just say children should be shown both points of view — that implies both viewpoints are equally valid. Why do you think that a viewpoint that encourages homophobia has any kind of validity ?”

    Harry, if it encouraged homophobia (prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people)), I would say no! but you can still not fear and actually like homosexual people but not think gay relationships are a good thing! And no, I don’t think all views are valid – those closer to the truth, just and the right, are more valid than those further away from truth, just and the right.

    Can I use one example to illustrate my point: what should happen if there were found to be islamic bullying in our schools? do you not think it might help if the children were to be taught about Islam and Muslim beliefs and ways of living etc. They may not end up agreeing with Islam as a result of this or the rightness of a muslim way of life, but hopefully they may come better to understand muslims and be less susceptible to islamaphobia. I think the same could apply to any minority belief or way of living.

    I suppose what I am saying is that while some of what we teach children is going to be values based e.g. all forms of bullying is wrong, and rightly so, there are other things where there is range of views … it is true that there is great varience of views among religious folk and it is impossible to teach all these in a balanced way, but the point about education should be to expose people to facts and ideas and how they might interpret them, but then it is up to the one being educated to decide for him/herself what to believe, hopefully after considering the facts.

    I would never shy away from the fact that I am a Christian whose beliefs tend to be fairly traditional and orthodox, but in helping bring up my 12yo son I want him to understand other religions and different views on Christianity and all sorts of issues.

    I will support him whatever choices he makes or views he comes to. I hope he will have respect and have friends with those who are muslim, gay, other races etc. and that not only will he NOT bully but he will defend those who are being bullied.

  198. @John — “Harry, if it encouraged homophobia (prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people)), I would say no!”
    Do you actually believe that ? Are you really saying that views like yours don’t encourage homophobia ? Would you look into the eyes of Ian Baynham’s mother, and say ‘I think gay relationships are wrong. People like your son shouldn’t be permitted to be in relationships, because I think they’re wrong. But I don’t think my attitudes contribute at all to homophobia.’ ? Your views have consequences. It’s just that the consequences are felt by other people. People like Ian Baynham, kicked to death in a homophobic attack.

    Your example is illustrative. You say it helps if children were to be taught about Islam. I agree. But to make it relevant to what we’re discussing, you must argue then that children should be taught that Islam is wrong, and Muslims should not be in relationships.

    You say the point of eduction is to expose people to facts. Absolutely. Ideas ? Now I’m not so sure. You talked earlier about some ideas being closer to the truth. Well what does that mean ? You can’t just declare by fiat the some ideas are true. What is true about gay people not being allowed relationships ?

    You actually said gay relationships are wrong. I am struggling to believe that. You’re saying that rights you enjoy are to be denied to other people, because why ? I asked you earlier what is your reasoning behind that kind of opinion ? Why do you think gay relationships are wrong ? You didn’t answer, so I ask you again. What were the facts that you were exposed to that made you decide that gay people should enjoy fewer rights that other people ? How will you explain this to your son ? How will your son respect gay people, when you have indoctrinated him to believe that they shouldn’t even have relationships ?

  199. What a joke 28 Jan 2011, 10:53pm

    @ evangelical john -

    The only question you should be asking yourself is why a homophobic heterosexual orthodox christian spends so long commenting on a gays news website?

    suggestions below:

    A. you are trying to convert PN readers
    B. your sexuality is repressed but enjoy reading what LGBT are up to
    C. you enjoy arguing with people but not face to face
    D. you are clinically insane and need a lot of help

    Why does anyone bother to debate with someone who is never going to change their mind?

  200. John wrote

    “Harry, if it encouraged homophobia (prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people)), I would say no! but you can still not fear and actually like homosexual people but not think gay relationships are a good thing! And no, I don’t think all views are valid – those closer to the truth, just and the right, are more valid than those further away from truth, just and the right.”

    John wrote
    I would never shy away from the fact that I am a Christian whose beliefs tend to be fairly traditional and orthodox, but in helping bring up my 12yo son I want him to understand other religions and different views on Christianity and all sorts of issues.

    . . . . . . . . . . . .

    John . . . I see that you do not think all views are valid . . . fine, and you argue that some views are closer to the truth than others. John you then go on to highlight your adherence to traditional orthodox Christian views.
    John I really think you are being rather disingenuous.

    John traditional orthodox views are generally regarded as a euphemism for “Homosexuality is wrong”

    John . . . I am curious why you are posting on a LGBT website?

  201. Harry: I didn’t want to avoid your question. What I have said more than once is that I am appalled when gay people are attacked because they are gay, and in my work in the community I have stood with gay folk who were being pressurised because of their sexuality.

    You don’t have to agree with people’s choices or actions to defend their right to believe what they will and act as they will (providing it is within the law and doesn’t harm others). I completely respect gay folk who do so.

    But you ask what are my beliefs? – I have given these at length in earlier threads … but in a nutshell, I am of the view that while (unlike some Christians) the Bible may not condemn same sex relationships, the thrust of its teaching, from beginning to end, is that a mixed sex life-long, one to one, relationship is what God has always intended.

    Of course, in a pluralistic society I don’t expect everyone, or most people even, to hold that view, but that is what I believe is God’s view and as one who tries to follow what God says I should act accordingly. While, I can’t approve of same sex relationships (not that my approval matters that much anyway) or endorse teaching programs that state this is right, I can and do respect gay folk, am happy to be friends etc, and will support them against attack by reason of their sexuality.

    Harry: I know from past experience that however concilitary, measured etc. my words are, some may take exception. But I can only say what I think and follow my conscience.

  202. What a joke, JohnK: I haven’t posted on this website for some time – while I love to debate, I really don’t want to cause upset especially, as I have found out, most don’t look that favorably on people with views like mine.

    I am very interested in the Bull’s story and how it relates to the bigger picture and have looked at this thread out of intertest and genuinely to find out what others think etc. I only chipped in when I saw someone saying about me something not true (I think because of a mix up of Johns).

    Glutton for punishment as I am, I got embroiled because of the reponses -but am now quite happy to retire gracefully, although I would rather do so with folk recognising the points I make even if they see things differently themselves.

  203. John Wrote

    “What a joke, JohnK: I haven’t posted on this website for some time – while I love to debate, I really don’t want to cause upset especially, as I have found out, most don’t look that favorably on people with views like mine.”

    . . . . . . .

    John what exactly is a Joke?

    John with regards your views about homosexualtiy . . . ???

    So John . . . why are you posting on this site?

  204. …John Wrote

    “What a joke, JohnK: I haven’t posted on this website for some time – while I love to debate, I really don’t want to cause upset especially, as I have found out, most don’t look that favorably on people with views like mine.”

    . . . . . . .

    John what exactly is a Joke?

    John with regards your views about homosexualtiy . . . ???

    So John . . . why are you posting on this site?

  205. John . . .

    Perhaps you are looking for inspiration for your Sermon this Sunday . . .

  206. What a joke 28 Jan 2011, 11:29pm

    @ evangelical John

    If you are not the fundamentalist evangelical christian John that has been leaving comments for ages on this and other threads, then I’m not talking to you, so why reply?

    However if it is you, you don’t cause me any upset. I find it hilarious when fundamentalist christians or muslims post their gibberish. It reminds me of when I was brainwashed by monotheism and makes me smile to know that I no longer am. WHAT A RELIEF.

    And reading through your comments I can’t recognise what your point is? Other than your belief that you think christians should be free to discriminate against homosexuals, because you think the bible says so. But that’s not really a point, is it, just a justification of your hate.

    What a joke fundamentalist christians are.

  207. @John — I didn’t ask what your beliefs were, I asked why you held them. I asked whether you think that they do no harm — whether people like yourself, not approving of gay relationships ( relationships — not even marriage, not even civil partnership — you can’t even let us be couples. And you claim to respect gay people ), discourages homophobia. I asked you whether you’d look Ian Baynham’s mother’s eyes, and deny your views do no harm.

    The teaching programmes state that it’s ok to be gay. They don’t — as I understand them — make claims about rightness or wrongness.

    It’s all very well to say you’re appalled when gay people are attacked because they’re gay. But unless you do something about it to make it less likely, they are just words, and mean nothing.

  208. @Dave North

    I agree . . . delicous irony

    Priase The Lord – there is a God after all . . . and he defintely appears to be on the side of Gays and Women

    lol

  209. @Dave — I’m confused ! Not that Stephen Green violently attacked his wife — after all he doesn’t believe that a husband can rape his wife — but that he’s divorced. According to a Christian Voice press release http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Press/press068.html

    “Matthew 19 records that unreasonable behaviour, the most popular reason for divorce in Britain today, was specifically ruled against by the Lord Jesus Christ”

    “Do we bury our heads in the sand at the way the law militates against the very marriage courses we run in our churches? In concentrating on the trees of individual cases are we failing to see the structural and legal wood of which they form part?

    The fact is, we do not see campaigns on this matter from Christian lobby groups, despite all the hand-wringing on the ‘demise of the family,’ and we need to.

    If you have had first-hand experience of these issues in your own life or in your church, and you would like to support a campaign to end divorce-on-demand and no-fault divorce, please email stephen@christianvoice.org.uk  - there is a spamarrest filter because of the spam we get, but you only have to negotiate it once.”

  210. Harry.

    Do you have any idea how disgraceful what you just said comes across in your pitiful attempt to defend the indefensible.

    You do your Lord and Batterer no service in your pitiful diatribe.

    I take it Stephen has you all out in force attempting to justify his vulgar violent battery of women and children.

    My disgust only deepens for your church and it’s abuse of your so called religion.

  211. thanks for that link dave. no surprise whatsoever… you can almost set your watch by when they will come out as frauds, psychopaths, or delving into all the depravities they rave about and obsess…

  212. Oh.

    The good christians have been out in force today.

    Kill Ugandan gay activists then whilst burying the poor man calling for gays to repent.

    All from you good christians.

    Well, “Thy shall not kill”. remember that one. Obviously not.

    “love thy neighbour as thy self”

    Nope. You lot clearly forgot that one.

    Leviticus. Indeed, the only book of the bible as far as you lot are conserned.

    Who shall we abuse today. Wifes. Children. Gays. Just what takes your fancy, and which passage of your sick book will you choose to justify it.

    For F sake. You have even peed off the Daily Mail. That takes some doing.

    Now pastor Green the Woman and

  213. Dave North 29 Jan 2011, 1:02am

    Oh to hell with it.

    I just flew up to Scotland from Wales to be at my mentally handicapped sister 40th.

    Probably the last decade of birthdays she will ever see due to ill health.

    And not 1 f’n good church goin christain will be at her party as has been proven by her RSVP.s

    So take your biblical passages and stuff them up your own passage you bunch of evil ill educated freaks.

  214. @Dave — I may have been to cryptic; my sarcasm’s been lost in posting. I’m not a supporter of Stephen Green or his organization.

  215. @ Dave North:
    Oh. The delicious irony……

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1351585/Stephen-Green-rails-immorality-voice-Christian-Britan-private-wife-beater-says-partner.html

    Thanks for the link Dave, we always knew the man wasn’t right in the head and now there’s this first person witness account from his ex-wife.

  216. Apols Harry, I was in a bit of a nark….

  217. Thanks Dave – Interesting to know that both Fred Phelps and Stephen Green have been labeled as abusive husbands and fathers by their estranged family members.
    http://natephelps.com/10801.html
    There must be a fairly predictable pathology at the extremes of the anti-gay movement of spousal abuse and child beating.
    As others have noted it takes a certain kind of overzealous bigot for the Daily Mail of all rags to take a stand and say “You crossed the line”.
    I hope that other newspapers pick up this story… Green deserves nothing but contempt.

  218. Interesting Christian Victim slant
    in the Telegraph

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/8288916/Inside-a-most-un-PC-BandB.html

    Judith Woods writes

    “Not since the heyday of the Colosseum have devout Christians like Hazelmary Bull and her husband Peter been thrust into such gladiatorial combat with the gay militia and nerves are jangling on both sides of the counterpane.”

  219. Harry: in response to your earlier questions / points:

    1. I believe what I do because I believe it happens to be true and I love truth.

    2. No, I don’t think believing truth does anyone harm although I concede that proclaiming truth without love is harmful.

    3. Whether or not I approve of gay relationships is immaterial; it is what God thinks that matters – and no I don’t believe disapproving of gay relationships necessarily leads to homophobia. The essence of the Christian message is love. Whether or not Jesus approved of gay relationships, I will let others say, but one thing I learnt from earlier threads in Pink News is that it is possible/probable that the “servant” of the centurion Jesus brought back to life was the centurion’s gay lover – I believe that illustrates the right attitude and is one I try to follow.

    4. If I were to meet Ian Baynham’s mother, I would be happy to look her in the eyes but wouldn’t raise the question of my views. Instead I would try to empathize and show compassion. And if the question were to be raised, I would say that what happened to Ian was opposed to what Jesus taught, and in respect of Ian’s memory I would try to do my bit to ensure it doesn’t happen again.

    5. If indeed teaching programmes aimed at reducing homophobia DO NOT make claims about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality, directly or by implication, I would support them.

    6. I would hate it if my words were meaningless. I am open to suggestions. One example of something I can and do do is when I run community / diversity events that involve strongly religious types, I get along our local gay group because they are part of the community too and I believe their voice needs to be heard.

  220. JohnK: just to put your mind at rest, I have no intention mentioning homosexuality when I preach tomorrow. While I have preached about sexuality in the past, I have never devoted a sermon just to the topic of homosexuality – maybe I should!? The last time I mentioned homosexuality in one of my sermons was when I challenged Christians to be less pre-occupied with other people’s misdemeanours but rather concentrate on their own, perhaps beginning with ways to practically show compassion to the poor – I thought you might approve!? :-)

  221. Harry: before you come back again and say I haven’t answered your question, I want to say that I have in the past tried to explain my views … in essence rather than cite the so called negative texts that condemn homosexuality I point to the divine mandate “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” Genesis 2v24, reinforced by Jesus (Mark 10v6-9, Matthew 19v4-6).

    To be honest, I have yet to find anything on the Internet that articulates most of the essential points of what I believe, although the following (written in 1985) I found quite helpful: http://www.woundedheart.org/hmarriage.html

  222. Dave North, Flapjack: thanks for posting your links concerning Stephen Green and Phelps (father and son) respectively.

    Neither made easy reading but contained stuff I needed to know … I feel a stunned and sorry that people can take the life giving words of Jesus and distort them so much.

    PS Dave, I am not sure how you will take this, but I wanted to say I am touched by your love and wanted to convey my love and good wishes to your sister.

  223. @Dave — don’t worry about, perfectly understandable. I’m sorry about your sister.

  224. @John

    Iris flushed you out a few months ago!

    Not sure why you are still here?

    As you know, at pinknews we do not view homosexuality as a sin; or abnormal!

  225. John wrote

    “One example of something I can and do do is when I run community / diversity events that involve strongly religious types, I get along our local gay group because they are part of the community too and I believe their voice needs to be heard.”

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    So John . . . A diversity event is where you invite “strong religious types” and the local gay community.
    .
    In what way is diversity promoted when the “Strong Religious” tend to view homosexuality as a sin

    John why is that you can only talk in terms of euphemisms

  226. John wrote

    “If I were to meet Ian Baynham’s mother, I would be happy to look her in the eyes but wouldn’t raise the question of my views. Instead I would try to empathize and show compassion. And if the question were to be raised, I would say that what happened to Ian was opposed to what Jesus taught, and in respect of Ian’s memory I would try to do my bit to ensure it doesn’t happen again.”

    . . . . . . . . . . .

    You say that you would . . .
    “Do my bit to ensure it doesn’t happen again”. . .
    but then say that you are not going to change your views about homosexuality being a sin.

    John you appear to misunderstand that there is a continuum of violence and it begins with words.

    John when you refuse to give up the promotion of ideas which can be used to inflame violence, or contribute to escalating violence against LGBT people; John you are inculcated in violence towards LGBT people.

    John when are you going to repent of your sin of homophobia?

  227. Is the bulls new advertising legal? – somoene posted it at the beginning

    Surely adverts can’t be discriminatory as well? Seems a strange response to losing your case but changing your advertising…

  228. “John when are you going to repent of your sin of homophobia?”

    JohnK: I believe homophobia is to do with hating gay people – this I do not do. While there are things I do need to repent off, this is not one of them.

    I try to live according to the will and word of God, and don’t claim to be better than anyone else btw, and that is where the conflict occurs.

    As for coming onto this website, I am genuinely interested in many of the subjects discussed (and have sometimes changed my mind when I see a good argument that challenges my own views at the time). I would have thought all this is a healthy thing and PN folk should welcome differences in views, providing if it is offered respectfully, which I try to do (if I do overstep the mark I am sorry and say so), should be welcomed I would have thought.

    I think even among the gay folk who frequent PN there will be differences in views on hetero sex outside of marriage or divorce for example. If people offer views that differ from one’s own, does that amount to hate – surely not!?

    Btw: I don’t recall being “flushed out” by Iris but I do recall having a frank but respectful exchange of views and much respecting Iris’s many qualities.

  229. John wrote
    “I believe homophobia is to do with hating gay people – this I do not do. While there are things I do need to repent off, this is not one of them.”

    JohnK’s response
    John . . . Violence begins with views and opinions. You admit that you would not say to Ian Baynman’s family that he was sinful, because he was he was a gay man. John you refrain from this, because you know this would be hurtful. Despite this realisation, you continue to hold views that gay men are sinful. John you believe you have a right to express this, knowing full well it may cause harm and damage; when are you going to repent of your homophobic hatred.

    . . . . . . . . . .

    John wrote
    “I try to live according to the will and word of God, and don’t claim to be better than anyone else btw, and that is where the conflict occurs.”

    JohnK’s response
    John this is really a rather perverse abuse of religion. John you are hiding behind religion to legitimize the hatred of LGBT people. John you are using Religion to avoid responsibility for your hate, by conveniently saying these are God’s views which you must obey. John when are you going to grow up, when are you going to take responsibility for your views; which if expressed may damage LGBT people. When are you going to understand there is a continuum of violence, and it begins with words; when are you going to repent of your homophobic hatred.

  230. John wrote
    “Btw: I don’t recall being “flushed out” by Iris but I do recall having a frank but respectful exchange of views and much respecting Iris’s many qualities.”

    JohnK’s response
    You were flushed out on the following long thread, when we exposed your views and mission on pinknews to Convert, Condemn and Dishonour LGBT people.

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?comments_popup=20530

    Based on your views expressed on the above thread, I provided the following analysis of your mission to date on that thread.

    . . . . .

    CONDEMN

    *Thread 25 – John believes it is right to condemn gay children to psychological problems and even suicide

    *Thread 52 – John views highlight how he condemns homosexuality as always wrong

    *Thread 61 – John condemns gay peoples loving relationships as sinful

    CONVERT

    *Thread 61 – John believes gay people need to be redeemed from their sexual orientation to be right in God view.

    DISHONOUR

    *Thread 61 – John insults gay people by referring to their loving relationships as “Lifestyle choices”

    *Thread 88 – John insults gay people by arguing that gay relationships do not match up to Gods standards

    *Thread 85 – John dishonours gay people by arguing that he only commends heterosexual relationships

    . . . . . . . . . .

    John when are you going to repent of your homophobic hatred?

  231. @John:
    I try to live according to the will and word of God, and don’t claim to be better than anyone else btw, and that is where the conflict occurs.

    You claim to know what the will and word of God is ( I would dispute this), as you you think you are better at discerning the will and the word of god than others then you clearly do think you are better than others and that is where the conflict occurs.

  232. Jock S. Trap 30 Jan 2011, 12:13pm

    To the Johns, the David Skinners….

    The fact is you don’t come here offering an opinion. You come here telling us what you are ‘told’ to say according to what you religious texts tell you.

    You seem to think all your speeches are something new and not something Gay people have to hear most of their lives.

    We have to put up with that banter. We get it. To your like we are wrong, sinful, an abomination who need to be saved. All you are doing is exercising your right to discriminate.

    You cannot and will not believe in live and let live.

    This is a site designed for Gay people for Gay people interested in the news that affects our community. That includes stories of hatred, bigotry and discrimination. It gives us as a community an opportunity to discuss these stories. This can be many different opinions. There are many opinions from Gay people who are christian, muslim and other religions but none of them feel the need to conquer the page via the Bible, the Koran.

    I repeat you people say nothing new, so what makes you think your Bible preachy attitude is going to work.

    Sure offer an opinion but if you already feel the LGBT community are condemned then I truely don’t see the point.

    Just remember your opinion of me is one of your choice over how I was born. Just ask yourself How can that be right? Aren’t you actually questioning God’s creation? Can’t be right.

    Simply, it isn’t!

  233. Pavlos, you’re quite right. Funny how the word of god tends to be the same as the person’s own prejudices. John on the other thread is doing the usual, and predictable, creationist nonsense by trying to discredit evolution to feed his own narrow belief structure. Not as open minded as he would like us to believe, it seems.

  234. “3. Whether or not I approve of gay relationships is immaterial; it is what God thinks that matters”

    With the proviso that I’m far from convinced there IS a god, I wholly agree with that. So why don’t Christians and others get on with living their lives according to how they believe would be approved by their god and leave others to do likewise?

  235. Iris, I tend to concur with that.

    I know from experience that once people on PN ask me my views on gay marriage etc., they tend to take umbrage when I do when I do so.

    I don’t claim any special authority and recognise people see things quite differently, including those who respect the scriptures as I do. But I try to base what I say on what I believe God says (what else can I do) but recognise others think differently.

    I haven’t commented to date on where I stand in the case of the Bulls. While I have sympathy, I do understand the discrimination argument when it comes to running a business that serves the general public.

    The anger arose, I think, when on one hand I wish to stand with those in PN when it comes to standing against homophobic bullying and at the same time think you can do this and believe as I do – although I understand not all see it that way!

  236. Well John, it’s very good of you to show your disgust at homophobic bullying. That’s understood (though I won’t praise you for doing so. In fact if I were, it would be like saying, I would expect you to be incapable of making such a statement)

    Aside from that, if you say something, you can’t just expect people who disagree with you to say ‘oh well, we believe this, and he believes something else, ho-hum’. If you make a statement which some of us find to be ridiculous, then we will say so. Jesus prophesised as much in Matt 10:22 of course.
    If you’re going to say you know god’s mind about who we should go to bed with, then expect that we might ask you how you know this information. and then how you know the bible is divinely inspired. I don’t think you can know this.

  237. (in fairness, the same criticism could be made to gay christians too, how they know their god approves of homosexuality. i don’t they know this either, and they have nothing more to go on than a few old texts, written by members of one particular mammalian species.)

  238. Why do you guys keep replying to these nutters. Stop feeding them I beg you lets clean up this site and make it useful rather than always defending and justifying our sexuality, let them know we’ve moved on

  239. I kind of agree James.

    It’s interesting to see how they think though. ANd why they go to such extreme lengths, e.g. to pretend that evolution didn’t happen, and to pretend the earth is 6,000 years old, to keep on believing the unbelievable.

    James is right, that there is no point having a rational debate with irrational people.

    It’s alright on a readers’ comments section. But otherwise: their views should not be given any platform in mainstream media, their views should have no privilege in law, and no serious consideration by politicians, judiciary, police, armed forces and especially schools. Their rightful place is to be preaching on the street, feeding the pigeons or selling pencils from a paper cup, where people can ignore or laugh at them.

  240. John, you have been consistent in your expression and assertion that homosexuality is a sin, but you also say that you are against the bullying of homosexuals!

    John how does that work?

    . . . . . . . . . .

    Bullying is generally thought to be behaviour which seeks to

    * oppress another
    * threaten another
    * intimidate another

    The statement “homosexuality is a sin”, is both oppressive in that it asserts homosexuality is not normal, and so seeks to oppress homosexuals.

    The statement “homosexuality is a sin”, is also a threat since the word “sin”; aims to threaten another with the stigma of being evil or immoral.

    The statement “homosexuality is a sin”, is also intimidating; since its purpose is to control another by the fear of God’s wrath.

    . . . . . . . . . .

    John when you come onto pinknews and say that “homosexuality is a sin”, in what way is this not bullying behaviour?

  241. JohnK: I respond to your question out of courtesy, even though I know for some this will be thrown back in my face, so perhaps wisdom says it is better that I should quietly withdraw.

    I don’t know you or anyone else who posts on PN and … for all I know, you/they may be good people and far better than I am … I am in no position to judge, so try not to do so.

    I really don’t want to put gay people down, much less bully them or to give fuel to the bullies. As for whether or not I approve of the actions of gay folk, my views are really no more relevant than those I might have for any cohabiting couple not married to each other or since we are talking about it, those who deal unkindly with gay folk or anyone else come to that. But we all have views and these inevitably dicate our actions …

    As for sin, we are all sinners and, as you intimate in an earlier post, we should repent of sin! Even so, God loves sinners and so should I! Gay sex is no more sinful than lots of other things people do that is supposedly wrong, but it is God alone who has the right to judge on any and all matters, and he will.

    Some people are homosexual by nature and that in itself is not sinful. The point I have made consistently is that sex between a man and his lifelong female married partner is the only context that, as far as I can make out, has divine sanction. I don’t say this because I am trying to convert anyone; I do so because people ask me what are my views.

    Looking at past questions / comments etc. aimed at me (which I have tried my best to respond to)and, unless something profoundly significant crops up (it does seem sometimes we are going in circles, after all), I will, if I may, quietly withdraw, but also genuinely wish you, and other PN contributers, well :-)

  242. John wrote

    “I really don’t want to put gay people down, much less bully them or to give fuel to the bullies.”

    . . . .

    John I understand that you really do not want to bully gay people, or encourage others to bully gays; but God tells you to bully them.

  243. …John wrote

    “I really don’t want to put gay people down, much less bully them or to give fuel to the bullies.”

    . . . .

    John I understand that you really do not want to bully gay people, or encourage others to bully gays; but God tells you to bully them.

  244. @John — I asked you why you held your beliefs, not what they are. Saying “I believe what I do because I believe it happens to be true and I love truth” manifestly is not answering. Why do you believe it happens to be true ?

    Let’s not dress it up with fine words like “truth” and “love”: I’m talking about actions and consequences. Regardless of what you think, it’s not a matter of nice people holding private beliefs, because they’re not private beliefs. They become public actions, and this must be manifest to you — you’re posting your beliefs on a public website, one for LGBT people. I suspect this is not the only forum that you broadcast your beliefs. These are actions, and they are public actions. So when I ask if you think your beliefs do no harm, I mean do you think your public expression of them does no harm ? Do you think they don’t provide a context for homophobia ? Stigma, prejudice, and discrimination stemming from negative societal attitudes toward homosexuality lead to a higher prevalence of mental health disorders among lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals compared to their heterosexual peers. Evidence indicates that the liberalization of these attitudes over the past few decades is associated with a decrease in such mental health risks among younger LGBT people. Have a look at:

    Meyer IH (September 2003). “Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: conceptual issues and research evidence”. Psychological Bulletin 129 (5): 674–97.

    for evidence. You said “… no I don’t believe disapproving of gay relationships necessarily leads to homophobia …”. Again, my question is why ? What process of reasoning have you undertaken to reach your conclusion ?

    “If I were to meet Ian Baynham’s mother, I would be happy to look her in the eyes but wouldn’t raise the question of my views. Instead I would try to empathize and show compassion. And if the question were to be raised, I would say that what happened to Ian was opposed to what Jesus taught, and in respect of Ian’s memory I would try to do my bit to ensure it doesn’t happen again.”. Craven answer. You’re not taking responsibility. How are you doing your bit to ensure it doesn’t happen again ?

    “If indeed teaching programmes aimed at reducing homophobia DO NOT make claims about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality, directly or by implication, I would support them”. Maybe better to find out first, before expressing an opinion ?

    “Looking at past questions / comments etc. aimed at me (which I have tried my best to respond to)and, unless something profoundly significant crops up (it does seem sometimes we are going in circles, after all), I will, if I may, quietly withdraw, but also genuinely wish you, and other PN contributers, well ”

    This is very low. You’re coming onto a LGBT website, a forum for discussion amongst and mutual support of LGBT people, and posting comments like ‘I don’t approve of gay relationships’. Your a member of a religion that describes homosexuality as an abomination. You’ve had some robust responses. But to play to the victim is really low. How many Christians were kicked to death by Christianphobes last year ? How many gay people post on Christian forums saying they don’t approve of Christian relationships ? How many young Christians develop mental health problems because LGBT people stigmatize them ?

  245. My hero is Desmond Tutu (http://news.change.org/stories/archbishop-desmond-tutus-five-best-quotes-for-full-lgbt-equality) , he’s actually someone….just wish he could get his message across to his fellow “christians”

  246. I am a freelance reporter.
    When the case was awarded to the two gentlemen I contacted the hotel for their side.

    Their notes show, and the hotel Manager states that they had a telephone call a week before the two gentlemen arrived. This phone call was from a Mrs Preddy, asking if they had a double room for her and her hsuband.

    Clearly this was a set up, as we know there is not a Mrs Preddy.

    Mr and Mrs Bull were expecting a hetrosexual couple in the name of Mr and Mrs Preddy.

    So I feel someone somewhere is and has been telling porkies…

  247. “Mr and Mrs Bull were expecting a hetrosexual couple in the name of Mr and Mrs Preddy.”

    Its irrelevant if they introduced themselves as Minnie Mouse and Carmen Miranda, they have no right to discriminate under law, and for very good reason. Its a democracy we live in, not a theocracy.

    As a “freelance journalist”, I’d expect someone of even basic college education in that field to be aware of the reasons we can’t have every religious nut-job arbitrarily discriminating against people simple because they “don’t agree with them” or think they hear the voice of god in their head.

  248. who cares mate…

    they lost their case …the judge looked at the facts and made a decision, I’m sure the Bulls were properly and legally represented and had all the full facts in front of him…what’s your point exactly?

    More to the point is their current booking advice still says that double beds are only allowed for hetero married couples – is this illegal or legal – if ilegal why haven’t they changed their website and why isn’t anybody telling them to remove this piece of discirmination in their booking form……I don’t why the decision had to be based on CP v marriages and whether they were the same….to me they simply discriminated against gay couples and I’m disappointed at the thought of an appeal…

  249. To John, you still do not seem to accept that what you believe, becuase you believe it, doesn’t not make it a fact.

    “As for sin, we are all sinners”

    In your belief system. I have no such belief that I am a sinner. And neither do many.

    “sex between a man and his lifelong female married partner is the only context that, as far as I can make out, has divine sanction”

    In your belief system. I have no such belief. And I have no doubt in my mind at all, that you no more know the will of a (supposed) god then anyone else, no matter what you maintain to be “self evident truths” in a book of silly stories and contradictions. I book that’s conveniently perfect for the bigoted to select choice passages to validate personal hates. A book proven to be scientifically wrong.

    And a follower of a book proven to be false and in error…. well, ask yourself, who is the one who follows “truth” here, and who is the one who blinkers themselves into tight-fitting dogma, a scientist, or a preacher?

    “(it does seem sometimes we are going in circles, after all”

    Of course it will! You’ll never get converts here. So leave. This is a gay site. For gay people. Not an arena to practice preaching of patronising nonsense to those who KNOW you are wrong.

    Stay and learn if you wish, but spare me the arrogance of me being “sinful”. Personally I think you’ve wasted your entire life chasing riddles and phantoms to fill a void of ignorance in your own life, but you don’t see me jumping into christian sites to ram that down their bigoted mouths, do you?

  250. Why don’t you guys stand up to the bullies and tell them to f u c k off rather than tryin to win them over? They hate you and always will now move on. You make us look like pu ss ies

  251. “They hate you and always will now move on. You make us look like pu ss ies”

    Because James, ignorance and a lack of education should always be shown up for what it is. There is nothing “pus*ie” about demonstrating how reason triumphs over superstition… quite the opposite in fact.

    That’s the problem here, people who try to spread lies in the name of a religion need to be challenged every time – they spent way too long killing off anyone who disagreed with them.

  252. Jock S. Trap 31 Jan 2011, 8:12am

    “That’s the problem here, people who try to spread lies in the name of a religion need to be challenged every time – they spent way too long killing off anyone who disagreed with them.”

    Whilst I do agree with you Will, the problem is these kinds of people have absolutely no interest in being educated, esp by the likes of the people they disagree with. All they are doing is trying to convince us that they can by some miracle save us from ourselves.

    From what I’m not really sure but it will always be a statemate because they just don’t get it that whilst they have no interest in learning from us we have no interest in being saved by them.

    Maybe it’s a bit like a scout badge but for Christians. The “I saved one of dem Gays” badge. Or maybe they get a fetching little sash number for it.

    I think ‘know your limit’ is a good phrase. It gets to a point where you have to let them stew in their own bigotry and show we are the ones capable of moving on.

    Next…

    :)

  253. @James (31 January 2011, 4:09am) — “I am a freelance reporter […] Their notes show, and the hotel Manager states that they had a telephone call a week before the two gentlemen arrived. This phone call was from a Mrs Preddy, asking if they had a double room for her and her hsuband.
    Clearly this was a set up, as we know there is not a Mrs Preddy.
    Mr and Mrs Bull were expecting a hetrosexual couple in the name of Mr and Mrs Preddy.
    So I feel someone somewhere is and has been telling porkies…”

    That’s interesting James. The judge — who heard all the evidence from both sides — did not agree with you:

    “In one sense it was a pleasure to try this case because I formed the view that none of the 5 witnesses was trying to deliberately mislead the court.”

    and:

    “The claimants, as I have already said, booked by telephone and so did not see this clause. The telephone call was taken by Mrs Bull who was not well at the time and she did not follow her usual practice of saying to the caller that double rooms were only for married couples. It would appear that there had been an earlier telephone call taken by Mr Quinn from someone he thought was a Mrs Preddy. I accept the evidence of the claimants that no such call was made on their behalf and counsel for the defendants, rightly in my view, did not seek to pursue this but accepted that there was some confusion here.”

    Perhaps you’d like to read the judgement ? If so, it can be found here:

    http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/judgments/2011/hall-preddy-bull-judgment

    The judge went on to note:

    “There was a suggestion in the course of the case, and indeed in some newspaper reports prior to the case, that the defendants were “set up” by the claimants with the assistance of an organisation such as Stonewall. If this were true then while it would not of itself defeat a discrimination claim it would very materially affect the issue of damages. I can see why the defendants might have thought that this was so but I am quite satisfied on the evidence of the claimants that this is not the case and, in fairness to the Defendants, let me make it clear that their counsel, Mr James Dingemans QC, did not seek to run the case on this basis.”

  254. Will you’re right I’m not intelectual I just know who I am and if someone tries to tell me whats what I’d rather knock them out

  255. “Will you’re right I’m not intelectual I just know who I am and if someone tries to tell me whats what I’d rather knock them out”

    Fair enough, that’s your approach. But I AM intellectual…. and I certainly didn’t take the time to educate myself to have some lazy moron, who couldn’t be bothered to go to college, tell me evolution is a belief system simply because they need to be validated for their beliefs.

    But you’re right, its not about changing their mind, that ship has already sailed, it about showing up the “moral right” for the intellectual stupidity they advertised without shame.

  256. Will chill I’m not your enemy

  257. “Will chill I’m not your enemy”

    James, that last comment was not directed at you (apologies if you took it that way), but towards John’s insulting behaviour to anyone with a brain in their head.

  258. The Bulls are getting donations to get the best lawyer in the land to oveturn this ridiculous ruling by an idiot judge.

    I hope and pray that they do win and that will send a message to the homosexuals that you maybe gay but you do not have a right to dicate to anyone about their beliefs.

  259. Jimmy . . . would you like to say more?

  260. @Jimmy — which aspects of the ruling do you find ridiculous ?

    Do you think there’s a difference between proscribing someone’s beliefs and prohibiting them from inflicting harm on other people ? What do you think should happen were someone acting of their beliefs to inflict harm on other people ?

  261. Greg Collins 1 Feb 2011, 6:30am

    We have come to a situation where we cannot please everybody (refer to Aesop’s Fable about the two men and their donkey). However I must warn that if Christian rights are eroded then we all suffer. As a non-Muslim British citizen I have seen may rights eroded at work in favour of Muslims and now sometimes I have to work on what are supposed to be MY holidays. If we lose the Church of England then someone else perhaps more extreme will fill the moral vacuum. Anyway I enjoy a pint of cider in theb hotel bar before going to bed so would I book into a Methodist Hotel?

  262. Jimmy:- “I hope and pray”

    Well Jimmy, there’s one thing that’s proven NOT to work. How industrious of you to do so. And thank you for sharing your pain with us all in here on Pinknews, we really appreciate it.

    Jimmy:- “you maybe gay but you do not have a right to dicate to anyone about their beliefs.”

    Well, let me come right back at you there and let me say “you maybe christian but you do not have a right to dictate to anyone about their beliefs” (I corrected the spelling of the word “dictate” for you) – sound better? Certainly the way things are these days, eh, Jimmy? Bully for us gays.

    “However I must warn that if Christian rights are eroded then we all suffer”

    Acute paranoia. Another marvellous trait we see demonstrated in here with way too much reckless abandon. If you can’t blame the gays, blame the Muslims, everyone needs a good “out there” enemy!

    Not everyone has a chemical imbalance in the brain, Greg.

  263. Jimmy said: “I hope and pray that they do win and that will send a message to the homosexuals that you maybe gay but you do not have a right to dicate to anyone about their beliefs”

    Forgive my impatience but this is becoming similar to Groundhog Day. Jimmy, please read this:

    The Bulls are entitled to their beliefs – no-one is trying to prevent them from holding their beliefs. You’re entitled to your beliefs and I’m entitled to mine, OK? However, we ALL have to obey the law.

    The Bulls BROKE THE LAW that’s why they lost. It was NOT because of their beliefs.

  264. @Greg Collins (1 February 2011, 6:30am) — you warn us that “if Christian rights are eroded then we all suffer”. What are the Christian rights whose erosion concern you ?

    You say “As a non-Muslim British citizen I have seen may rights eroded at work in favour of Muslims” would you give an example please ? Would you tell us your occupation also ? Are the Muslims you talk of accruing rights or you losing them ?

    You talk about losing the Church of England; why do you think it’s at risk ? Your statement about “the moral vacuum” suggests you think the Church of England is the main source of people’s morals. Are you suggesting without its benign influence, people will cease behaving in a moral manner ?

    You ask why someone who enjoys a drink would stay in a dry hotel. You imply that you equate having a drink with sleeping with your life partner. Is being able to get a drink at anywhere you stay so important to you, or is sleeping with your life partner when you stay somewhere not important ?

  265. No problem Will.

  266. What a joke 1 Feb 2011, 4:03pm

    @ Jimmy

    “you maybe gay but you do not have a right to dicate to anyone about their beliefs.”

    Gay people are not trying to dictate, that’s what christians have been doing for the last 1500 years. And gay people are trying to tell you that christians have no right to dictate. You don’t like it now christians are losing totalitarian power, do you?

    And what makes you think that christians should have the right to dictate other people’s beliefs? Because a 1500 year old fairy tale book said so?

    Christians, Muslims, Jews. What a joke.

  267. “You’re entitled to your beliefs and I’m entitled to mine, OK? However, we ALL have to obey the law.”

    Iris: I agree with you in except in some rare cases. One of the reasons why in the first and centuries Christians were thrown to the lions etc. was because they would not worship the Roman Emperor. It is only when the law of the land brings me into conflict with the law of God that I would disobey it. I am not a B&B owner but if I were and it was clear from the law that I would have to accept gay couples sharing a room I would be faced with the choice of either closing my business or conforming to the law (quite likely I would choose the latter in this instance).

    I suspect the Bulls were not really aware they were breaking the law, which is why they have been brought before the courts. They will now be faced with that same choice if something similar were to occur – I may be wrong but I doubt they would break the law again, however unpallitable that law might be to them.

    Whether the law is a good one or not (assuming the judge is corrrect in his interpretation – although I understand the appeal is still being considered and the issues are not as clear cut as some would make out) is another matter and one where we may not agree. As you know, the matter of our moving away from the judaeo-christian consensus that once underpinned our legal system and replacing it with what seems to be moral relativism concerns me and why I have some sympathy with the views expressed by people like Melanie Philips.

  268. @John — “As you know, the matter of our moving away from the judaeo-christian consensus that once underpinned our legal system and replacing it with what seems to be moral relativism concerns me and why I have some sympathy with the views expressed by people like Melanie Philips.”

    What does “moral relativism” actually mean ? Can you give examples please ?

    I asked you which of Melanie Phillips’ views you have some sympathy for. She opposes civil partnerships for homosexuals, calling them “toxic” and arguing that “the traditional family [...] has been relentlessly attacked by an alliance of feminists, gay rights activists, divorce lawyers and cultural Marxists who grasped that this was the surest way to destroy Western society.”

    Do you agree with this John ? Do you think it sounds reasonable ? Do you think this alliance is attacking the traditional family ?

    You talk about Christians being thrown to the lions two thousand years ago, and yet, when I asked you how you were doing your bit to ensure that things like Ian Baynham’s murder don’t happen again — you said nothing.

    It’s all very well coming onto this site and making grand statements about “not approving of gay relationships” and “moral relativism” but what do you actually do to that is so moral and gives you the authority to disapprove of gay relationships ?

  269. Dave North 1 Feb 2011, 6:56pm

    Hi John,

    My partner and I entered into a Civil partnership today after 6 years together.

    I’m 45, he’s 35.

    Both my parents in their 70′s fully support it as do all of our wide family circles.

    His parents and family are offering congrats akimbo.

    And you know something.

    Every member of this fully supportive family are working class traditional heterosexual married couples from the West of Scotland.

    ( Parents / Brothers / Sisters / Cousins / Aunts / Uncles / Nieces )

    So go stuff your bigotry and small mindedness where it hurts.

    And to be honest.

    I could not care less what the likes of you thinks.

    In fact, it only encourages me.

    Cheers.

    I’m off for more Champers…..

    Enjoy your sad life. Loser.

  270. My very best to you both Dave ! Congratulations !

  271. What a joke 1 Feb 2011, 8:14pm

    @ John – have you worked out why a heterosexual fundamentalist christian preacher spends so long on pink news yet?

    Moral relativism? What the hell are you going on about?

  272. Congratulations to you and your partner, Dave!

  273. “Moral relativism? What the hell are you going on about?”

    It means he thinks he’s right all the time, but his influence of bygone “god fearing” days are over, so people that think for themselves have to have fancy names to be a threat.

  274. John said: “I suspect the Bulls were not really aware they were breaking the law”

    Hmm. I thought that at first, but now I’m not so sure. In my opinion, they’re either a not very worldly couple being used by the unChristian Institute or they know full well what they’re doing and are part of the Christian Agenda – that is, trying to get opt-outs from the law for Christians, and trying to misrepresent Christians as being persecuted in the UK. The fcat they’re appealing makes me tend towards the latter. As i’ve said before, I feel sorry for them and I wish them no ill. Indeed, I think that Mr Bull was ill, yes? Then surely it would be better if they withdrew from the publicity and the stress and concentrated on their well-being?

    Again, John, I started off reading what you wrote and agreed with much of it as it sounded reasonable, but then I got towards the end when you said you agreed with Melanie Philips and I shook my head in disbelief. Exactly what part of her nasty, lie-filled article do you agree with?

  275. John, you mentioned Rome in relation to feeding Christians to lions, but you asserted that our English law is baesed on a Judaeo-Christian system, but neglected to mention that it was Roman Law that formed a basis for our legal system and many other legal systems today.

    Our legal system is secular, isn’t it? It may coincide with the Bible in some areas eg not killing people, but thankfully it’s not based on the Bible else the population of Britain would be significantly lower after we’d stoned all the divorcees to death, killed the people working on the Sabbath, killed any child that answered their parents back, etc etc.

  276. @John — “… the matter of our moving away from the judaeo-christian consensus that once underpinned our legal system and replacing it …”.

    So presumably what’s mandated in the Bible you’re in favour of keeping ? Like the thirty-six capital offences including crimes such as idolatry, magic and blasphemy, as well as murder that are specified in the Old Testament ? And in Matthew 15:4 Jesus says “He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die”.

    This is the kind of thing you would like to retain ?

  277. Congratulations to Dave North!

  278. Hi Iris: I appreciate your responses because I feel you are gracious and genuine and not about point scoring or Christian baiting … I guess if I were looking at this case a year ago I would have been 100% on the side of the Bulls, but some of what you have said in the recent past has stuck and my position has shifted.

    As much as I regret the law that would prevent this high-principled couple doing what their conscience tells them in what, after all, is still their home (and one reason why I welcome some of what Melanie writes) I think the couple should still be bound by the law. I understand also that gay folk would feel hurt if they couldn’t stay in a B&B etc. and why they feel that if this were to go unchallenged it would add to society’s homophobia.

    Re. Melanie Philips writings, all I can say I picked up the newspaper when I was at the gym yesterday and found I was agreeing with much of what she wrote. Maybe there was an element of rant and extremism – I would need to study further – but in my mind cultural norms are all about the pendulum swinging one way or another and my gut reaction was she had picked up on this in a way less brave and more gullible journalists haven’t … but I would need to analyse further and give a more lengthy study and reply to fully answer your point.

    My “Roman” point reminded me of Jesus words “render unto Caesars the things that are Caesars and to God the things that are Gods”. A while back you challenged a point I made that Christians, on the whole, are more law abiding than the average person … but there are some things they would draw the line on. It hasn’t yet come to what Christians faced in first century Rome, although in some countries it has and one day it may do so in our country too.

    I think btw your point about some of the extreme penalties in the OT not being in our law is not fair. I don’t think they should be as it applied to a situation that is not what we have here. My fear is that by rejecting the judaeo-christian base for our legal system, we leave a void that needs to be filled. At the moment is flavour of the moment morality (moral relativism); one day it could be something more sinister.

    Finally, and with this I will retire. I am sad that when I do reply I sense lots of anger. I am sorry for this but not sorry for wanting to be true to truth and my conscience. I am even more sorry that quite a few folks have negative views of Christians, and sometimes for good reason. I hope they will come to see the genuine article and be pleasantly amazed.

    And really finally – today I was told about a football match being planned in my town between a gay pride team and a scratch team from the local community and was asked if I would referee it. I would love too and said so but may be I won’t, mainly because my fitness isn’t quite as good as I would like!

  279. “My partner and I entered into a Civil partnership today after 6 years together.”

    Dave: I wish you and your partner all the best and lots of happiness.

  280. @John — Yes, absolutely there’s a lot of anger. And — I am truly sorry to say — you have exacerbated it. You cannot expect people to be anything else when you cast your judgement on them, their lives, and their basic human desires. You don’t explain why, you refuse to answer pretty fundamental questions, and you seem to abdicate all responsibility for your actions. You seem to want to have your views and never be challenged on them. This is not really the forum for that, and it is naive of you to expect otherwise.

    Can you not understand when you say “Dave: I wish you and your partner all the best and lots of happiness.” as well as “I don’t approve of gay relationships” and “gay sex is wrong” the sentiment may ring a lal hollow, and be greeted with scepticism.

    I suspect you think I am just baiting you, and that I am following an agenda to argue with Christians. This is not true. I have an agenda, and it is to try and get people to think about the consequences of their actions. I don’t think I’ve done that with you. I am sure you are a pleasant nice person, but your sin of omission — not challenging views that lead to homophobia — is just as damaging.

  281. Harry: like you, I don’t like it when people refuse to answer our questions (let’s assume – put sincerely). I really thought I had tried to do so and that you had chosen to ignore my answers. You will appreciate, given the sensibilities of flok who frequent this forums, I have tried (out of respect) to be circumspect but sometimes this has backfired.

    When you look at the history of Christianity, it is possible to point to all sorts of bad things: crusades, inquisition, sectarian violence etc. and, of course, homophobia, but I would say, on balance, the good has outweighed the bad and sadly there have been those who have twisted the teachings of Jesus for wrong ends.

    At the risk of repeating myself I, like many I know, believe and act according to what we perceive God has said, starting from the Bible, When it comes what amounts to acceptable behaviour, we try (but often fail) not to differentiate one “sin” from another. We try not to judge (God’s prerogative after all – and all of us are subject to his judgement) and we try to love unreservedly – we are all God’s creatures, made in his image, and share a common humanity, with all that goes with it. Sadly, too often Christian folk fail to live up to these noble aspirations and, no doubt, some PN readers have been casualties when that happens.

    Quite likely, I have said too much. Sometimes I have been insensitive. We all, whether we admit it or not, find difficulty when we are outside our comfort zone or when our “safe space” is violated, and I understand that when I receive flak. You can believe me or not, but no malvolence has been intended on my part. I have come to these forums from a pastoral and professional perspective, with a genuine intention to try to understand and engage, not prosletyse, remonstrate etc., and some of my views have changed as a result of doing so.

  282. John . . . I was wonder what you would do if your son were to announce that he was Gay

    I was wondering if you would send him to a Christian counsellor, or truefreedomtrust; perhaps with the expectation that he could receive reparative therapy to heal his homosexuality . . . ?

    I was just curious, especially since you have such strong views about sexuality.

  283. John, thank you for your polite and detailed reply.

    John said: “I think the couple should still be bound by the law. I understand also that gay folk would feel hurt if they couldn’t stay in a B&B etc. and why they feel that if this were to go unchallenged it would add to society’s homophobia.”

    I’m very pleased to hear that, John :) That same law protects you and your wife too, so it’s good for all of us. Moreover, the issue of homophobia is a very important one and the sooner it’s reduced the better.

    John said: “I think btw your point about some of the extreme penalties in the OT not being in our law is not fair. I don’t think they should be as it applied to a situation that is not what we have here”

    Yes, I chose extreme examples, but that’s my point. Those – and this is a GENERAL comment not particularly aimed at you – who insist that the Bible must be taken literally as a rule book for life seem to conveniently ignore the bits they don’t like. That’s hypocritical.

    You say that such laws/rules shouldn’t be applied because we don’t have the same situation here. Yes, I completely agree. The UK in the 21st century is a very different place from those places and times in the Bible.

    Our law has advanced and I’m very glad about that. Once women were considered to be property and denied the right to vote, as one example. I’m extremely pleased we’ve moved on from that view and I DON’T consider such enlightenment and progress wrong.

    I’m not quite sure what you mean by ‘moral relativism’ but I’ll repeat what I’ve said before:- both straight people and gay people can behave badly, but simply being gay is not ‘bad behaviour’. Nor, before you say, is it fair or humane to ask gay people to refrain from demonstrating their love for their partner. You wouldn’t like anyone telling you that you couldn’t touch your wife, and nor would you appreciate being labelled as ‘bad’ just because some Christians have done bad things.

    We all try to live our lives well and I don’t understand the compulsion of some religious people to judge and interfere in others’ lifes when those people are doing no harm to others. To me, it smacks of trying to distract oneself from one’s own failings.

    “Occupe-toi de tes oignons!” as they say in better French than mine :D

  284. “Occupe-toi de tes oignons” … “compris et c’est pour nous tous Iris” :-)

    Thanks for your reply Iris, which as usual I have appreciated … not much to respond or add except re. moral relativism. An earlier generation would have had, in the main, a notion of right and wrong based on things like the 10 commandments. Nowadays, that doesn’t generally hold and quite often people believe something is right because it feels right to them etc., and often we can accomodate notions of what is right for you may not be right for me but that is ok if it doesn’t cause overt harm to others. Where there is a conflict e.g. what is acceptable behaviour in the public sphere, then the majority view or that of the ruling elite is the one to prevail. I suppose that is imho what moral relativism is. The reason why we sometimes have conflicts e.g. in our forum discussions, is those two views do quite often clash.

    JohnK: you ask “I was wonder what you would do if your son were to announce that he was Gay”. Firstly, let me assume that this question was sincerely asked and there won’t be any comeback headlines along the lines “Son of a Plymouth Brethren minister from Essex …”. Secondly, I will only respond generally, for in order to protect my family it is better that I respect their privacy etc.

    I don’t know to what extent this is still true but in the past people tended only to come out as being gay when they were past the age where their parents were responsible for them and there would have been little the parent could do other than what they would have to do anyway …decide how they would engage with and respond to their child through their life’s journey.

    Let me say from the outset that I love my son and support him in every way I can and I always will. That does not depend on him following what I perceive to be God’s will for his life.

    I try to do the good parent bit: show love, give space, support, guide, correct etc. and it is for others to say how well I do … I suppose I differ from the average parent in some ways e.g. we teach him Christian doctrine; I encourage my son to question ideas including finding out what people think whose ideas are in conflict with my own; and, given my work in the diversity field, he has more opportunity than many to be exposed to the rich diversity of cultures etc. in the UK. I also try to instil in him a sense of responsibility and citizenship that respects all. I hate it if he is unkind ever and will say so (actually and thankfully, that is not usually an issue).

    If the circumstances could be arranged, I would love him to meet someone like Iris or Irish Will and he discover their story and perspective. For one day, and it is already beginning to happen, the opportunity for parental guidance will be less and he will be responsible for choosing the path he is to tread. I just hope I will always be there to support him while we are both alive and love him unconditionally, come what may.

  285. Thank you for that, John.

    Statistically your son’s unlikely to be gay, of course, but do bear in mind that it’s not just big things that hurt, little subtle messages can hurt too. My parents were fine but I grew up in an area that had an atmosphere of subtle homophobia, and it finds a way to get inside you and lower your self-esteem, particularly when you’re starting to get to know yourself as a teenager.

    As long as you let your son know that he can be his own person, whatever that might be, then that’s good.

    I get what you mean about moral relativism more now. But I try to be moral in the way I behave and I don’t see my being gay affects my morals in any way. That was what I was trying to explain above.

    Finally, I don’t think the UK will get any worse when LGBT people get full equality – which I hope will be very soon. Treating people equally can’t be bad. I think I get your fear but I just think it’s misplaced in that gay people aren’t the problem.

    Not much more to say because we’ve covered it all, I think! :D

  286. “As long as you let your son know that he can be his own person, whatever that might be, then that’s good.”

    Yes, spot on Iris and thank you for sharing your helpful insights. Much as I might want to know, I don’t know all that is going on in my son’s world. The issue of homosexuality doesn’t seem to have arisen much though and, when it has, I have tried to explain the different perspectives and suggested that he will need to make up his own mind – I have always stressed the need to act in a fair and generous way, and to challenge all forms of bullying, including homophobia.

    As a parent of a son, soon to enter his teens, I am aware of lots of pressure for him to conform to other people’s norms and agendas, peer pressure etc., which is why I appreciate your advice.

    We probably agree that the move toward full LGBT equality seems inevitable and no, I don’t believe gay people, fully empowered, is a problem. But I hope our society will be able to accomodate people with all sorts of views. I do, however, fear the move towards godlessness and secularism and, I suppose, this is one area where we do differ.

    Take care :-)

  287. @John — “Harry: like you, I don’t like it when people refuse to answer our questions (let’s assume – put sincerely). I really thought I had tried to do so and that you had chosen to ignore my answers. ”

    You haven’t answered them I’m afraid. I think they’re quite important questions, and I’ve asked them several times.

    I don’t ask them because you’re a Christian, I don’t care what faith you belong to. I ask because your views when you express them or act on them cause harm. I supported that statement with research appearing in The Psychological Bulletin. You said nothing.

    So I draw — as do many people on this site — a conclusion about your priorities. And you wonder why people are so angry.

  288. @John — and when you say things like “I don’t believe gay people, fully empowered, is a problem” can you not see how arrogant and patronizing it appears to others ? When you say “gay sex is wrong” do you not think that might be a lal provocative on a LGBT website ? Do you not understand that you’re one of hundreds of Christians ( and they’re mainly Christians I am sorry to say ) who come onto this site with a similar agenda ? As such, you will get a lot of challenges, some of them very robust. I really do wonder how much you challenge your own opinions.

    Let me be clear John. Absolutely I don’t think anything you’ve said is motivated by malevolence on your part. And you’ve behaved far more admirably that some on this site, and with dignity. But your beliefs — when expressed and acted on — are harmful.

  289. Harry: firstly, I apologise if anything I have said has come across as being patronising – that was never my intention but I can accept that some folk will see it that way and will be irritated as a result.

    Re. answering questions, I feel I have spent a lot of time answering questions people in this forum ask and often feel I am repeating myself and/or people are less interested in my answer and more interested in trying to trap or getting one over on an “enemy” (which I certainly do not want to be – in fact the very opposite).

    Correct me if I am wrong but I think your main issue with me is the harmful affects my beliefs have on gay folk and looking back at your posts I note the following quote:
    Meyer IH (September 2003). “Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: conceptual issues and research evidence”. Psychological Bulletin 129 (5): 674–97.

    While I am not a medically qualified mental health practitioner, I do work in the field, and am given to understand that it is likely that gay folk may have more issues with mental distress than straight folk, and some of it is down to triggers like those mentioned in the quote.

    I appreciate you don’t believe I contribute to this through malevolence etc. but you do think that my beliefs are part of the trigger. If that were indeed the case, I would be mortified. As I have said more than once, I don’t regard gay sex as any worse than straight sex outside of marriage or, more pertinently, worse than the sin of pride, greed or ignoring the plight of the poor. In those cases, would anyone accuse me of adding to others mental distress by my beliefs?

    Also, I have said it is not my place to judge, condemn etc. and I try hard not to deal with people on the basis of any of the equal opps issues: religion, race, gender, disability, age and SEXUAL ORIENTATION. These are virtually irrelevant and much more important is that we all are human beings and need to be respected as such.

    But here is the crux – doing what I believe to be Gods will and believing as God’s word says is of PRIMARY importance. Take that away and everything else falls apart. And something else too – if that is is a consequence of being beholden to the TRUTH, then there can be no cop out because it upsets others etc. And equally important are the words of Jesus: the truth shall set you free.

    If Jesus words are correct, and again I say if they are not everything I believe crumbles, then how can believing the truth harm anyone if the truth is what sets people free? Sad to say, many Christians have been guilty of homophobia, and I deeply regret the harm this does, but believing the truth about anything, including issues around Gods will for our sex lives, will not per se harm anyone, although an unloving attitude will.

    Harry, I have tried to sincerely answer your question because you have asked it but knowing too that some will object when they read my answer – indeed possibly fueling further anger. Finally, a question to you: in the light of the anticipated reaction of some gay folk, would it have been better for me NOT to attempt to answer your question?

  290. John wrote

    “If Jesus words are correct, and again I say if they are not everything I believe crumbles, then how can believing the truth harm anyone if the truth is what sets people free? “

    JohnK’s response

    John referring to LGBT sexualities as sinful does not lead to liberation, only oppression for LGBT people.

    . . . . . . . . . .

    John wrote

    “Sad to say, many Christians have been guilty of homophobia, and I deeply regret the harm this does, “

    JohnK’s response

    John, I do not believe you do regret the harm that homophobia does, because in the next paragraph you do not appear to understand that homophobia can begin with words.

    . . . . . . . . . .

    John wrote

    “But believing the truth about anything, including issues around Gods will for our sex lives will not per se harm anyone, although an unloving attitude will.”

    JohnK’s response

    John we understand quite clearly that your view homosexuality as a sin, and I also understand that you do not regard this as problematic, or recognize it part in shaping homophobic attitudes.

    John it is curious when you talk about “Gods will for our life not harming anyone per se”, but an “unloving attitude will”

    John this is a very smooth and diplomatic way of saying, “love the sinner but hate the sin”

    John, I was wondering who was supporting your evangelical ministry on pinknews?, I say this because you have been posting consistently on Pinknews for many months now.

  291. JohnK: regarding if anyone supporting “my ministry” to PN (that would be nice), rest assured the answer is no-one is and I do so out of genuine interest. If you analyse my posts, I don’t recall any instigating discussion along the lines: “gays are bad because …”.

    Rather, I have been interested mainly when gay values have come in conflict with those of Christians. My motive has been to find out what others think and engage in productive dialogues, never to take a pop at gay folk. If it appears like that, it is only because someone has asked a question and I have tried to answer (my last post – meant mainly for Harry, is an example). I hardly ever speak on “gay issues” and only give my views when asked. I have no problem living / working alongside gay folk etc.

    I am intrigued why you choose to dissect my last post that was aimed at answering someone else’s question when the post before I answer your question (which was quite emotional for me) and you said nothing?

  292. “I have been interested mainly when gay values have come in conflict with those of Christians.”

    Ugh – I have an issue with your assumption of “gay values” – sexuality is not ideology, and gay people do not all share the same set of values. I also feel that you come across as appropriating the diverse beliefs of other Christians – it’s been frequently stated that many Christians interpret scripture and the will of God differently to yourself. Would you be happy to rephase your sentence as:

    “I have been interested mainly when the pursuit of LGBT rights has come into conflict with the beliefs of some Christians.”

    Does that seem reasonable?

  293. Yes Sally – your phrasing is better – there is no such thing as “gay values” and we all know Christians do not all sing from the same hymnsheet. I stand corrected. Thanks.

  294. No worries :)

  295. John wrote

    “I am intrigued why you choose to dissect my last post that was aimed at answering someone else’s question when the post before I answer your question (which was quite emotional for me) and you said nothing?”

    . . . . . . . . . .

    John, I did appreciate your response to my question . . .

    (What would you do if your son announced he was gay?)

    . . . and I think your generosity in always being up for a debate is one of the traits which has warmed us to you, even though we disagree that you do not have an inalienable right to call homosexuality sinful; despite your insistence that you do.

    I did not comment on your reponse, because I felt you just slid smoothly around the issue; and I thought it might be better for others to respond to this before I decided to comment.

    . . . . . . . . . .

    Although I acknowledge that you would try to be the model parent to your son, for example when you say . . .

    “Let me say from the outset that I love my son and support him in every way I can and I always will. That does not depend on him following what I perceive to be God’s will for his life. “

    Later however I think you then realize that you are not the average parent, and that your Christianity might get in the way when you say . . .

    “I suppose I differ from the average parent in some ways e.g. we teach him Christian doctrine”

    John, I dissected your response below, because I think there were elements in what you had to say which were more honest. In this statement, I also think you avoid the tendency to ignore responsibilities connected with adopting the view point that; homosexuality is always sinful and wrong.

    “Sad to say, many Christians have been guilty of homophobia, and I deeply regret the harm this does, but believing the truth about anything, including issues around Gods will for our sex lives, will not per se harm anyone, although an unloving attitude will.”

    I disagree with your statement above and below . . .

    “Gods will for our sex lives, will not per se harm anyone, although an unloving attitude will”

    Moreover, saying that some ones sexuality is sinful will not cause any harm, but how you say it is what really causes the harm, is like saying there is nothing wrong with attacking some ones sexuality; but as long as you do it lovingly.

    . . . . . . . . . .

    There are a number of things which I am concerned about.

    Firstly, I understand that you do not recognize calling homosexuality sinful is homophobic.

    Secondly, I understand that you do not agree that calling homosexuality a sin can be harmful.

    Thirdly, I understand that you do not recognize that holding the above views would in no way have a detrimental effect on any child; who later reveals to you that they are homosexual.

    . . . . . . . . . .

    Although one cannot entirely be prescriptive about what would happen to your son if he was to reveal to you that he was homosexual. However one could make a few assumptions about what might happened, based on what has happened gay people in similar situations. I therefore I think the following trajectories are not unlikely.

    Firstly, one possibility is that your son would mostly likely keep his sexuality a secret; because having already felt his homosexuality to be rejected by you, this would be one way of preserving his sexuality.

    Secondly, because of your insistence that your sons sexuality is a sin, if your son wants to be true to himself; the following options are plausible. 1.The rejection of your branch of Christianity for a more liberal branch of Christianity. 2. The complete rejection of all forms of Christianity. 3. The complete rejection of you.

    Alternatively, out of love for you; he may try and change his sexual orientation through reparative therapies. However we do need to be mindful that the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and the BMA have said that there is no evidence that these work; and they may cause harm including anxiety, depression and even suicide.

    The last scenario has happened to a number of gay men, whose fathers have been rigid evangelical fundamentalist Christians; and I hope this would not be the trajectory that your son would consider.
    It is sadly the case that the conflict between accepting you natural sexual desires, and the rigid demands of a religious parent or family; can for some children lead to an impossible situation in which this conflict becomes irreconcilable. Sadly this does happen, and gay men have committed suicide as a way of coping with the impossible pressure which this conflict has created.

    With regards your son, one would hope that a similar conflict would not place him into a high risk category for suicide.

  296. JohnK: Thank you for your response – it is one of your better ones and you make a number of points that are valid or at least thought provoking, even though there are inevitably some areas where we disagree. I appreciate your concerns for my son and some of these I share. I also have noted difficulties concerning children growing up in strict religious families and I am determined to do everything I can for him to live a happy and productive life, trying not to inflict my own hopes and values on him when it is he who must decide. It is for this reason I try to encourage him to consider alternative ideas and to critically evaluate these, including my own.

    I suppose good parenting is about providing support, guidance and unconditional love and probably a lot more. We can only do our best. Of course I would love him to be happy and of good character, be a Christian believer (preacher even), but I accept that it is he who will decide these things and my part is focus on just being a good dad.

    Going back to your “homosexuality is sin” point, I suppose this is the biggest barrier when engaging with folk in this forum. I don’t want to repeat myself but would make a point I don’t think I have yet made about sin. Besides believing we are ALL sinners, it is important to understand what sin is.

    In the New Testament especially sin is to do with missing the target. If we are aiming our dart at the bulls eye, it really doesn’t matter if we hit the ring immediately around the bull or miss the board altogether. In either case we miss the target (i.e. sinned to use the analogy). Where I think we fundamentally differ is in my understanding of God’s purposes for our sexual relationships and because I believe God has a perfect plan for his creation, it is this that I would want to promote.

    The reason I deny I am homophobic is according to the simple definition I use, homophobia is about fearing or hating gay people, which I don’t believe I do, and that actions demonstrate this to be the case.

    Back to my son again, the issue of homosexuality has hardly ever risen and when it has it has mainly been to urge him to accept and understand those who may be different from him or the so called norm and not to tolerate any form of hate toward anyone for any reason.

    In a public forum it would be inappropriate to discuss issues and concern around my son other than saying that at this time his sexuality is not one of them but there are more important and pressing issues that do concern us, which is why, although I don’t accept all your observations, I do appreciate you have made good points that apply in a much wider context than just his sexuality – which I will take heed of.

  297. I quoted research that appears in a peer-reviewed academic journal, founded in 1904, that shows LGBT people suffer more mental health problems because of social stigma and prejudice. But you’ve got a grudging admission: “… gay folk may have more issues with mental distress than straight folk, and some of it is down to triggers like those mentioned in the quote …”.

    When you have men kicked to death because they’re gay, when you have Christian preachers supporting the death penalty for gay people, when you have government advisors describing the gay lifestyle as destructive and leading to paedophilia, that’s not enough for you. You’ve got to have the possibility that there’s something intrinsically wrong with gay people. Mealy-mouthed.

    It’s my contention that even if you don’t do the kicking, don’t call for the hanging, you encourage it, you provide justification and support, if you express opinions life gay sex is wrong, gay relationships are not acceptable, wrong, homosexuality is an abomination. I think it’s obvious that expressing opinions like those, turning gay people away from your hotel is going to increase the psychological burden on them. The research just confirms it, but it’s really common sense.

    As you say this is the crux. “… doing what I believe to be Gods will and believing as God’s word says is of PRIMARY importance. Take that away and everything else falls apart. And something else too – if that is is a consequence of being beholden to the TRUTH, then there can be no cop out because it upsets others etc …”

    That’s low. It’s not about being upset or offended. It’s about being kicked to death. It’s about not having the same rights as your fellow humans. Don’t trivialize it.

    “In a pluralistic and supposedly tolerant society, why can’t gay folk and Christians who believe gay sex is wrong peacefully co-exist and maybe even work together to tackle some of the injustices we both agree on?”

    The two positions aren’t equivalent. You either support LGBT equality or you don’t. LGBT people wish to go about their business, and conduct their private lives, with the freedom and lack of hindrance that the majority of people enjoy. They wish they could fully exercise their natural-born rights.

    Some Christians wish to exercise their beliefs and restrict the natural-born rights of LGBT people. Some Christians believe that they are entitled and obligated to interfere in LGBT people’s private lives.
    The two views do not have equal validity. Forget all the fine arguments, try these two tests:

    1. Imagine the Bulls had added a clause to their booking form along the lines of Due to our deep held beliefs, double bedded accommodation is available for white couples only. Acceptable or unacceptable ?

    2. Imagine an employee of the Bulls had let two rooms to two couples whilst the Bulls were absent from the hotel. The Bulls return and pass the doors of both couples and hear them having sex. The Bulls pause a second and from the first door, a man and woman leave. From the second door, two men leave. Somehow the Bull’s religious rights have been infringed by the couple coming through the second door, but not the first door. Rational or irrational ?

    “Finally, a question to you: in the light of the anticipated reaction of some gay folk, would it have been better for me NOT to attempt to answer your question?” Better ? Better for whom ?

  298. @John — “Looking at past questions / comments etc. aimed at me (which I have tried my best to respond to)and, unless something profoundly significant crops up (it does seem sometimes we are going in circles, after all), I will, if I may, quietly withdraw, but also genuinely wish you, and other PN contributers, well ”

    This is very low. You’re coming onto a LGBT website, a forum for discussion amongst and mutual support of LGBT people, and posting comments like ‘I don’t approve of gay relationships’. Your a member of a religion that describes homosexuality as an abomination. You’ve had some robust responses. But to play to the victim is really low. How many Christians were kicked to death by Christianphobes last year ? How many gay people post on Christian forums saying they don’t approve of Christian relationships ? How many young Christians develop mental health problems because LGBT people stigmatize them ?

  299. Harry, I am sorry you find my earlier comments unacceptable. Truly, I gave it my best shot to come to grips with your concerns and tried to address them, but it seems I have failed. What more can I do? Moreover, it has added to your anger, which is the very reason I have been and am reluctant to prolong the discussion.

    Regarding mental distress, I certainly do not trivialise the issues. If you knew the work I do in the community around mental health, I wonder if you would say that? And you please don’t trivialise the mental distress Christians experience either. I know this is all too real. While what the Bulls are experiencing may not seem much compared with the outright attacks on minority groups the world over, consider the long list of countries where Christians are being persecuted and killed for their faith – RIGHT NOW.

    Really Harry, I sometimes wonder how sincere you are (you seem to oscillate between sympathetic and antagonistic)? You claim the moral high ground by asking these questions, saying those who think differently to you have not addressed your concerns, where in fact they have and you choose to ignore what they say or even begin to understand where they come from when they argue a point.

    I have no doubt you have had some pretty harrowing experiences as a gay man and I am sorry but please don’t blame me when all I am trying to do is to find common ground between two different viewpoints and seeing where we can go forward.

  300. John Wrote

    “Regarding mental distress, I certainly do not trivialise the issues. If you knew the work I do in the community around mental health, I wonder if you would say that?”

    . . . . . . . . . .

    John . . . I was wondering what does qualifiy you to speak about mental distress?

  301. @John — I still don’t think you’ve even tried to address most of the points I’ve raised. You’ve talked about how upsetting you’ve found some of the comments, and how you tried your best, but I don’t see much discussion about the issues raised. Some of the comments have been beyond the pale, but what do you expect ? You’re on a website for LGBT people, for their benefit. Yet you expect an easy ride when you join the forum and make pronouncements like ‘gay relations are wrong’, ‘gay sex is wrong’, ‘I can’t approve of gay relationships’. You may think these are harmless expressions of your faith, but as I have tried to demonstrate, hate and homophobia begin with words like these.

    Your point about Christians being persecuted is low. Of course that happens. But the difference is they’re persecuted by members of other faiths — by people, who like some Christians, believe they are right, and accept and tolerate not dissension. They aren’t persecuted by LGBT people. LGBT people don’t go round saying Christian sex is wrong, Christian relationships are incorrect, LGBT people can’t approve of Christian relationships. They don’t join Christian forums and make these comments, and they don’t contribute to society level homophobia which leads to Christians being kicked to death in the street. The discussion is predicated on what is happening in this society, not in others.

    You speculate about the pretty harrowing experiences you think I’ve experienced as a gay man, but you also wonder how sincere I am. I’m unsure what you point is. Are you saying I’m trying to foment an argument, or are you saying you don’t think I’ve had harrowing experiences ? You don’t think you’ve been a lal antagonistic yourself ?

    If you were doing something that causes harm to other people, would you stop ? What if you believed your actions were mandated by your faith ? Do you believe that LGBT people intrinsically have mental health issues that are not caused by the stigma they suffer on a day to day basis ? Do you think that making some of the statements you’ve made — for example ‘I can’t approve of gay relationships’ — is not antagonistic ? What are you doing to ensure that what happened to Ian Baynham doesn’t happen to anyone else ? How would you teach people not to homophobically bully gay kids whilst also teaching them that Christianity thinks gay relationships are wrong ? Do you frequent sites for divorcees and remind them of Jesus’ teaching about divorce ? Do you think that LGBT people should enjoy exactly the same rights as non LGBT people ? How do you work for that aim ?

  302. John wrote

    “I have no doubt you have had some pretty harrowing experiences as a gay man and I am sorry but please don’t blame me when all I am trying to do is to find common ground between two different viewpoints and seeing where we can go forward.”

    . . . . . . . . . .

    John . . . I do not believe you can have an inalienable right to refer to homosexuality as sinful, and avoid accountability for the consequences of stigmatizing; and propagating prejudice against LGBT people.

    John, if your Christianity is only built on a perceived right to call LGBT names, what does that really say about your branch of Christianity

    John, playing the inverted victim card with regard this issue, is really rather feeble. Do you really believe there is a corollary between the plight of Christians in Middle East who face death, and Christians being told they cannot discriminate against LGBT people in the UK?

  303. John Wrote

    “Really Harry, I sometimes wonder how sincere you are (you seem to oscillate between sympathetic and antagonistic)? You claim the moral high ground by asking these questions, saying those who think differently to you have not addressed your concerns, where in fact they have and you choose to ignore what they say or even begin to understand where they come from when they argue a point.”

    . . . . . . . . . .

    John I really think that Harry’s reaction to you is based on your double edged style on these threads. John at times you are engaging and respectful, at other times condemning; and prone to name calling under the guise of Gods will.

    If I or Harry appear mixed in our reactions to you, it is simply because we are responding to your need to both engage with us amicably; and simultaneously call us names directly or implicitly.

    John if you call us names, we will get angry with you. John is our angry not are justified?. John, surely you know that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is inhospitality, and that when you are invited to a party; you simply to not respond to generosity by raping your guests. John neither have you been invited to this LGBT forum, or forced to receive our hospitality. Moreover, when you respond to our generosity by violating us with your name calling, expect to unleash our wrath.

  304. Any name-calling I’ve not registered. And I can’t say I’ve been offended either — I don’t agree with the idea that I have a right never to be offended. And nor do I think that anger is always a bad thing.

    I find it hard to be excessively polite when I talk to someone who seems to have no concept of the actual damage they do to other people, because of a theoretical belief about what is right and what is wrong. If they favour abstractions over humanity, if they refuse to clarify what they mean or what they do, if they have no concept about the inconsistency between the words and actions and how they would like to think of themselves, then yes, I get a lal irritated.

    And John, you are wrong. I’ve never had any harrowing experience as a gay man. You assume too much. You imply that my rage against homophobia is motivated by adverse personal experience. No, no it ain’t. I just find it disgusting. You know what ? I’ve never experienced racism or sexism either, and I find those disgusting also.

  305. Harry, I was referring to John’s generic name calling, when he continues to assert that LGBT people are sinfiul

  306. Interesting — I wouldn’t describe that as name-calling, more as stigmatising.

  307. JohnK, Harry:

    I note the last 7 posts, responding to my earlier points. I am sure you will agree: if our discussing is going to achieve anything, it must not be about point scoring but rather trying to understand the other person’s position.

    I note the later exchanges about name calling, which helps clarify a point. I don’t think I have engaged in name calling but of course I have tried to state what I feel to be a “biblical” position on sexuality. Both of you have made it very clear how much this offends you. My dilemma is how to resolve various paradoxes. On one hand I feel I can’t pick and choose what I believe but on the other I need to find the right balance. After all, one might summarise the “law of God” as love your neighbour as yourself.

    Apologies Harry for assuming you have had bad experiences. I accept you really think my holding the views I do can / does lead to homophobia. While I would contend this is the case, I can at least understand why you respond the way you do. Lots of points have been made and I can’t possibly deal with them all now (would you expect me to do so?) but I really did feel that in my previous posts in this and other threads I have tried to cover the points – often more than once.

    I have tried to respect PN is a haven for gay folk but I had felt / hoped that it would allow respectful debate too. When I first posted, it was because a friend of mine who was standing in the last election was rather vilified (I felt unfairly so) for his views on equality. Since I was the one who set him up, albeit innocently, I felt some responsibility to support him.

    After that, I have come to see many articles that really interested me and have chipped in. Often the angry reaction has come when I have responded to someone’s question along the lines “what do you believe about … and why?”. I can say that I have learnt a lot; some of my misapprenhensions have changed and attitudes have softened – so it has done some good!

    When I saw the other day a photo in another PN story showing children holding banners with the words “God hates fags” I felt a revulsion. It shows some (maybe many) Christians have been guilty of homophobia (and worse) and I will use whatever influence I have to try to change that.

  308. @John — Sorry but I cannot see where you’ve tried to deal with the questions I’ve raised. I’ve summarized the main ones in my post of 11:21am to-day. Most of them require yes or no responses.

  309. Harry: (quickly) hope this helps – not trying to be facescious.

    If you were doing something that causes harm to other people, would you stop ? [YES]

    What if you believed your actions were mandated by your faith ? [N/A as I don't believe my faith would lead me down such a route]

    Do you believe that LGBT people intrinsically have mental health issues that are not caused by the stigma they suffer on a day to day basis ? [I don't know enought but believe it is likely most LGBT MH issues are cause by the stigma]

    Do you think that making some of the statements you’ve made — for example ‘I can’t approve of gay relationships’ — is not antagonistic ? [It can be taken that way and if so I am sorry but that is not the intention]

    What are you doing to ensure that what happened to Ian Baynham doesn’t happen to anyone else ? [I am involved in an event to stop homophobia in football; I organise diversity events with LGBT influence; I challenge homophobic attitudes when I encounter them; I teach positive attitudes in my sphere of influence etc.]

    How would you teach people not to homophobically bully gay kids whilst also teaching them that Christianity thinks gay relationships are wrong ?
    [I don't believe the two are incompatible]

    Do you frequent sites for divorcees and remind them of Jesus’ teaching about divorce ? [NO]

    Do you think that LGBT people should enjoy exactly the same rights as non LGBT people ? [In principle yes but suspect there might be exceptions e.g. marriage - can you offer examples]

    How do you work for that aim ? [On a personal level, I respect LGBT folk in the same way as any other ...]

  310. “John . . . I was wondering what does qualifiy you to speak about mental distress?”

    JohnK, while I have no MH qualification and tend to subscribe more to a social rather than a biomedical model …
    1. I have been there myself i.e. experienced mental distress!
    2. In 2000, I helped set up a project based around therapautic gardening for people with MH issues. Typically, at its peak we were seeing 50-100 persons a week, most with MH issues, with varying input. While I am no longer actively involved, the project is still going.
    3. I have researched and produced a MH directory for my area. I have also researched and written a booklet about spirituality and MH.
    4. My current work brings me in contact with folk with MH issues on an almost daily basis.
    5. Tonite, I am going out with Street Pastors (strictly non-proseletysing). It is almost certain I will meet folk on the stress with MH issues. btw it is gay night at one of the clubs on our patch – generally meet a nice set of people.

  311. John wrote

    “I have tried to respect PN is a haven for gay folk but I had felt / hoped that it would allow respectful debate too.

    When I first posted, it was because a friend of mine who was standing in the last election was rather vilified (I felt unfairly so) for his views on equality.

    Since I was the one who set him up, albeit innocently, I felt some responsibility to support him.”

    . . . . . . . . . .

    John . . . at last we are getting closer to the heart of why you are posting on pinknews; but do you not think that your anger is rather misplaced.

  312. JohnK: a lot of water under the bridge since then … as for misplaced anger, that hadn’t occured … disappointment yes because I don’t think all comments are kind and fair, but my motive is to engage in honest debate.

    Btw, given I dedicated two earlier posts to answer your questions, I ‘m still intrigued you have responded further.

    PS just come back from a Street Pastor stint – lots of positive engagements and, as expected, sadly some with MH issues.

  313. John wrote

    “When I first posted, it was because a friend of mine who was standing in the last election was rather vilified (I felt unfairly so) for his views on equality.”

    . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    I am more interested in your friends views on equalty which were vilified.

    Presumably your friend made a number of statements about homosexuality.

    Presuamble your friend was vilified for his lack of aherence to equality for LGBT people?.

    . . . .

    I am intrigued by your friends views.

    What were his views?

  314. John wrote

    “Btw, given I dedicated two earlier posts to answer your questions, I ‘m still intrigued you have responded further.”

    . . . . . . . . . .

    As you admit yourself, you have no mental health qualifications, or any voice which qualifies you to speak about the factors effecting the mental health of LGBT people.

  315. JohnK: I agree, issues around MH are too important to trivialise and I wouldn’t presume to understand a lot of what LGBT folk go through. I would be grateful if you would enlighten me.

    Re. my entry into PN, the following is the link:
    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/04/30/ukip-candidate-claims-party-would-scrap-gay-equality-laws/
    I thought the article was, on the whole, fair and while not giving my friend’s views in their entirety, will give you an idea of what these are. I did feel some of the comments in the PN discussion that followed were unfair and this was a main motivation for entering the fray.

    Sally articulated one of my main concerns well: “I have been interested mainly when the pursuit of LGBT rights has come into conflict with the beliefs of some Christians.” I think that was my friend’s concern at the time too and one of the examples used was around the case of the Bulls.

  316. @John — thanks. It does help, and is far from facetious.

    I asked you whether you think LGBT people should enjoy exactly the same rights as non LGBT people, and you gave a mealy-mouthed answer (“in principle yes but suspect there might be exceptions e.g. marriage”), and then asked “can you offer examples”. When I ask should they enjoy exactly the same rights, I mean exactly the same rights, with no exceptions. You either think equality is right or you think it is wrong — a position of full equality with exceptions is ridiculous: have the courage of your convictions. I conclude you don’t think LGBT people deserve full equality, and would rather that you just stated that plainly and honestly. What are the rights enjoyed by non LGBT people that you believe LGBT should not enjoy ?

    I’m heartened that you’d stop causing harm, but again my next question “What if you believed your actions were mandated by your faith ?” also gets a mealy-mouthed answer “N/A as I don’t believe my faith would lead me down such a route”. Is that it ? Have you actually thought about what you would do if it did ? And given research like the article I’ve already quoted, and this http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/02/03/homophobia-can-make-you-ill-study-says/ I find it difficult to see how you’re not actually causing harm.

    I am flabbergasted that you can’t see the inconsistency between your words, how you think you are, and your actions, what you actually are. You can’t see that saying “I don’t approve of gay relationships” on a LGBT forum might antagonize the people on that forum. You see no contradiction between teaching people not to homophobically bully gay kids, and teaching that gay relationships are wrong. You say you challenge homophobic attitudes when you encounter them, but thinking that gay people deserve fewer rights than straight people is homophobic. I question your priorities. I asked about divorce because the position of the Bible is clear — it is considered wrong. As reported in the Gospels, it is condemned by Jesus. They do not report him condemning gay people. It seems to me strange that with this clear Christian message, you’re spending time on a LGBT forum issuing statements like “I can approve of gay relationships” and not on forums for the support of divorced people saying “I can’t approve of divorce or remarriage.”

    In a nutshell, your position is: ‘On a personal level I respect LGBT folk in the same as any other. I just don’t think they should be allowed to be married. I don’t think their relationships are right. I think gay sex is wrong. I think they have intrinsic mental health issues. But I respect them’. And you claim not to be homophobic.

    I urge you, I beg you, to consider the consequences of your actions. It’s just that the consequences are felt by other people. I guess what I want to try understand, is why you think they should have fewer rights than other people. I think a bit of discussion around this might be useful, as a prelude to getting back to your original question regarding the conflict between some Christians’ faith and the rights of LGBT people.

  317. Harry wrote

    “In a nutshell, your position is: ‘On a personal level I respect LGBT folk in the same as any other. I just don’t think they should be allowed to be married. I don’t think their relationships are right. I think gay sex is wrong. I think they have intrinsic mental health issues. But I respect them’. And you claim not to be homophobic”

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    Harry these are the words of some one who is interested in politics, and promoting others to enter the politcal arena; as John has more recently revealed.is part of his motivation for posting on pinknews.

    Harry, I believe John is only interested in this LGBT forum in so far as he can practice his political rhetoric; as you have so eloquently dissected.

    John appears to be using these forums to see how far he can package his homophobia in a politically acceptable format, unfortuately Johns style is becoming rather old hat. Most British people have an appetite for fairness, and do not tolerate rhetorical hypocrisy..

  318. Harry: I think the problem with trying to summarize someone else’s position in a nutshell (something I have done myself – I admit) is it is notoriously difficult to do so. I wanted go along with your summary until the implication of your “intrinsic mental health issues” statement dawned on me. I don’t know where you got that from because I never said it. I do believe, for reasons intimated in the article you cite, because of the stress caused when LGBT folk are stigmatized, it is likely they will proportionately have more MH issues than non LGBT folk.

    I know you like straight yes or no answers, as do I, but sometimes it is not always possible, which is why I said “in principle” I believe in LGBT equality with non LBGT folk. It occured to me that by (my) definition marriage is not a right (rather an institution ordained by God), although many gay folk believe it is – so the issue of marriage equality does not arise for me. But I don’t want to be disingenuous, which is why I wrote as I did. Another issue is LGBT folk fostering and adopting issues. While my position is not fully made up, I am not as opposed as I once was (thanks to Iris arguments in these PN forums). But then the issue is less about rights and more about responsibities and (in this case) what is best for the children.

    As for your “I urge you, I beg you, to consider the consequences of your actions” plea, I acknowledge this is heart feltly and sincerely made. I will do this Harry but I also wish you would understand that I can only do what I believe to be right based on my Christian beliefs. At the risk of repeating myself, I don’t see any incompatibility in doing this and treating LGBT folk in a just and kind way.

  319. “Harry, I believe John is only interested in this LGBT forum in so far as he can practice his political rhetoric; as you have so eloquently dissected.”

    Ahh JohnK: just when I was thinking that I was seeing a more mellow, winsome, engaging, reasonable adversary (ref. some of your helpful insights in some recent posts) then you come up with a comment like this! My “political” reference was in response to a question you asked and you then go and throw it back in my face (as you have done in the past).

    I am not a politician and am not invovled much politically. When it comes to voting patterns I regard myself as a “floater”, voting for the candidate who I feel can do the most good / least evil. I engage / work with politicians of all shades etc. My particular mantra is social justice e.g. working on behalf of homeless folk and asylum seekers.

    I am, however, deeply interested in the “culture wars” that undergird our society at this time, because the outcomes, imho, will have a profound effect on the welfare of our people. Therefore, I do take an interest in what is going on in our public life, especially when LGBT “rights” appear to be in conflict with those of Christians. I try to analyse the implications, make reasoned arguments in the public square, suggest responses / solutions etc., and engage with whoever.

    This is not the same as doing what you claim I am doing! I do object to your “hypocrite” and “homophobe” comments for reasons that should be obvious from my earlier postings.

  320. @John — “I wanted go along with your summary until the implication of your “intrinsic mental health issues” statement dawned on me. I don’t know where you got that from because I never said it. ”

    “While I am not a medically qualified mental health practitioner, I do work in the field, and am given to understand that it is likely that gay folk may have more issues with mental distress than straight folk, and some of it is down to triggers like those mentioned in the quote”.

    My italics, your words. You’ve said that gay people have additional mental health problems, over and above those caused by stigma and prejudice.

    “I can only do what I believe to be right based on my Christian beliefs.”

    Regardless of the harm it does to others ?

    “At the risk of repeating myself, I don’t see any incompatibility in doing this and treating LGBT folk in a just and kind way.”

    Are you serious ?

  321. “My italics, your words. You’ve said that gay people have additional mental health problems, over and above those caused by stigma and prejudice.”
    [I didn't think I was saying that ... when people are mistreated (as gay folks are more than straight folks) then this leads to mental distress (which I think is what you believe too!? I wouldn't want to speculate beyond this and based my view on research (such as cited by you) and dealing with folk with MH issues that is down, partly at least, on negative past experiences]

    “Regardless of the harm it does to others ?”
    [Harry, I'm of the view that if we truly believe what God/Jesus teaches/taught and act accordingly then rather doing harm we will do good. Tragically, many Christians have not done that and that is the problem]

    “Are you serious ?”
    [Yes Harry]

  322. @John — You note “In 1998 the Home Office released a report which cited a study showing that “approximately 20 to 33% of child sexual abuse is homosexual in nature”.

    I take it you’ve read the report, and noted that it also says:

    “Individual studies must be viewed cautiously before generalising from them“

    and this is one of several studies cited in the report. Of course if one was seeking to confirm a belief, one might be tempted to cherry pick research, and publicise only that which confirms one’s belief. It is interesting to note that a google search of the phrase

    approximately 20 to 33% of child sexual abuse is homosexual in nature

    returns these links

    http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Sodomy/child_abuse.htm

    http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one-a.php

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2011/02/why_was_dr_raabe_sacked.html

    http://www.christian.org.uk/news/christian-gp-ditched-from-drugs-panel-over-gay-row/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

    I’m sure you’ve looked into the matter yourself, and discovered other researchers have failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children’s hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases. This suggests that gay or lesbian people are under represented.

  323. Tanuki-san 1 Mar 2011, 3:44am

    I’m starting to believe that Montheism in general (and Christianity in particular) is a moral and psychological disease which has infected the human race for far too long. It’s time it was eleiminated permanently.

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