The word against sodomy? Are they going to ban all heterosexuals couples that engage in sodomy (anal and oral sex)? I hope so because if they ban gays that engage in sodomy then they have to ban heterosexuals, if not they are homophobic idiots that are using every little excuse to justify their bigotry.
This isnt about sex its about our right to exist. At least we know where we stand
Moreover it deals with these christian’s right to be assholes.
I know many of you here (not the poster per say) have been assholes whenever I questioned the Marxist/Socialist gay Pinko agenda (which has nothing to do with being gay, and more to do about money and power and keeping the gay sheep in subservience).
If there is a law in England which criminalize hatred and being assholes well then some of you should be in prison by now.
Marxist/Socialist gay pinko agenda….. what the feck does this mean
Well I’m not Marxist nor Socialist …
I think I know what pepa is suggesting and thats not exactly what I interpret as Marxist or Socialist …
There is a law in England and Wales which criminalizes hatred. It does not stop people being “assholes” and rightly so … freedom of speech is important .. but it does carry responsibility and the church in this example appears to be shirking that responsibility
it means pepa is a USA republian freak. A member of our party that hates gays, gave us the almost 2nd great republican depression which totally messed up the world economy.
And hteir playbook, written in german is called
pepa’s a Tea Party freak to be precise. That’s only a different kind of hatred and paranoia.
No wonder he has no idea of geography and other matters of fact then – if he is from the same crowd as Sarah Palin …
pepa who the fcuk are you to question us?
Well said, James …
Spot on, James!
Only in Belfast when so many religious nuts tend to be on this island.
I quite like the judges line “Likewise, the practice of homosexuality may have a similar effect on those of a particular religious faith.”
Practice??? Do straight people “practice” too? Shows where the judges sentiments lie really. Maybe if these religious sub-humans minded their own business, they wouldn’t have to focus so much of their little minds on what other people get up to…. god knows they can’t afford to spare what few neurons they have.
Still, a minor victory for religious inspired intolerance, other battles to be won. I’d be embarrassed beyond belief if I was one of the ones who would be happy with this verdict, essentially to be happy with the right to discriminate.
The church is an artificial entity (corporation) not an individual … freedom of expression should not apply !
Actually the government in the UK views individuals as corporations, under law (especially in America) there is no such thing as an individual. If it were so we would have a more compassionate/responsible government (no war, no economic crisis and stealing people’s pensions etc.)
actually the other way round, pepa – English law views organisations as having an individual identity for legal purposes …
but I suspect you said that deliberately ;-p
Yes, because individuals are viewed as corporations. Almost every law made deals with your corporation (of you, as in STU instead of Stu).
Whenever your get sued, the docs type your name in capital letters, while natural people or individuals have our names in small letters as in Stu.
Research Maritime Admiralty Law (which is the law that governs ships, money, banking, corporations and marriages).
well try looking at for example corporate manslaughter law – and you will see very clearly that English law provides a persona to an orrganisation – gives them a personality and treats them as equals to individuals also potentially facing prosecution …
Yes, again, the reason why they place human characteristics in these laws is because they view all persons as corporations and all corporations as persons.
As they blur these important distinctions they are able to impose more laws that in reality are meant for real corporations and not persons (like the income tax for example).
Only in your head, mate!
I am happy only in the sense that it will make it easier to overturn the ridiculous ASA ban on the adverts about catholic priests and ice cream.
The “practice” of homosexuality? What about the practice of heterosexuality?!
Religion has some serious issues if it wants to artificially decouple sexual orientation and sexual expression.
Is this final or can an appeal be made?
I done need to practice
Am always happy to practice though …
Yeah me too. Practice makes perfect!
Never trust a christian, rotten to the core fantasists. I wonder will the loony lefties/uaf start their simple name calling strategy of racism now, or are they only selective when it comes to islam.
is true dat
What’ll be interesting is being that this is about Christian homophobia, when with a certain ‘few’ start throwing round words like ‘facists’ and ‘racists’ and getting hysterical or will they be just as happy to join in the debate?
I’m going for the double standards bet!
totally agree, Those in imman, rainbow hamlets , uaf etc have such a limited understanding of facism and define it purely to suit their own agenda. They are morally bereft in fighting facism in other religious/ethnic communities.
bla bla bla bla bla bla
yeah, but notable that all the usual suspects seem uconcerned about this. will you be coordinating a pride march in Belfast?
IMHO the judgement is correct in this case. It is not the job of the law to censor religious belief even when those beliefs might be unpalateable personally to us.
And its not for religion to inflict its view on those capable to dismiss the indoctrinated dogma.
I’m with concerned resident on this one … although I think some of the language used by the church has been inflammatory …
And rapture, whilst most of me agrees with you about inflicting of views, mainly due to my discomfort at those views; I also see for two reasons why we can’t stop religious folk expressing their beliefs – firstly, part of their mission as faith based people is to bring others to salvation which requires them to evangelise …
Secondly, and more importantly, we have views inflicted on us all the time that we either agree with or dont and we also express views on issues that others will agree with or not eg politics, views on LGBT issues etc. If we do not stand up for those of faith to express their belief’s then in the future – our ability to express our beliefs could be curtailed
Wow how people manage to fit there agenda to any story on this site no matter how little it has to do with the story.
Wow what a crap contribution to any story dickhead
feeling better now???
And yes I do now
Radical Islam and Suni Islam (the kind that the Saudis are exporting to the UK) preach that gay people should not only face the death penalty once they take over Europe but also that they should be tortured.
And you Fascist apologists stop with this “race” thing. Islam is a fascistic socio-political ideology.
Yes Christians are no better but the reality is that there more christians in the West than there are muslims, and so far currently no western state is trying to execute gay people (and some have incorporated gay marriage like Argentina, a very catholic and evangelical country). Muslim countries in the east are totally the opposite.
Yes some Christians are no better than some Muslims … its those “labels” – there are Christians who are marvelous and very supportive of the LGBT communities – to generalise (which I hate to do ) look at your own example of Argentina where certain catholic organisations endorsed gay marriage …
There are rarer pockets of Muslims who support LGBT rights too … but the reality is there is a lot to condemn about some aspects of the Muslim community – but we need to ensure that our message isnt diluted by racist activity either from within the LGBT communities or tacitly endorsed by us
“There are rarer pockets of Muslims who support LGBT rights too”
The use the word “rarer” pretty much says it for me.
So on the basis that they are in a minority we should condemn LGBT Muslims and those supporting them to being viewed by a stereotype?
If you used the word “rarer” to describe them I can barely consider them to be a “minority”
And I’m not the one condemning them, their fascistic religion is, so lets get that one straight.
And to be blunt I remember a documentary dealing with gay Muslims and they were only able to interview 4 or five of them, not a huge group of people, then a few of those interviewed said that they don’t consider themselves as part of the lgbt community but rather as part of the Muslim community.
So they made their choice.
“Radical Islam and Suni Islam (the kind that the Saudis are exporting to the UK2″
Its WAHABI, you uneducated bigoted edl idiot
This morning at the bus stop 2 pakistani men stood in front of me one around a foot away the other one about 6ft trying to imtinidate me like a pair of idiots i frightened them off.
Muslims hate gay people and have decided that we can be harrased or attacked in the uk of in our spritiual home amsterdam. So shove it up your smelly ass you dickhead
im sure u invent those sweet stories to impress those less intelectally endowed, like urself and pepa type. u r such a bigoted eld moron
One thing about me is that you get the truth. Young muslim guys hate gay people like me. do you think thats a lie?
@gee unless you are witness to his (james!)experience its irrelevant , what you are told to think. But its clear, you are the bigot to dismiss without consideration a possible homophobic hate crime incident.
have to say I have been intimidated by Asians and non Asians in bus stops previously … sometimes that may be because of a particular motivation or intention of those alarming me; maybe on occasion it was that I was reading an intention in those distressing me that was not actually intended … I wasn’t there so I can’t comment on James experience – but I can see it could occur – not sure it necessarily links to the last portion of his comment … and Gee it may have been a homophobic incident so to dismiss it is inappropriate
@ james and whoever
im not prepared to enter into discussion based on few incidents involving some brown men perpurtating crime as muslims. your previous statment just stereotypes whole community and your assumption that perpertrators were “pakistani men” just proves my point. crime or not it is wrong to use it for cheap point scoring. what a edl moron (its a conclusion not assumption)
Gee i’ve tried to pretend that not all young Pakistani Muslim men are anti gay. Asian men killed a black man in a racist attack in Birmingham so you guys are not above racisim or homophobia. and on you tube Darkus howe programme who you calling n*gger should asian men for what they are so you can suck my hairy balls you muppet
Your arguments are so stupid that to call them psudo would be a compliment.
@gee Muslims in the uk are intolerant of lgbt , english values,end off . Now stop being homophobic and racist and acknowledge the truth.
is that all u have? how pathetic, i thought james was thick but you are just off the scale, is there any reason for your existence other than to interject stupidities?!
Obviously you are a complete simpleton of the worst kind, you actually have delusions of intellect. Anyhow i don’t have time to squabble with a fool like you , who lacks basic skills of perception . You are bubble wrapped in your insular existance.
yep i’ll stick with my previous post
i guessed you would, its not possible for you to evolve to reason and observe.
“its not possible for you to evolve to reason and observe.”
hard to do that when u deal with stupidities. and pls try to sound less desperate
@rapture, James! and gee
Ok. Lets have some facts here …
There are examples of intolerance against LGBT by Muslims and Asians in the UK.
Some of those examples include violence and aggression.
There are examples of violence towards white people, black people and others by Asians which may or may not be due to racial reasons.
However, there are examples of intolerance and homophobia by white people and some of these include aspects of violence
There are examples of white people attacking Asians and others on the basis of race including murder and some vile assaults
There are good examples within the Asian, white and black communities of LGBT relations.
Whilst, I consider Gee to have been dismissive in some of James! comments and accept that could be seen as intolerant I think that the lamentable responses from James, rapture etc. appear at first sight to have a more deep rooted sense of hatred which is damaging both the wider community we live in and the LGBT communities
Stu you’re a pussy
Rapture ignore gee and the apologist stu. If you you tube Darcus Howe who you calling n*gger you’ll see this is how they respond to us
@gee , i’m not the one so desperate as to believe or support a primitive idealogy
@stu , you seem bit confused about race and religion. Your references to asians, black people are a deflection from my comment on islam . All recent research, gallup polls etc show 0% of muslims in the uk support lgbt , that is not comparable with examples of homophobia from other communites. I think your reluctance and passivity to acknowledge the injustice of the matter, is more damaging to the lgbt community than anything i have said. On your accusation of hating, you could be an example of self loathing with your clear unquestioning support of an idealogy of discrimination and hate.
@james! no worries , they can be as blinkered as they want.
Firstly, I used the phrases Asian and Muslim separately as not all Muslims are Asian and not all Asians are Muslim – I am not confused about either identity, am fully aware that race and religion have connections but are not determinants of the other. The reason for the use of black people within the comments was due to the comment of James! above and to identify this. Maybe I did not make this clear. As much as I completely disagree with your comments on Islam, there was no intention of deflection.
There may be many reasons why surverys would show 0% support for the LGBT communities from Muslims. This will be in part due to hostility towards the LGBT communities but also due to a reluctance from some to disclose their sympathies depending on who they were asked in front of. It would be interesting to see how those surveys were conducted etc. That said, I was speaking from personal experience of speaking to LGBT Muslims and Muslims who are accepting of the LGBT ….
… communities. It is my experience please don’t tell me it is invalid.
Having said that, I do accept that there is a significant vocal Muslim population that is homophobic. That homophobia needs to be condemned, confronted and dealt with appropriately.
The worst homophobia I have experienced has been from people of no faith. I was involved in investigating the torture of a teenager by two people and forced to endure multiple physical and sexual assaults and held against there will for a protracted period. There was no religious involvement, it was purely due to hatred over the sexuality of the victim. Again, my experience which shows that religion can be a factor in homophobia but is not always key particularly in some nasty incidents.
At no point have I denied that there is injustice in any homophobia of whatever form. I would want all such instances to be dealt with firmly, but fairly.
Your suggestion that I tacitly condone homophobia is offensive and inaccurate.
I do not support in any way any faith ideology. What I do support is equality for all. Universal human rights. The right to be treated fairly and with respect. That should apply to the conduct from the Muslim community to the LGBT community AND vice versa. Clearly, there are examples of this not happening in both directions. That needs to be dealt with – neither homophobia nor religious hate crime are acceptable – full stop.
As for self loathing, your arrogance is nearly as bad as the T party right winger I was chatting to a couple of days ago. You clearly interpret a message that you want to hear from my words. Far from being self loathing, I am a confident, happy, gay man who is comfortable in his skin and orientation and passionate about gay rights – but as passionate about ensuring that those who have rights also have responsibility. Those responsibilities are not dependant on whether your rights have been respected or not. They are responsibilities that if you have
Far from being blinkered, I was the first police officer in the area I worked to arrest two Asian youths for racial harassment of a white family. I am fully aware of the facts.
It is you who are blinkered into a conspiracy theorism (based on some facts) but extended to prejudice and hatred that is damaging.
Once again, homophobia needs eradicating. There is homophobia from the Muslim community – but there are examples from elsewhere too. There are also examples of some misguided gay activists attacking and sabotaging people from a variety of communities.
My experience is that there are people of most communities that are supportive of the LGBT communities.
My desire of universal human rights may be idealistic but it does not ignore that the real world has many complex issues to contend with. My approach is to be positive and seek solutions rather than casitgate and cause hatred to be entrenched – which I perceive is your method.
It appears you never let truth and reason get in the way of an attack on Muslims …
It also appears that you do not accept that human rights should be universal …
@James! – resorting to insults again, learning to expect that from you,
It requires far more courage to stand up for real rights that mean something than go along with the thugs who wish to undermine the real fight for LGBT and other human rights and equality – and that respects how we work with other communities and does not castigate or demean entire communities, even if significant proportions of them were to be acting wrongly. We deal with the major aggressors whether these be Muslims, gays, Christians, EDL members or otherwise. Then we work to build a positive future from the vacuum that is left from those removed when the hatred has been contained.
@stu i can’t be bothered to read all your posts .They are tedious and unproductive . I have already clarified my position on the topic. I am not interested in void excuses concerning homophobia based on any hateful idealogy. Your denial methods are very negative to seeking a slution to human rights injustices.
My posts may appear tedious to you
Your posts appear hate inspired and full of flagrant bigotry – as bad as any of the vilest homophobia I actively seek to prevent and condemn
One sort of hatred is not resolved by deflecting it in hatred towards others
I waste my breathe and energy in speaking to depraved individuals like you who are so entrenched in their views that they can not see that they undermine the very battle you purport to seek to deal with.
As it appears you can’t understand basic English. I condemn ALL homophobia and ALL racism and ALL bigotry and ALL prejudice equally.
Thats ALL. No exceptions. Full stop.
Hopefully that is simplistic enough for you to understand.
My condemnation of your bigotry is clear. Equally clear is my condemnation of all homophobia whether by Chinaman or Muslim, Scouse or Glaswegian, Jew or Sikh, Christian of Atheist
Sop it’s OK to call gay people perverts with impunity, but I would bet that ads condemning cripples, n*gg*rs or towelheads wouldn’t be looked at so leniently.
This is a shocking and worrying interpretation of the ECHR. The quite normal use of the word “practice” is not the issue here.
That sounds both rascist and horrible to the physically handicaped. No better than those you criticise
@Nikki – I think the reason George used the language is because it would be shocking. It is shocking that a judge would consider describing gays as perverts as acceptable. Its demeaning and wrong. (Sure there are some gay perverts (there are heterosexual perverts too) – but we are not perverts just because we are gay).
Sometimes it is necessary to use inflammatory language in a controlled way to evidence the stupidity of decisions that are made which, in this instance legally validates homophobia.
@ George – I dont like the use of the word practice in the reporting of the judgement thus far, but I agree the wider point of the cruel interpretation of the ECHR is far more concerning. I like the shock language you use – but use of that sort of language should not be permissable either as it impinges other rights – but if you follow the logical progression of the judges argument it could be seen as permissable. I doubt, like you, any court would ever permit that. So, why gays?
Apparently Article 10 is going to be mis-used much as America’s First Amendment was by the Westboro Baptist Church: exploited as a way to slide hate speech neatly by the barriers as “freedom of religious speech.”
Freedom of speech means also you have the right to criticize and expose these people. Crying to the government is a sign of weakness and intellectual ineptness.
In your political opinion …
Sometimes the most adept way of handling unjustified and unwarranted attack is to use the resources at your disposal … government and media … intellectually that can be a good thing to do – it requires less effort than reinventing the wheel
But I think you have a political agenda that isnt really anything to do with this thread ….
So when the government screws up, which it does at a constant rate, who do go to then? The government itself?
The government is a false premise of security. Those who believe in it are in for a big disappointment really soon.
Our rights derive from our humanity, not from some bureaucrat or politician.
No we change the government …
The government isnt one person or one set of people who are stuck there … they can be changed …
Government is a system that is easily corruptible. (We can start with the expenses scandal)
If only I had a dollar for every time I heard that cliche…
The people never get to “change” anything. Our “leaders” are chosen for us and we select from that pool (labor, conservative or LD).
You are right it is not about a particular person but a particular group of powerful and rich elite who have bought every politician, judge, agency, and parliament in every country.
They call the shots, not you or I.
You’re last sentence is spot on there, Stu.
But yet the atheist: “For Gods sake, if you don’t believe in God say so on the census”
campaign was banned for being likely to outrage members of the public. We seem to live in a theocracy!
Why did the 8220 suddenly appear after the word atheist?
I’m not worried; they may score these small victories, but in the longer term, the end result is as certain as God (pun intended):
Nice way of spinning and whitewashing this issue. Clearly what is the problem here (the real problem) is that Brussels is now dictating to the Brits what kind of laws they can and cannot have. This is tyrannical imperialism. But of course you do not want to address the core of the problem, instead you are just focused on the symptom.
I fail to see how Brussels has anything to do with a response to an appeal about advertising from a N Ireland church. English law would not apply in any instance so Westminster law is irrelevant, largely. So suggesting the Brits are responsible is disingenuous. Its a local issue for the local judiciary and politicians to resolve – its not a British or European issue unless the people of N Ireland wish it to be.
If the judge cites an EU mandate then is no longer an issue of the “local judiciary and politicians.” It is a prevalent problem that many Brits are now realizing. The brits should be able to govern themselves without a mandate from Brussels.
You clearly missed that point.
No you clearly misunderstand the European Convention on Human Rights – although the EU have input and involvement with it, it is not an EU tool and has been in existence well before the EU was even thought of.
Members of the convention include all EU states and Albania, Azerbaijan, Greenland, Turkey, Iceland, and others including some non European territories
The UK (including NI) were signatories of it predating our EEC membership by many years.
The convention is based upon the UN convention of human rights
The spurious EC contention does not hold water
BTW, The EU has been in Existence since the end of WWII under different names, but now the EU has ultimate political power over the sovereign states.
And you clearly are waffling this… you claim that the EU was “involved” … of course they were and are involve, they wrote the ECHR long before…
Stop being in denial.
The ECHR is very much different from anything else the EU has connection with. It also has many signatories and members who are not within the EU. I perceive that because you recognise some failings in your argument you choose to claim I am waffling when what I have said actually exposes flaws in your argument.
you got that edl bigot right there, ive said it before, he is uneducated idiot
Seriously muslims hate us I dont even use my local shops anymore I go to tesco local or do without. If someone doesnt stand up to them were screwed. London in the 90′s was a great place to be gay now its hostile and dangerous due to 2nd generation muslims with a sense of entitlement
Not all Muslims hate gay people – there is a very vocal part of the Muslim community that appear to – but not all, and your lumping them all in one group is neither honest nor does anything to try and resolve the problem – if anything it stirs up more hatred and is destructive
Yep still a pussy
Still using grown up arguments, How many times do I have to throw you teddy back into the pram …
Because my view is more balanced and less prejudiced than yours – does not make me wrong or weak – in fact, it arguably makes me stronger and more likely to be right
> We seem to live in a theocracy!
No. We really don’t.
Marvellous response, full of wonderful facts and figures. Care to add a little more to that flippant remark there, other then making yourself out to be some kind of omnipotent authority?
A theocracy is a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god. Do you really think that in the UK or in France that we live in a theocracy?
In the case of McFarlane v Relate (2010), Laws LJ stated: “In a free constitution such as ours there is an important distinction to be drawn 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 common law and ECHR Article 9 offer vigorous protection of the Christian’s right (and every other person’s right) to hold and express his or her beliefs. And so they should. By contrast they do not, and should not, offer any protection whatever of the substance or content of those beliefs on the ground only that they are based on religious precepts. These are twin conditions of a free society. The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified.”
Common sense prevails!
We live in a socialist/corporatist dictatorship that is striving for global control and through the break-up of countries (ie Egypt Greece Libya) the eventual imposition of a one world government, with one religion and one central oppressive bank that will dictate and manage our lives (through carbon tax).
Just take a look at what has been happening the last couple of weeks (dollar plummeting, EU getting more bailouts ready, invasions and war, take over of the internet etc)
You are starting to sound as barking as LU
Seems like I acquired a fan. LOL
And I am sure your comment was more interesting then mine.
was that deflection, I just detected? LOL
He is barking, Stu. He was on a thread a while ago ranting about Islam, attacking posters here, lecturing us on our own country.
That paranoia is so common. Remember Hank going on about the same thing months ago – the one world government, the conspiracy, a certain group controlling the banking industry etc?
Yeah Stefan, its all very well if he chooses to believe his opinions (not facts) but to then hijack this thread about something which has only passing relevance to globalism is futile and juvenile and demonstrates the lack of intellectual capacity then he accuses us of …
“Likewise, the practice of homosexuality may have a similar effect on those of a particular religious faith.”
Will, I totally concur. Since when do straights “practice” their sexual orientation and would he describe heterosexuality as a “certain orientation”?
He’s scored a victory for bigotry. Religious cults get a free pass. I’d like to see an ad posted outside their church in retaliation stating…”religious people are bigots, hypocrites, mentally ill and are an abomination to common decency”, and see their reaction.
They would say ‘Father forgive them’?
You would like to think so … the reality I suspect would be far different …
As a gay man with lots of friends in faith groupings I know many would have the reaction you say, Nikki …
However, other more extreme elements of the groupings may well be more provocative – probably mainly verbally – but aggressively, some would seek legal recourse and some would get violent …
I think maybe its time we put up ads and signs about how perverse christians are. then perhaps the dense ones would finally understand.
this would be fair if we were as insulting as the homophobes are
when did sexuality become a practise?
When you insert your penis into another person’s orifice you are practicing a sexual act.
And yet I fail to see the offensive nature of that fact.
So much more to sex than that – whether practicing or doing it for real …
Tell that to the gay “community.”
I hate the phrase gay community … you will see I normally refer to it as the LGBT communities – plural – there is as much difference about us as we have in common …
and I think a sizeable proportion of the LGBT communities are aware of diverse factors of sexual activity
“are aware of diverse factors of sexual activity”
What do you mean by diverse factors of sexual activity?
Are you implying there is more than one way to have sex? More than one person? sex with objects? Animals? Family members?
Sex only means one thing for me: Sex with a monogamous exclusive loving partner and maturity.
Diversity can mean anything.
The difference is that I am more precise and direct about what I think and not throw words around because they look/feel good after you type them.
Again you offend me – doing well at this aren’t you …
At no point am I “throwing words about because they look or feel good”. How conceited are you to say such a thing?
You did ask me what I meant by some words, which I will explain in a moment – but you couldn’t help yourself could you … you had to give meaning to them in an offensive way both in terms of providing potentially demeaning definition to the words and in terms of attacking me as an author or those words … if you don’t understand what I am saying ask – don’t get offensive …
Sex for me is an emotional, spiritual and physical experience. It involves a connection between those involved. It does not involve animals or family members and your suggestion of such is highly offensive.
My ideal scenario is a monogamous relationship in a secure, developing, growing honest relationship with another man. The sexuality varies and is creative with all forms of acts, postions, locations, foreplay, exploration etc.
Dear Mr Justice Treacy,
This book that is being preached from has no foundation of reality. Homosexuality is however, reality. therefore preaching from a book that amounts to nothing more than a series of fictional tales and using it to single out one group of people is nothing less than a hate crime, and therefore your ruling should be thrown out, as should you, as your decision violates the human right that is to be in love and love another, and that Sir is something that no judge can ever over rule!
Anyways, shouldn’t ALL churches be preaching about love, forgiveness and acceptance? isn’t that what the bible proclames it’s full of??
“This book that is being preached from has no foundation of reality. Homosexuality is however, reality.”
Actually it has some historical facts and many have argued (very well if I may add) the many homo-erotic events in the Bible which if proven right then one can say that homosexual romance was indeed at least tacitly approved by “God/Gods.”
In any event I don’t blame the text, the real sad fact is that people would want inject their own prejudices into the Bible to justify their politcal beliefs. And those that actually listen to them (because they are “offended”) are really just wasting their time.
There is indeed a lot of historical accuracy – some cloudy areas too – but a lot of accuracy
Its the use of personal prejudice that is the issue
The Rev Ian Paisley, kinda makes the story a little clearer.
Yet again I can only assume that all most Christians do is see every single person they meet by their actrions in the bedroom. Then they have the audacity to call us pervert.
Seriously how is this kind of advert really fit for any place in society. Yet again we have the religious agenda which is more about hate than it is about humanity. So many children and adults dying needlessly in the world and all they can focus on is hating some certain humans because of how we are born, which incidently is no different from them, still…
I know Ireland is a far more religious place than England, Scotland and Wales, so I can only hope that most people will view these kinds of words as so many people do here, the words of nothing but NutJobs.
@Jock S Trap….actually not any more Jock . a recent poll showed that less than 22% of Irish Catholics are now practicing their faith and 98% of those are in the 70 to 90 age group. Young Irish are openly mocking the church on social networks as evidenced on facebook recently, when Ratzi the Naz! felt the need to rail against the practice and mentioned Irish young people in particular. He has still to rail against the paedo priests and bishops in his church who sexually abused a vast number if those Irish youngsters, and which he personally protected. One rarely see a priest in a dog collar as they are too ashamed or afraid to wear it.
The attendance figures are even less for Protestant faiths. Churches and RC chapels all over the place are for the most part empty .
A website where one can register and download paperwork to leave the Catholic/ Paedo church are running at about 3000 per week for the last two years.
Ireland is now a secular country and rapidly becoming atheist.
While I agree with the sentiment of your statement, religion is thankfully on the decline in Ireland (the Republic at least), I am not sure about your figures.
While daily Mass attendance was 13% in 2006 there had been a reduction in weekly attendance from 81% to 48% between 1990 and 2006 [Catholic World News 1 June 2006]. Unfortunately 86.8% of the Republic still count themselves as Catholic in the last census.
As for your reference to the web site “countmeout.ie”, so far 12007 people have completed a ‘Declaration of Defection’, according to their own website. Maybe you meant 300 per week? As 3,000 per week over two years would amount to over 3000k defections. 12 thousand is still a good number, but it could be higher.
But I agree with you on the fact religious influence in the republic is collapsing… the North is a different kettle of nutters all together.
sorry, “over 3000k defections” should read “over 300k”
@ Will the auld head isn’t as good with the numbers as it used to be but you get my drift, however the revelations about the child abuse scandal will have changed the sums somewhat since 06. Whatever about the Prod “nutters”, the
RC numbers are broadly the same in the north as in the Free State. Chapel congregations are but a shadow of what they were 10 years ago.
http://www.countmeout.ie is a site well worth visiting for those not wishing to be under the thumb of Ratzi the Naz! anymore
Agreed. Lets hope the next census due next month will collapse those figures more…. long overdue for Ireland to move out of the shadow of those paedophiles.
I agree i find irish people in the republic anyhow far more moderate about the whole religion thing than in london. All my irish cousins/fam are anti religion so that is a very positive reassurement of the country for me. I just hope now that the rc shackles of domination have been broken, that the new multicultural ireland will not produce a new sinister idealogy of replacement.
Well the Rev Ian Paisley is in his 80′s and has a habit of being heard so here hoping here’s of the older generation that don’t really represent many due to the fact most have ‘passed on’.
“Ireland is now a secular country and rapidly becoming atheist.”
There’s no such country as “Ireland”. This article is referring to Northern Ireland and therefore, you should be talking about Northern Irish people. It’s a completely different nationality and to lump people together like that is offensive. Nationality’s an extremely sensitive issue in Northern Ireland.
Rachel, to suggest that Northern Ireland is “seperate” might be technically true, but will equally offend the those who want to see the island as “lumped together”. Its might have two governments, but many still see it as one divided nation. Nationalism is a sensitive issue in the Republic too… our civil war fought was over it.
@Rachael – It may be a sensitive issue in N Ireland or the island of Ireland in terms of Irish identity – and its impossible for an outside to get it right, as what pleases on side of the debate will outrage the other … However, the reality is that this discussion thread was more about the conflict between homosexuality and the Christian faith – another area where it is very difficult to get the balance right …
@Rachael….99.99999% of Nationalists in the north of Ireland don’t recognise the border either politically or economically. Most Nationalists who have a passport have an Irish passport and the rest are entitled to one. So your assertion that it is “a completely different nationality” is tosh.The census papers in the north of Ireland ask if one is Irish or British and 100% of Nationalists will tick the Irish box. Nationality is not a an “extremely sensitive” issue in the north of Ireland except among a few rabid loyalists. Quite a few of the “other” tradition also own Irish passports, as to own one gaurantees a safety when travelling throughout the world not gauranteed by a British one. Even Paisely has one. So before you start spewing hatred, know what you are talking about………Oh and i’ll thank you not to tell me an Irish man in the north of Ireland how i should be talking about anything.!!!
You are right Paddy as not recognising the border is the very definition of a Nationalist. Hardly surprising that 99.999999% of nationalist do not recognise the border then. Good one there.
Most people in N. Ireland, Nationalist or Unionist are entitled to dual Nationality, many take it up for various reasons some ideological and some for expediency. Not really an indicator of anything.
“Nationality is not a an “extremely sensitive” issue in the north of Ireland except among a few rabid loyalists”
Hmm you would need to provide a citation for that because for most of the British it would be an issue to be suddenly told they had to be Irish and I guess for most of the Irish the opposite would apply.
Mind you when you call people “rabid loyalists” or the “”other”" tradition, I think you say more about yourself than anything else.
I think at the last count 70% of british people agreed with a united ireland.
It is an indicator of hypocrisy if a loyalist takes up their Irish citizenship. If you truly believe that Ireland should be split into two separate countries, you cannot claim Irish citizenship.
@DaveG….. *mind when you call……* hope so as that was my intention.
*…because for most of the British…..* well it’s something they are going to have to get used to because they signed up to the Good Friday Agreement same as everyone else which said, *so long as the majority agree…etc.* We’ve had to live under the British yoke for 800 years without the benefit of a vote or agreement and our day is rapidly returning. By the way before you get the chance to accuse… I am an unashamed Nationalist and i do not hate the British people Just their political class who made me and my ancestors second class citizens in our own country..Oh and further, i can trace my linage back some 8000 years which is more than any British person can do.
I have a problem with anyone in Ireland being called British, as to be British one would have to be born on the Island of Britain, much the same as those born on the Isle of Man are Manx etc. All people born in Ireland are logically Irish, Period.
@Scot …however that is the reality, whether it is as a matter of “expediancy or ideology* as DaveG said. Mind you i dont think they broadcast the fact. It is also a fact that a lot of moderate Ulster Irish think that maybe a reunited Ireland wouldn’t be such a bad idea, and idea which is not new as you know …Witness Parnell et al.
Darn tooting Paddy! I always like to bring up the example of Wolfe Tone, Wanted a free united Ireland and was protestant.
@ Rachael, on the island of Ireland there are two countries. the first one is Ireland, an independent republic commonly reffered to as the republic of ireland, but who’s official title is ‘Ireland’ under its governing constitution. the other country is Northern Ireland, an administritive region of the United Kingdom! so to say gthat there is no such country as ‘ireland’ is totally incorrect!!!!
Yep it’s our higher percentage of protestant evangelical nutjobs and vocal RC right wingers which mean we have a higher level of homophobia than most other parts of these Isles. Just so I don’t cut across paddyswurds – I mean N.Ireland specifically.
I don’t have such a problem with freedom of expression, but I do think people need to be aware of the veracity of what is being said so I am proposing that all religious literature, tracts, adverts and speeches should be prefaced with (or a banner across the top) which states
“The following is a religious message, it is a belief which may or may not be true – other beliefs are available.”
“Yet again we have the religious agenda which is more about hate than it is about humanity.”
Therefor one must assume that the gay agenda (or more specifically: careered gay phony baloney activists) are not about hate. So whenever one of these activists calls a person “retarded” and “stupid” and etc, they are not expressing any form of hatred? Just pure love?
Humanity is being robed of its intellect and freedom from the globalist/corporatist masters, and this is the best you can come up with? BTW only 4% of humanity is actually gay. So I would have to assume that you are mainly speaking about straights. Or am I wrong?
4%, wheres that come from? i think u were robed from any traces of intlect u might have had a long time ago. and pls try not to indulge urself in asumptions of any kind, we actually prefere sound facts on here
Time for some more of those anti religion ads on the backs of bus’s and hoardings. We can also pick and mix from Leviticus etc..lets show them up for the hypocrites they are. Also i’m not too concerned about this ruling as bthe paper in question, the News Letter is a bigoted loyalist red top read by less that 2500 people across the north of Ireland
Article 10…well well who knew. Looks like this Article can be used to overturn the Television Licence or at least the paying for it. A similar article was used in the USA some years ago to overturn licenceing or paying for the licence to use CB , Shortwave and other types of Radio. The Television licence is clearly an inhibition to the dissemination of information as the cost is probibitive to the poor. So may also contravene the FoI act. Any lawyers out in GLB land look that one up, lads.
Its an interesting issue this because I wholeheartedly support the right of freedom of expression. That said, I think that with freedom comes responsibility and that includes treating with respect those who disagree with your beliefs rather than using vile and demeaning language against them (which to me isn’t particularly generous or Christian). Also, the right to freedom of expression extends to both sides of the argument – so whilst those in the more extreme elements of the Christian church may wish to waste money of anti-gay pride advertisements then they should not be surprised if the same law that permits that also endorses advertisements of gay pride, or commenting on the lack of integrity of the argument purported by that particular organisation.
Two major communication issues facing the gay communities of the UK are the argument with the extremist Christian church and the difficulties with the Muslim communtiies. All three grouping are entitled to freedom of speech and…
…expression. The all need to show respect and understanding of the other groupings – having the right to freedom of speech etc by natural justice requires the responsibility to deliver the message in a sensitive and appropriate manner.
The comments on Leviticus reminded me of this:
“Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination… End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may
not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16.
Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these
Gandhi – I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
Christianity today – Your number one source for hatred and bigotry.
I agree totally with Gandhi
Not sure Christianity is the number one source of hatred and bigotry ….
Big battle between Christianity, Islam and Judaism on that score – and a few of no faith that could given them a battle for their money too …
Gandhi was a racist and a womanizer, but heck some gays venerate Bill Clinton as an excellent role model too. Goes to show how shallow and simpleton some of us are.
But Pepa – we all make mistakes …
I love that quote from Gandhi – that does not mean I like everything about him …
I like a lot of things that Bill Clinton has done – it does not mean I approve of everything …
It seems to me that you are suggesting that if we do not follow your ideology then we are condemned to being intellectually inferior – thats a prejudiced argument if I ever heard one
I am not suggesting anything here.
Simply put, Ghandi was a racist.
I like some of what Nick Griffin says too (about the EU and other things), but I wonder what would happen if I were to quote him, I bet some of you wouldn’t like that even though he has made a lot mistakes there are some good qualities about him, that is if we follow your logic.
You can accuse me of a “prejudiced” argument but in the end I am not coming up hypocritical logic that only applies when its beneficial for my argument.
I have accused you of a prejudiced argument and I can’t recall suggesting you were hypocritical at any point …
As odious as I find Nick Griffin, I do concede that if you look hard enough you could probably find a quote or two that were reasonable … but not the majority …
The use of the words “goes to show …” suggested to me that you were saying something that was beckoning towards intellectual supremacy …
Accusing is pretty easy… is the proving part that is the hardest…
Again you wouldn’t like Nick Griffin to be mentioned on here, yet he is racist as Ghandi was… so why the double standard? That is all I am pointing at.
Again as far as the prejudice goes, you are just trying to use that loaded word to try to win the argument, when in fact I am just pointing out some few obvious facts.
To be fair, you are doing a damn good job of evidencing your prejudice yourself by saying things such as “goes to show how shallow and simpleton some of us are” . My accusation, although present, is superfluous, As for Nick Griffin, yes he is racist, yes I do not like him, but yes I am sure you could find a quote I would like similar to the Gandhi quote – so there is no double standard. What you seem to be presuming to be facts are indeed opinion based on your prejudices. Given how offensive you have become elsewhere on this thread, its time now to walk away and leave you to your own peculiar thoughts
You know… apart from a sunset in the tropics, there can be no sight more beautiful than a burning church following the ignition of a wiring fault, or a minaret being bulldozed after a slip on a JCB’s gearstick.
yeah in norway and switzerland, they had the right idea, burn churches and ban minarets.
Really? How fab!
yes i know where to asylum seeking now.
@rapture….Don’t burn the churches, they can be converted into fantastic gay nite clubs. The accoustics are brilliant and lady gaga would sound amazing They would also make great gay saunas as they are well built and not so easy to burn down accidentally or otherwise…..lol
Now now, Paddyswurds …
Interesting the absence of some of the contributors from the thread about the gay sauna fire – so keen to see vengeance against hypothetical Muslim homophobic arsonists – even when the evidence said that wasnt the case but not about the enter into any conflict with Christian homophobia, despite their argument that it was the homophobia they were concerned about – seems unlikely now …
Whats happened to Spanner i wonder and no word from mardy Mary
Was tempted to make comment back on the Sauna thread but …
Indeed, there’s a church just down the road from where I live which has been converted into a nightclub – sadly not a gay one, but it’s only a matter of time…
Have been into some great church conversions – some stunning architecture – houses, restaurants, bars and clubs … and I believe there is a gay sauna in one somewhere on the continent
i wonder if edl is planing a march against christians in belfast, maybe their ex members could organize pride too
Or do they only discriminate against bigotry when it suits there agenda
I have a feeling you could be accurate there Hamish – sadly ….
Interesting that none of those preoccupied with the Muslim related issues have chosen to comment on this
Perhaps we should wait for the judgment to be released before rushing to comment.
Why? Will the judges comments about “practising” homosexuality change?
will it change the bigoted language of this particular church?
You know, yet, nothing about the context in which those words were written.
So, yes, the understanding of the comments may change.
It is always best to discuss a point after ascertaining the factual situation.
I can’t see that the facts will change …
The church had an advertisement that they regarded as scripturally accurate but others (not isolated to the LGBT communities) felt was hate filled and homophobic
The ASA ruled against the advertisement
The church appealed
The church won the appeal
The judge made some comments which werent worded very carefully
The facts remain the church made homophobic comments
The church has a right to freedom of speech
The church also has a responsibility to care for all of its community and temper its speech where it will damage people
I fail to see how waiting for the full written response will change these facts
We do not know the basis of the claim or the point on which they were successful. Having seen the misreporting of all the cases involving gay rights recently, I am hesitant to make comments on a judgment that has not yet been published.
@ de Villiers
I understand what you are saying, but on the matters of fact which I discussed above, there will be no change to those facts. The quotes from the judge involved have not been either corrected or retracted since reported (from official sources). So any impact the full publication of the judgement will have on these matters will be minimal and be nuances.
Would the judge also allow racist interpretations of religious scriptures? Say for example, if a religious organisation placed an ad on a paper referring to an specific ethnicity as pigs?
I cannot see any reason to deny the above, after this precedent. So if you want to offend someone, just make sure you mention religion in your justification.
So if this gets overturned, we can pay for billboards that condemn christians too………
“Is your priest molesting your child?”
“christians are murderers”
“The pope was a NAZl”
I can think of a few people who would support this.
The only thing is this particular church that the advertising was from doesnt follow the Pope nor have priests … so perhaps some slight rewarding of the billboards …
Unless some Catholic churches join the band wagon now that a judge has permitted homophobic advertising if it is from a church
Whilst two wrongs don’t make a right, it would be entertaining to see the outcome of such advertising from a competing human right such as the LGBT community that casts negativity on particular faith groups …
Right. Well, by the same token, can we stop condemning the EDL and the BNP or the White Supremacists or whothose genuinely believe in the inferiority of non-white races, have them advertise in the mainstream media and not be vilified and hounded out of their jobs because of their sincere beliefs? Freedom of expression and all that? Unlikely. I think.
Not entirely sure I follow what your argument was there Rufus Red …
Are you suggesting that those who have sincere beliefs of the inferiority of non white races should be entitled to advertise?
Are you suggesting we should stop condemning the EDL, BNP and White Supremacists?
Are you concerned that right minded people who do condemn the EDL etc should be allowed to remain in their jobs?
If its the latter I support you, if the former two – whilst freedom of expression is key – it carries responsibilities and the EDL, BNP and White Supremacists have demonstrated they have no idea of the meaning of the word responsibility … so the answer to your question then is a big NO
Where’s LU and the multiple personality disorder freak knows as Comra/Massive/?
I can’t wait to hear their insipid nonsense on this one…. is a sin to be stupid, but they don’t seem to care.
@Will…Spanner is also strangely missing………. is there an EDL meeting going on somewhere??
I spoke too soon, LU is advocating the murder of gay people on another thread…. LU is beyond christian bigot, LU is simply a danger to others.
I frankly can’t be arsed to even contribute.
It’s all been said way too many times before.
Your fascination with spanner says more about you than does spanner.
That is why I believe that it is almost impossible to have discussions with gay leftists because they always go back to attacking people personally instead of just stating opinions, making points, and then just moving on.
Gay leftists are spiteful and hateful, even more so than homophobic Christians.
Some are pepa – you’re generalising5
I wish you were right.
I find it offensive that you suggest that ALL gay leftists are spiteful and more hateful than homophobic Christians …
I am gay and left ish in my views … I try to be inclusive, polite and I have only one person I think I have hated … long story … I like a good debate – this sort of stereotyping though, is damaging .,…
Stu: “You are starting to sound as barking as LU”
No need to say that you are gay leftist. You have proven yourself. It might not be full straight out insults which I receive on a daily basis by gay leftists, but still going the personal attack route.
If most people read that last comment following on the one you preceded it with , they would find your comments barking too.
As for personal attack …
Your suggestion of beastiality and incest was particularly of a different standard …
Never let facts get in the way of a set of vile words, eh … that seems to be your style
The Commies are coming, the Commies are coming! Yes, we all Commies in Europe – we’re trying to infiltrate your Grand Old Party with our silly healthcare ideas. We’re so silly we think that it’s good to care about other people…la la la
You don’t know how anyone on Pink voted. You have limited knowledge of Europe. You complain about the government telling us what to think yet you’re doing exactly the same thing. No, scrap that – you’re telling us what we already think contrary to all evidence. You need to get out more, mate.
Absolutely Stefan …
We aren’t been allowed the right (probably seen as luxury from our comrade here!) to consider the real evidence and formulate our own opinions, because he already knows what we think …
Seems odd that he is such a well adjusted man that he has to dominate a UK based gay news website about political ideology that isnt particularly relevant to the subject being dicussed
The advert might have been prompted by a Belfast Pride placard with the words “Jesus is a Fag” which could be considered quite offensive in itself. And if we go too far with this ‘free speech’ argument we will end up like the United States. So the judge was wrong, in my view, to overturn the ASA decision.
The problem with the “Jesus is a Fag” placard is that it can only be offensive if you believe that homosexuality (not same sex sex) is offensive which by extension you would have to believe that god made something offensive to himself. It kind of goes against the “hate the sin, love the sinner” mantra. Jesus could have been a homosexual – we are led to believe he never indicated either way, nor are we told of him having any sexual activity on which to make a conclusive judgement. Therefore it is an open question which means it has to be as acceptable to label him one sexuality as another as all sexualities are equal. The placard did not say “Jesus is a Fag and a regular at Chariots” which could have indicated that a loved person had committed a hated act. There is also the slight point that he may or may not have existed and that even if he did he died 2000 years ago.
To respond to that by labelling a group of living people as perverts to their faces is hardly a equivalence.
It would be an interesting discussion piece, though …
It could also be seen as offensive for the use of the offensive term ‘fag’ – but yes, the suggestion that Jesus was gay is often seen as offensive by Christians which really shows that they are not really successfully practising the doctrine of ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’.
At any rate one of his disciples is often labelled in scripture as ‘the one Jesus loved’, which seems to denote a kind of love for this particular man different from that which Jesus apparently had for everyone else. Make of that what you will.
Not sure what to make of that – never thought of it that way, but I have long thought it was a clear demonstration of the lack of integrity of the stand point of “love the sinner, hate the sin” that many Christians would find the suggestion Jesus was gay as offensive … its seems, to my mind, that you either “love the sinner, hate the sin” and say it does not matter what Jesus’ sexuality was or you condemn the sinner and therefore understandably find offence in the suggestion that Jesus was gay OR of course you accept that being gay is not a sin and that it does not matter what Jesus’ sexuality was … Unfortunately there is a lack of consistency in many Christians (and other faith groups) response to gays
It’s a pity rationalist/humanist groups don’t have bigger advertising budgets, they could very easily turn people off religion by similarly quoting the Bible, specially the daffier bits of Leviticus.
DO NOT WEAR MIXED FIBRES/EAT SHELLFISH/ASSOCIATE WITH MENTRUATING WOMEN [take your pick], IT IS AN ABOMINATION. FOLLOW THE WORD OF GOD!
I don’t know how “humanism” is supposed to play into this. I rather defer to logic and reason.
“Humanism” is just a loaded word that certain wanna-be do-gooders spout in order to feel good about themselves, claiming they are “helping humanity” yet all they really want to do in reality is get their junk sucked off by some stranger they met on Grinder.
If you want to talk about the human condition (what the world elite is doing to the human family) then that is something different, but I highly doubt these kinds discussions would ever take place here on pinknews (or any other “gay website” which are all extensions of the corporatist/marxist pro-war media).
I dont know if you are happy pepa … but you dont sound it … you sound like you have an axe to grind, against democracy, government, the LGBT community, religion and anything else that isnt marxist …
You know, there MAY be some things you are right abou …
However, there are a lot of things you have been spouting on this thread that are factually incorrect and intolerant …
“I dont know if you are happy pepa … but you dont sound it …”
Yet you have accused me before of “generalizations.” I see that the rules do not apply to you, but only to me. Okay.
“However, there are a lot of things you have been spouting on this thread that are factually incorrect and intolerant …”
Okay, if YOU say so…
Typical way to ignore some few hard facts, just call me an intolerant unhappy fool.
Yup that pretty much proves how much I am wrong. LOL
Firstly you misquote me
Secondly you have been inaccurate in some things
Thirdly, what was my generalization in the last comment …. please educate me because I dont see one
Finally, I relish debate and recognise that not everyone will share my opinions and that does not make me right or wrong or them right or wrong. I have pointed out some areas where I do agree with you. Which hard facts was I ignoring by the way….???
Don’t bother. Pepe refuses to listen even when you explain your point of view honestly and precisely. I don’t think he really wants to listen at all. He likes to tell you what you think and then when you correct him he tells you you’re wrong.
See, only pepa knows the truth…
Erm, ‘humanism’ is generally understood to be a term used by a group of people who believe in reason, just as you say you’d rather do, as opposed to people who believe in divine influences.
Despite the bileful prejudice of many of your posts, I suspect it’s a term you may even find appropriate for yourself (though ‘rationalist’ is probably adequate).
Edward, I agree. There should be demonstrations by the gay community to denigrate religion and call it a mental illness and using Iris Robinson as a classic example of hypocrisy. Lets see the bigots squirm and squeal, tit for tat I say, just to make a point.
This is the sort of thing should be on Pride banners from now on. As you say lets make them squirm with embarassment with the hypocracy of their whole pixie in the sky shyte. It is what we should have been doing all along. So lets all get a bible and find the really juicy bits to make them wish they had left us alone. It is the only way we can beat these fantasists on all hues, xtian, muslims, jews, the whole festering pit of vipers. Forward for Adam and Steve!!!
Amusing though it is …
Back in the real world ….
We have to live with these people … castigate those who cause us problems, seek reparation where appropriate … but, lets not tar all with the same brush … lets educate and explain … lets live our lives the way we want to live them … demonstrate true diversity – and that means diversity of orientation, diversity of race, diversity of age, diversity of gender, diversity or ability, diversity of faith and belief …
Hmm. Well the best bit of news I have read today is this:
Hopefully the bigotry associated with these religions will soon disappear.
To be honest, I don’t think Religion is the problem, its just the symptom of “group think” which is the real underlying problem.
The gay “community” is being turned into a religion of sorts (but of course without the ancient myths and stories) by the gay marxist dictators. If you really look at it, everybody in the gay “community” speaks the same language (equality, tolerance etc) and is organized into a specific type of ideology (Marxism/Corporatism) being funded by “donations” (or tithes) and of course share in the naming of “advocates and heroes” (or Saints like Tatchell, Dan Savage, Ricky Martin etc).
Nothing more than more group think and a new religion with a nice makeover if you ask me.
bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla i could go on and on but why?
Man oh man do I dislike the Sandown church. Evil sods they are.
On the issue of Irish catholics – people really need to make a distinction between the membership of the church and the church hierarchy.
The church hierarchy (i.e. the institutions of ctholicism) are evil hateful cnuts.
Whereas many of the church membership are far more liberal than it may appear.
Equally tho – religion is a mental illness whether you are a conservative or liberal religionist.
@ Scott – wholeheartedly agree with you distinction between the church hierarchy and the membership – often more understanding, caring and genuine that some of the leadership who appear fierce, uncompromising and lacking warmth.
Not sure I would call religion a mental illness ….
You’re not sure of calling it a mental illness only because so many people indulge in it.
If an adult person came up to you and said he sincerely believes in Santa, your mind would *immediately* jump to the conclusion that this individual is either joking or seriously disturbed.
No I agree but thats not a reasonable argument to hold …
Having taken part in debates about Christianity, Judaism and other faiths – there are some explanations of issues that have evidence … there are other parts that require faith … Some of them I can wholeheartedly accept and some I can’t …
Parts of the church, (and equally of other faiths) I could happily perceive as being crazy … but that doesnt mean having faith is in itself a mental illness …
@ Stu…”Not sure I would call religion a mental illness …”. What could you plausibly call it. They believe to a point of committing murder for that belief that there is a dude somewhere directing the whole universal show. I mean Really Stu.??
@Paddyswurds … No, some members of religious groups (not all) believe that murder is acceptable in the eyes of that faith … Lets not blanketly condemn all members of a faith (or all faiths) on the evidence of the most extreme and misguided/evil members …
In the same way, I would encourage people not to make judgements on the LGBT communities on the part of those who take regular recreational drugs and are engaged in the more extreme aspects of sex … Whilst I believe that the LGBT communities strengths are partly due to the diversity of our being and expression – I would not want us to be all viewed on the basis of one part of the spectrum of our communities …
Beginning to generalise about faith groupings on the basis that the more extreme elements of the those groups generalise about the LGBT communities is not credible
@Stu ….my problem isn’t with the content of anyones faith ( well it is)but with the fact Of their faith. If i went around claiming there ws a pink teapot floating on the dark side of the moon i would reasonably expect a visit from the guys in the white coats to take me somewhere that had a nice comfy padded cell. How is the Abrahamic claims any saner…please elucidate.
“Whilst I believe that the LGBT communities strengths are partly due to the diversity of our being and expression ”
I can’t believe you actually said that. You think this community is all about “diverse expressions?” Give me a break. Anybody that doesn’t toe the “equality” line gets the boot, period.
I absolutely believe in the diverse expressions comment I made and stand 100% behind it. Since I have been active in the gay community for the last 10 years or so, I have seen diversity in experience, politics, faith, economics, morality, music, art, expression etc and very little (if any) of it constrained …
You show me a community constrained and not demonstrating wild diversity and I will show you a much larger community thats alive, kicking, and fighting to express its collective and individual differences
“I absolutely believe in the diverse expressions comment I made and stand 100% behind it.”
Stu: “However, there are a lot of things you have been spouting on this thread that are factually incorrect and intolerant …”
I really couldn’t stop laughing.
Interesting that one of the quotes you take from me is totally out of context.
The other you just copy and make no effort to respond to the comments I made to your previous sarcastic criticism of my comment.
I can more than evidence my stance of a diverse and creative LGBT community.
There are certain accuracies within the Bible that can be historically verified.
There is a lot the is open to conjecture.
Thats I guess where faith is needed
I accept that some of that will be experiential and also will not have a basis in proveable fact because of the need for faith
I dont decry peoples right to have faith and belief … whether or not I share that is irrelevant … they are entitled to their belief … they are also entitled to try and persuade me that their faith is right and can help me … but they should only be able to do that in a way that doesn’t impinge on my right to a private life (free from unwanted intrusions) …
There are lots of things I can’t prove but I accept … and there are plenty more pressing mental health issues than faith (if it is indeed one) for the NHS
You wanted the Human Rights Act.
You got the Human Rights Act.
Some of us knew EACTLY what a stupid piece of legislation it would turn out to be.
The judge (although some of his comments are disturbing) did not quote the Human Rights Act but the European Convention on Human Rights which would have applied whether or not the Human Rights Act was in force. So the legislation you decry (which has helped ensure rights of many over the last decade or so) had no involvement in this particular case
Perhaps we should wait for the judgment before rushing to comment on something that we have not yet read.
The court’s decision is right. I despair of bodies like the ASA that have sweeping powers and abuse them.
I actually don’t think the ASA were abusing their powers – I think they were trying to ensure that organisations that want to advertise and exercise freedom of speech through advertising are only able to do so if they demonstrate they are exercising their rights to free speech with a sense of responsibility and equity. The church in this instance clearly (to my mind) failed that test and instead became offensive, confrontational and risked damaging good community relations
the basis of all religions seems to be that holding an opinion makes the holder superior to others. this explains wars, inter-religion conflcts and of course gay bashing – it also explains views of some towards women. the difference is that no one seems to think that women can choose in which form they live whereas this is applied to gays.
it seems that the only legal way out will be to declare that gayness comes from outer space and that we have been selected as the representation of god on earth – and that god is the universal god of particle physics – Now – can we have our war like all the rest of religions
“the basis of all religions seems to be that holding an opinion makes the holder superior to others.”
Don’t say that too loud, we don’t to upset the many gay activists on here who think they are superior to others.
We are all entitled to our opinions … we all have responsibilities too .. whether our opinions are expressive, political, religious or whatever, we have responsibility if we excercise rights
The only “responsibility” I think we all have when speaking is to be honest and most importantly being consistent, especially when you start lecturing others on what they can say or cannot say and then not applying those same rules yourself.
As far as hatred, that is a sad part of life. However, my experience as a gay man has been that most of the hatred and discrimination done to me has been done by other gay people.
At no point have I lectured anyone on what they can and cant say
I have been 100% honest in what I have said and consistent in my message
Natural justice demonstrates that rights carry responsibilities with them.
The most insidious hatred I have experienced and paradoxically the most love has been from within faith communities. The most practical support I have ever received and some of the best caring have been from LGBT people. It disappoints me that often there are (sometimes through ignorance sometimes not) LGBT people who display prejudice and discrimination that I would hope that LGBT people would try to stamp out.
If you don’t want to hear another side of the argument – don’t enter a discussion thread.
“If you don’t want to hear another side of the argument – don’t enter a discussion thread.”
That’s fine, but I’ve already heard your arguments hundreds of times by others. Your ideology is shared by millions so its really nothing new. Not that I don’t want to hear the “other side” actually I would like to hear something new for a change.
I say what I say because I’ve learned new things… and I’ve stopped regurgitating the same lines that I was indoctrinated to say.
I know what you are going to say before you even say it… yes that’s how predictable your “side” has become.
Last thing I will say in this thread because arguing with someone clearly so intellectually superior that he can predict what I will say before I say it, makes me superfluous to the conversation
I suspect if you look at some of your own comments to mine you will see that I have not responded in the manner you would have predicted …
You can not read my mind, and I do not hold the views that are as simplistic as you seem to consider them to be. You seem so obsessed with your better way that you predict what the other person will say, so much so that you don’t listen anymore so you don’t hear what is said, only what you believe is said. I may be wrong but thats how I see it.
I dont know you and you dont know me – so some of your comments to me were offensive – I also made one comment that wasnt appropriate. But you’re prejudging what I believe and misterpretations of what I have said mean I will not take part in further conversation with you on this thread.
Hello again, pepe. Re your last sentence: I would respectfully suggest that that’s because of your attitude not your sexuality.
@Stu…….That is really creepy..As i was reading pepas comment before the one where you said Enough, i was thinking Why does Stu argue with this creep from the T Party. I scroll on down and what do you say… Thats really creepy. Have you ever read the Desiderata. i like the bit where it says “avoid loud and agressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit” How true. However while you ignore our Yankee friend do please keep commenting as your comments are enlightening and inspire thought.
I haven’t read desiderata … I must look it up …
I won’t engage pepa in conversation on this thread, but I shall continue to comment …
I like that adults can hold a reasonable discussion – sometimes agreeing, sometimes not and debate things – hijacking discussions seems all certain people are capable of – how rude … (and not in a good way!)
Well said, Iris …
Attitude the size of Kentucky … and I dont mean fried chicken …
Nick, I think there are more than 9 countries as mentioned in the article. Our own I think could be among them since only 15% attend religious services at least once a month. Its fast becoming irrelevant especially among the younger generation, rightly so.
I think I’ve found LU.
where in the bible does it state gay sex in a sin?
It says sex outside of marriage is a sin – perhaps another reason not to have gay marriage *joke*
I don’t think it explicitely says ‘sin’, but cf eg 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (KJV):
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
Of course, strictly speaking this excludes straight women as well… ;-)
Interpreted very differently in other versions ….
Be interesting to find out the hermeneutics and exegesis behind the phrases effeminate, mankind, abusers etc
Regardless, even *if* there was irrefutable Biblical evidence that being gay is a sin – which I do not personally accept then it is not codified as a high level sin – so why are the religious (note not those who have faith) so obsessed with homosexuality – “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”
There’s eg this
with a link here
Anyway, personally I agree with James Hogg’s “There is not an error into which a man can fall which he may not press Scripture into his service as proof of the probity of”.
Equally, there is an argument that when scripture is examined and the interpretation made considered and shown not to demonstrate what those making accusations against any group say – that there is often a repost of “well you would say that then wouldnt you” almost an accusation of a vested interest … well, if there is a vested interest that clearly comes from the faith community … and the repost is hardly the most sophisticated argument
why was the humanist campaign banned on tube stations?
Typical hypocrisy when it comes to religion.
Seriously we need to make being LGBT a religion thrn we would be sorted.
Not any more.
Time for a new campaign.
‘God is a fictional c***!’ seems like a nice tagline.
Happy to become a bishop of LGBT faith lol
@Stu…i want to be a cardinal …those red robes or will our be pink …mind you the purplr of bishops sometimes is more like cerese pink… who will we have for pope…Peter Tatchell perhaps or perhaps Elton ??
What shall we call this faith?
I want to be bishop because I’ll get a big hat and a pointy stick
@scott…what about Cockalic …….or even Pufalics… Maybe even Quebrews or Gaylims……..??? Our holy book could be The Joy of Gay Sex.
I quite like Quebrews …
Can we please not have Elton in charge …
although – if its a religion do we become a theocracy?
@ Stu……we could go for a “Factocracy” if thats a word. For a figure head we could call for names and then “elect” whoever gets most votes. Oh and Evolution of the species would be de rigour……
Lol misread your last comment as fatocracy rather than factocracy lol
Democratic based on evidence and with evolution and willingness to adapt and change where appropriate and necessary …
“Seriously we need to make being LGBT a religion thrn we would be sorted.”
LGBT “community” is already a religion. Please read a previous post earlier in the thread that explains it.
bit of humour here, eh?
Wow – can’t believe your arrogance there!
@ everyone….i think it is a good idea that some of us reference the post we are commenting on when appropriate…eg @??? then we know when someone comments on a particular post…..Just a thought.
Yeah – I have been guilty of not doing this sometimes, sorry …
@ my post…when i posted i typed .eg…@???..then we know…..etc What happened
The judge’s decision is right. Freedom of expression is more important than the freedom not to be offended. And the quid pro quo should always be that offensive religion can be offended right back.
Only direct incitement to violence should be banned. The hate speech legislation of recent years is a disaster – it spreads repressive censorship without challenging prejudice, and simply martyrs the bigots. I remember a Radio debate some years ago between a politely hypocrital Muslim and David Starkey. Starkey said Allah was a fat fool and the Muslim showed his hand by calling for Starkey’s execution. Great stuff.
Isn’t harsh censorship how racism was dealt with during ththe last few decades? This church definitely wouldn’t have been able to say such things about the colour of someone’s skin, yet nobody would complain about freedom of speech in that situation. Seems to have worked a hell of a lot better than the softly-softly approach used for gay rights. Yes, racism still exists, but racists are now perceived to be total scumbags who exist outside of the mainstream, whereas with homophobes it’s “just their opinion”.
Also, “the right not to be offended” is an awfully tabloid-y expression for an educated sort such as yourself to be using. It puts the blame on the victims. This isn’t about a right not to be offended, it’s about the right to say whatever you want whenever you want, no matter the consequences. And that right doesn’t exist either. If it did, harrassment and slander wouldn’t be offences.
@PumpkinPie – agree almost entirely with what you say. Absolutely the church would not have got away with comments on race. The difference of treatment of racist and homophobic comments does bring a sense of second class treatment. Its almost as if there is a hierarchy of types of bigotry – a perception that some is more insidious that other forms.
There is a right to the freedom of expression and I would fight to ensure it. For example, some of the literature advertising establishments in the gay scene would not have been permitted 20 years ago – we have moved on. That said, speech needs to be exercised with responsibility otherwise you get dealt with on the grounds of harassment, slander, threatening someone or hate related crimes (be that race, religion, disability, gender or orientation – hate crimes need to be addressed with a sense of equity, both in terms of weighing the competing freedoms and in terms of how other hate issues are dealt with…
I propose an ad campaign along the lines of
‘Jesus is an ABOMINATION’ to be posted outside that nutty church.
Freedom of expression after all.
Exactly but my won’t they whinge, “Look at what those bad homos are doing to us!” Oh the victim religious agenda will go through the roof.
dont think jesus has anything to do with christian homophobia, in fact he hasnt even mentioned homosexuality, homophobia steams from old testament and post jesus era christianity
@jesus fan…..Supposedly (no proof he ever existed but) he never married, all his mate were men, his only female companion was a classic fag hag and he never said anything against us. On the contrary he said let He who is without sin cast the first stone. He wa into beards and moustaches and wearing dress like robes Draw yoour own conclusions from that… i know what my conclusions are……..
If the EDL wanted to prove that they are anti hate and not only anti muslim here is there chance. Protest against this church and condemn the sandown church.
@ Scott…eek *their* I also absofeckinloutly hate the way these words are misused too. “There” seems to be used for everything with no regard for They’re, their and there, Another is to “too and two”.One sees it all the time on facebook.drives me mad.
errata *to too and two*
So, What Does the Bible Say?
All of these different viewpoints on the various scriptures most likely bring up more questions for Christian teens than answers. Most Christian teens end up adhering to the viewpoints based upon their personal beliefs about homosexuality. Others find themselves swayed or more open to homosexuals after examining the scripture.
Whether or not you believe homosexuality is a sin based upon your interpretations of the scripture, there are some issues surrounding the treatment of homosexuals of which Christians need to be aware. While the Old Testament focused on rules and consequences, the New Testament offers a message of love. There are some Christian homosexuals and there are those that desire deliverance from homosexuality. Rather than trying to be God and pass judgement on those individuals, a better option may be to offer prayers to those struggling with their homosexuality.
In Genesis 19 God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah due to the extensive amount of s
Don harrison, you have misunderstood the story of the mythical towns of Sodom and Gomorrah, please don’t parade your ignorance here.
You know what, Don? I kinda like the feeling that the omnipotent Creator of our universe trembles and gasps as I receive it through the back door. It really adds an almost mind-blowing/tantric dimension to sex.
And if I knew you prayed for me while I’m struggling with my homosexuality (and by that I mean struggling to get it all in), that would really make me feel better.
In other words: keep your goddamn mental illness to yourself and stop preaching and witnessing! Thank you.
As much as I agree with your message Nibble and Lucius – I think your choice of words was unwise, particularly in a thread where we are talking about freedom of speech – we want to be treated with respect – we should respect those that disagree with us …
I have no problem in someone having freedom of speech to preach or witness, as uncomfortable as much of it makes me – I can choose to close my door in their face, walk away etc
Your judgement of religion as a mental illness is as judgemental as some of those with certain extreme religious views have of homosexuality …
Religious indoctrination is acquired. Sexual orientation is not. QED.
mental illness is not always acquired – its is sometimes something people are born with …
religious indoctrination does require some level of acquisition …
QED as you say
Regardless … the level of offensive language towards those of faith – who might not even support the homophobic activity we have been seeing, hardly advances the case of the LGBT communities
I wasn’t talking about heredity, but was rather replying to your insinuation that my qualification of religion as a mental illness is somehow comparable to the extreme views of the Westboro Baptist Church. My point stands – it is not.
I’m advancing both the LGBT and the secular cause. Sorry if it offends you, but I’m not in the business of not offending people.
Far from advancing the cause of LGBT rights, you put it back some time …
Suggesting religion is a mental illness is as bad as some of LU’s comments suggesting being gay was a mental illness …
We need to be strong as LGBT communities and identify ourselves, fight for our rights and ensure those restricting our rights are held to account. We need to make sure that we do not undermine others rights otherwise we dilute and weaken our arguments
You forget that homosexuality has been deemed – like paedophilia and bestiality – a mental illness since human history began.
Really? And you have proof of this? Oh, right, sorry… you’re don’t need proof, do you, you’re a basket case moron on a gay site.
Not in japan, ancient greece, pre colonised USA, pre modern India, ancient rome it wasnt.
Boom – strike of the truth fairy!
Well said Scott!
You forgot pre – colonial Africa !!!!
You have serious mental health problems. Get treatment.
@LU …. er – no it was misguidedly seen as a mental illness and the WHO are clear that it is not an illness in any way – and have been of this view for many decades … you viewpoint is about as current as witchcraft and slavery
Maybe you could correct the British Psychiatry society and others then, LU, as you seem to know so much more about it then those silly experts?
While you’re there, try getting some help for your serious mental problems. You’re really off on one today.
I wonder if they’d let a mosque put out an advert on the Koran’s view of women. Somehow, I reckon the outcome would be different… This verdict reeks of self-interest and hypocrisy.
Have to say I think you may be right …
Although – if one was to do so now, they could quote this judgement ….
Rev David McIlveen, of the Sandown Free Presbyterian Church, said
“This is a landmark now for future decisions. People can quote the Bible and that’s a freedom that we have sought.”
Obviously he meant homophobic people like him can now misquote the Bible, and that’s the freedom he has sought.
Unfortunately they are misquoting …
And their misquoting is setting out a disingenuous situation where bigotry prevails
And Paisley and the minister have had the gall to say “We want to make it clear we had nothing against the seven people who objected to the advertisement”!
You have EVERYTHING against the seven people who objected. You have EVERYTHING against homosexual people and those who fully support homosexual people.
Blatant bald-faced LIARS!
But we’ve always known Paisley to be a very mentally ill man. The sooner you croak, Paisley, the better, though clearly your spawn is already preparing to step into your shoes.
I don’t need to practice being homosexual I’ve been doing it for 40 years.
I don’t want to practice heterosexuality, never even tried it, why would I?
Get stuffed Mr Paisley and your ilk and If I ever have to fight you about the matter, then I am more than willing.
If gays can hold hands in the street, then it’s fine for other people to express their repulsion. It’s called freedom of speech. The judge made a wise choice.
problem – majority of places gay people cannot hold hands in public.
Long may that continue. Yuk!
And what part of “goodguy” produces disgust against my nature?
never mind holding hands ,suck my cock goodguy, u know u want to
Keep fooling yourself that I do. Keep fooling yourself that everyone who uses your hole is going to fall in love with you, or even likes you. You people are delusional. And riddled with far more self-hatred than any religious bigot.
goodboy do you believe an advert arguing that god is false and religion is evil should be allowed to be printed?
Also, riddled with self hatred? You come onto a gay news site to attack gay people, and the gays are full of self hatred?
im not looking for love just raw sex the, way u love it. and whats with u religious self hatered
“Keep fooling yourself that everyone who uses your hole is going to fall in love with you, or even likes you.”
Bad experience? I can usually spot a projection when I see one.
No bad experiences. But I’ve seen enough screwed up aging lonely gay people to feel sorry for you all.
I love the argument about gayness means you end up badly. Lets analyse something: Jesus.
He was beaten, marched through town strapped to a cross, made to drink vinegar and then nailed to a cross to burn in the sun. WHy ? All because he had faith.
Sheeshand you want to talk about gayness being bad for you!
LOL! Is this supposed to impress us with your intellect? Grow up child.
Repulsive, unhygienic practices that result in hepatitis and AIDS, then. Is that better?
How can two people who do not have any diseases give each other an STD by having gay sex?
Check out some science fella it’ll do you good.
What on earth are you talking about? You’d tell us if you are having a stroke, wouldn’t you?
Scott, our pal “goodguy” here is a tad obsessed with the old gay sex thing…. anyone up for a trip to Narnia to free him from such a deep closet?
I feel I also need to add that even if someone has a chronic disease they are still perfectly capable of living a good life, loving their fellow human and trying to make this world a better place for future generations.
To suggest otherwise is just factually incorrect.
i know u good guy i picked u up off gaydar when i was 16 , u was well durtyy.
I agree, they have just blasted away any defence by “offensiveness” they might have waged for what they perceive as blasphemy.
Being offensive, or even seriously offensive to a persons beliefs is freedom of expression, no protection just because you are a sick religious pyriah.
@ Dave G ….*pariah* even
Oh dear, another loony. Homophobia is like a boil that swells with rancour before it bursts. I can’t wait for that day – although I’ll be standing well back.
And if you’re a ‘goodguy’, I’m the Queen Of Sheba.
If guys can hold hands in the street – well, theres a difference between it being permitted and being able to, legally it is not a problem anywhere in the UK or the island or Ireland for guys to hold hands … are they able to – well in lots of places, yes … but also in lots of places they would either be made to feel so uncomfortable that they would not or there would be events, comments or action from the past which would make them fearful of doing so ….
There is a great right in freedom of speech. There are also two other righta in the European convention that come into play – the freedom of association (right to meet with like minded people) and the freedom to a family life – being able to exercise that family life (with a partner) … when a bigot verbally attacks gay people they fail in their responsibility to respect others rights by selfishly exercising their own competing right
Your statement of “and long may it continue, goodguy, demonstrates your true Christian charity – you loving of a neighbour, your turning the other cheek …
Your insensitive and inappropriate comment about AIDS and hepatitis is bizarre. Firstly, not every gay man is “condemned” to a life of HIV or other sexual infections. Many gay guys choose to live a monogamous life. Secondly, those that do have a health condition that was contracted during a sexual encounter – that does not make them any worse a person that me or you. I am appalled that someone who purports to be a “goodguy” can be so judgemental, closed minded, hate filled and cruel. I also find it extremely odd that you choose to “cruise” for argument in a gay news internet site. Bizarre
there are limits like what constitutes hate crimes you homophobic loser, the judge isn’t wise
Ulster is CRAWLING with religious nutters, chanting, cursing and excommunicating each other. Thank goodness it is not part of the UK, but only a last minute add-on!
Yes, but to be fair, Northern Ireland is a British offshoot/occupation. In Southern Ireland, where it’s the more ancient Catholicism, they’re about to elect a gay head of state!
I am in belfast atm, not that many religious nutcases that I can see, indeed not that many on the mass I went to on sunday (dragged there by elderly relative in vain hope I might get married and give her some grandchildren). Indeed most the people seem to go to mass to have somewhere to meet and talk, not out of religious fervour. But there defo are some of the most vile homophobes in UK and Ireland in “Northern Ireland” (witness almost the entirety of DUP).
@ coemgenus…….which wiil soon go its own way again and reunite with the rest of Ireland if the last census is anything to go by. The coming census may well show that nationalists in the north of Ireland now are the majority and with Sinn Fein an all Ireland party with politicians in both governments that may be sooner rather than later…….Rachael of course wont like this one little bit, just watch this space……
How will the census show that Paddy as it does not ask the question.
If you want to erroneously extrapolate from a religious divvy up that’s up to you, but how will the Jedi vote ?
BTW Sinn Fein being in both governments (glad to see you recognise both jurisdictions BTW) has no bearing as it is only by referenda, not executive order, which can change the current democratically agreed position.
Should it change however, by referenda, I will accept the democratic result, I am a democrat. That’s where I differ from those who do not recognise the democratic position and border we have now.
Your unionist bating is nearly on a power with LU’s and Pepa’s obsessive agendas – ineffective, frothing bitterness, but hey if you want to play the martyr – knock yourself out. You forgot to mention the famine.
BTW Had to laugh when you advised the following :,
“avoid loud and agressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit” How true.
Deary me, projection or what ??
@DaveG….It does ask whether you consider yourself Irish, British etc..Page 8 question 15, in case you wondering and this has always been used to calculate Indigenous versus settler populations. Here in Ireland anyways. Another fairly accurate way is by names. Nationalists tend to have Irish names and settlers tend to have either Scots or English names. While this may not be the most accurate way its is also used in other parts of Europe like the UK.
Why wouldn’t i recognise both governments, i fully support and signed up to the GFA. I am well aware it is by referenda, but my point about Sinn Fein was that such a referenda is more likely to be called with a strong Nationalist party in both jurisdictions. Your dig about not recogniseing the border is noted. However we do recognise the democratic position and have fought hard for it while others sought to thwart us at every opportunity. When i say we don’t recognise the border i mean de factually rather than politically.To us it is
cont..but an artificial line drawn across the map of our country. Dont forget that Nationalists and settelers were asked to vote on partition in 1922 and when the Nationalists won the day, the British Government of the day declared the vote void and partitioned anyway, so don’t preach democracy to me, Look to your own faults first.
I have in no way “bated Unionists” that is just your twisted perception. matter of fact i never once mentioned Unionists. I state the facts whether you like that or not leaves you wwith the problem not me
Ah the Famine…..That artificial hunger imposed on the poor of one of the most fertile countries in Europe. Are you aware that thousands of tons of corn sent from theUSA to feed the poor was shipped out of Dublin port to England. Thought not. If the Irish had not had their land stolen from them and given over to English landlords there never would have been a famine. There was no Famine in Ireland til the British came. Hows that for victimisation
…and i’ll thank you not to come on here and spew your hatred and ignorance about something you clearly know nothing about , something i must add which the majority of the settlers in the north of Ireland know little as well.
I won’t be commenting on any further spiteful bigotry from you so don’t bother.
“This is a landmark now for future decisions. People can quote the Bible and that’s a freedom that we have sought”
The double edged sword is now free.
Their can now be no legal objection to calling out these bigots using their beliefs for what they are.
You can tell from the judgement that the judge was also Christian homophobe absolutely ignorant of what homosexuality is.
‘practice’ homosexuality? HAHA
What is this ‘goodguy’ doing on PinkNews?
Dumb homophobe needs to go and get a life instead of posting silly comments.
He’s a troll. Don’t feed him.
He’s a closet case that like to talk about his obsession with gay sex. Yawn.