Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Eggheads star CJ de Mooi banned from wearing ‘Some people are Gay. Get over it’ T-shirt to chess awards

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Jock S. Trap 7 Aug 2011, 12:07pm

    This is absolutely ridiculous and disgusting.

    Yet again discrimination wins.

    1. Dan Filson 7 Aug 2011, 6:30pm

      Would you consider this appropriate wear at your brother’s wedding, your mother’s funeral, your investiture for a knighthood, etc? If you concede there are some occasions when it is not suitable, then we are reduced to debating quite which those are. So it is not absolutely ridiculous and disgusting (Yet again discrimination wins) but a matter of wearing the right clothes for an occasion. I would have though presenting the prize(s) at a chess tournament was not an appropriate occasion to wear this, but it is a matter of judgement rather than obvious discrimination.

      1. Jock S. Trap 8 Aug 2011, 8:08am

        Actually if it was my brother’s wedding or mother’s funeral, whatever it’s the turning up that matters, it’s not as if these t-shirts have offensive language, just a statement.

        So it is ridiculous because it’s just a piece of clothing which happens to make a statement and it’s disgusting because he’d clearly worn it before without such a commotion.

        Discrimination wins because someone chose to make an issue out of it because it made a statement to accept some people are Gay.

        If it had said “Some People are Black, Get Over It” we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.

        1. Jock S. Trap 8 Aug 2011, 8:10am

          ….
          Because people who have just accepted that as a right statement. There would have been no issue, no commotion.

          So why is it different just because we happen to be Gay?

          1. Ooer missus 8 Aug 2011, 11:33am

            The inappropriate use of the word “promote” by the objector gives away where she is coming from.

      2. I am inclined to agree! OK! I have absolutely no issue with the tee shirt, but look at it!… bright colorful and distinctive… it makes a statement (nothing wrong with that!) Chess is a game of strategy, perhaps wearing the tee shirt during the awards was strategy?

        Regardless of how the request to change the tee shirt was made the reality is that some thing a little plain and casual may perhaps have allowed the winners deservedly accepting to be in the spot light for winning as opposed being upstaged by the president presenting because eyes were on his tee shirt.

      3. Surely the reason you would not wear a T-Shirt to these occasions because these would be usually suits etc times nothing to do with the slogan however smart casual usually includes T-Shirts.

        1. Hamish I agree, but some how in this case the event doesn’t come across as a black tie formal or suite vent, Smart casual these days has a variety of acceptable options of which includes tee shirts, My employers dress code as an example is quite liberal and includes tee shirts. For days lighter (but not loud) colors are accepted for evening events darker formal tones. How ever…. they spell out that shirts or outer wear with branding, slogans or advertising of any kind are not acceptable on any occasion . Surely a presenter could accept this without over reacting.

      4. @ Dan Fitson

        Whilst I fully concur that there are occasions such as honours investitures and black tie charity events which have clear standards in terms of attire; I also believe that some family events should be more about sharing in the celebration rather than compliance with a dress code. I do accept that I would usually want to please my family member by complying with any personal wishes to make their event special.

        However, some events are less clear. Unless there is a speciic request or precedent which all attendees are fully aware of then the subjective view of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable is open to considerable debate. Unless there are clear guidelines (and given de Mooi’s office at the time of the event, one would presume he would be aware of the restrictions or requirements) then it is clearly subjective.

        I would argue where subjectivity is accepted that then at a late stage bringing in conditions could be due to discrimination and prejudice.

    2. get over it

  2. You’d think the Chess Federation would like gay people given how powerful Queens are in the game…

    1. Very drole.

  3. Wow. Unbelievable discrimination. Their homophobia is transparent when you read what they said to him in the guardian. He could present the prizes to adults in the t-shirt, but not children! As if being the statement on the t-shirt was somehow a threat to children.

    1. What is ironic is that the slogan was created with children in mind.

      “The uncompromising statement and powerful design were developed in collaboration with 150 secondary school pupils and teachers for Stonewall.” — http://www.stonewall.org.uk/at_school/education_for_all/quick_links/education_resources/4007.asp

    2. Indeed, the person who raised the objection was quoted as saying that the slogan “promoted sexuality”. When will these nimrods learn that we don’t recruit and it isn’t a contact allergy! People like her are exactly WHY the shirt was created in the first place!

      1. Ooer missus 8 Aug 2011, 10:44am

        He was bullied for wearing an anti-bullying slogan. Sad.

  4. some people are gay LOL…im gay & i dont have a problem with the shirt so i dont see why they did…

  5. This is deplorable, yes, but at the same time, I f-cking hate that solgan. It sounds something akin to the babble that would escape the highly glossed lips of 14 year old yank cheerleader, upward inflection and everything.

    1. If I recall correctly, the slogan was created by a schoolchild (probably around the age of 14!).

    2. Perhaps if we wrote it in Arabic, Ewan would approve.

      1. Dude, have you not got innocent peoples houses to be bulldozing on top of them? On ye go, chop chop.

      2. @Enoch

        Perhaps if we wrote it on a pillow case to put over your head and sent you to Mississippi you would like it?

    3. It is a great slogan in its place eg youth events, pride etc etc but in some workplaces diversity units have misused it

  6. Don Harrison 7 Aug 2011, 12:31pm

    Good for CJ. I am glad that he is challenging her homophobia.

  7. Don’t think I would be so much “in yer face” to wear a big splash Tshirt designed for demos at an event like this. Something with a rainbow on it and the word Gay would suffice.Too confrontational.

    1. I disagree, not in your face enough. It’s confrontational in a really weedy irritating way.

    2. Staircase2 7 Aug 2011, 1:32pm

      Its not designed for demos at all (although of course it could be used for that too) – it was designed to challenge both casual and targeted homophobia in young people – It was also used as a poster.

      Id say it was great idea to wear it as such a high profile function – thats why the t-shirt was designed: visibility and prompting debate.

    3. Jock S. Trap 7 Aug 2011, 1:43pm

      Is this kind of t-shirt designed for demos? I thought it was designed for society.

      1. Dan Filson 7 Aug 2011, 6:32pm

        It works very well in demos – it is vivid, the slogan is clear and easily understood.

        1. Jock S. Trap 8 Aug 2011, 8:11am

          So just as fit for casual wear then?!

    4. Jock S. Trap 7 Aug 2011, 1:47pm

      I think people confuse who is being confrontational here. It’s a damn t-shirt for pity sake with a statement. It was arbiter of this British Chess Championship that was confrontational.

      And just to add it would never have been confrontational unless the woman had a problem with Gay people. End of.

      We have come a long way from having to be pushed around and hide ourselves and what we wear from bigots like that.

      1. We’re here,we’re queer, so love us or we’ll smash your heads in!

        1. Jock S. Trap 7 Aug 2011, 2:46pm

          No-one has to ‘love us’ but it’s about time people accepted we are here and it’s pretty stupid to pretend we don’t exist.

        2. who said anything about smashing someone’s head in? where does it say that in the t-shirt? stupid.

          1. Not stupid except perhaps you are…unable to understand the meaning of the comment.

    5. In some countries, well one, it has been legislated that one person walking down the street can be a demo or procession, particularly if they are wearing a tshirt like this. So he could be arrested for wearing it.

  8. I think Stonewall’s slogan is a good one, unlike It Gets Better (Today).

    A pity discrimination such as de Mooi encountered yesterday isn’t just limited to chess.

    This attitude about keeping young people away from the message that being gay is OK is prevalent in the whole of society.

    http://newsround-bias.blogspot.com/2011/08/president-of-english-chess-federation.html

  9. The Guardian’s article includes the reaction of its chess correspondent Leonard Barden: “There has never been a dress code before. It’s not something that happens in chess, it’s supposed to be non-discriminatory.”

    I’m delighted that Leonard Barden has spoken out like this. Now in his eighties, he is a true elder statesman of British chess, a very strong player in his time, and in particular: he was responsible for promoting numerous strong child players and helping many of them to go on to become masters of the game. Leonard Barden will understand the importance of education and positive role models for young people: I hope his voice makes the organisers of the British Chess Championships, who felt that the T-shirt was unsuitable for children to see, take notice now.

    1. Staircase2 7 Aug 2011, 1:33pm

      I love that comment

    2. Dan Filson 7 Aug 2011, 6:34pm

      “the T-shirt was unsuitable for children to see” Silly grounds.

    3. Lara Barnes 7 Aug 2011, 10:13pm

      There has always been a dress code at The British Chess Championships as long as I have been involved. It is stated clearly on the conditions of entry and in the programme.

      1. Reports indicate that you suggested to CJ De Mooi the compromise that he present the prizes only to the adults in his T-shirt, and someone else would present them to the children. Is this correct, and if do do you (with hindsight and plenty of time to consider) still stand by such a selective application of the dress code?

        1. Lara Barnes 8 Aug 2011, 8:27am

          I did not suggest that, the other organisers did, but not because it was ‘adults’ but because it was the tournament that he had sponsored. The only ‘reservations’ had come from parents of juniors and some of the British Seniors (over 60). There were ‘juniors’ playing in the British itself.

          1. homophobe.

          2. @Lara Barnes Thanks for responding. Full appreciation from me for all the work you do for chess.

      2. Jock S. Trap 8 Aug 2011, 8:13am

        Yet again though, you’ve set the example that being Gay is something that should be hidden.

        That is shameful.

        1. Lara Barnes 8 Aug 2011, 8:28am

          It was never about being gay, I wish people would realise that. If he had been wearing any t-shirt with any slogan on it would not have been appropriate for a national event prizegiving for another cause.

          1. Jock S. Trap 8 Aug 2011, 9:48am

            Thats ok, I’m sure the Christian Institute will support you.

          2. Lara, your reference to “promoting a particular sexuality” does tend to bring back memories of a certain Section 28. I think that is why you received so many negative comments.

          3. Jock S. Trap 8 Aug 2011, 12:00pm

            I have to agree with dave.

            We’re Gay for pity sake there is nothing to promote… This is who we are.

          4. @Lara

            and you know this because?

            How would lother slogans be inappropriate for children?

      3. I’m amazed there are chess players who even do laundry, given the image they have. Clearly they do though as his tshirt was crisp and smart. Also it was a very hot day. I would say he was smart casual, but that really wasn’t the objection was it? It was the anti bullying slogan on the shirt that had the word gay in it. It was totally ignorant and insensitive to ask him to remove it. Also rather disrespectful to a president.

  10. Staircase2 7 Aug 2011, 1:35pm

    I can’t believe that the whole organisation would back this up – it sounds like one chronically misinformed official taking things into her own hands (again!).

    Especially odd given that De Mooi is the current president of the English Chess Federation…(you’d think his voice would have some sway to start with)

  11. If people want to read Lara Barnes’ side of the story, you can read it here -.

    http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3343&start=360#p68827

    1. Her comment is too funny. She says she has some real ale t-shirts and wouldn’t think of wearing them to present prizes? As if drinking real ale is comparable to gay equality. And she goes one step further than saying I have gay freinds therefore I am not homophobic by claiming to have had gay relationships. You only have to read people on this website (pepe etc) to know that even fully fledged gay men and women can still be homophobic. What Lara Barnes did is homophobic. Nothing more to be said.

      1. The gay ones are often the worst when it comes to homophobia.

      2. Spanner1960 7 Aug 2011, 5:46pm

        Uh Oh: “”As if drinking real ale is comparable to gay equality.”
        Actually, it is. It’s really dull, drab, everyday and ordinary; at least it is to most gay people. Only those that want to make a big issue about it obviously have a problem. A T-shirt like that should be as commonplace and acceptable as any other.

  12. Inappropriate and a threat to chilidren? Please….obviously the ECF hasn’t heard the language coming out of 8 year olds in the school playground and people like, yet people like this arbiter bury their heads in the sand when 13-15 year olds are having sex behind their parents’ backs and balk at mandatory sex education in schools. This is nothing more than homophobia rearing its ugly head.

  13. What a great t-shirt i need one, every body should start wearing t-shirts against racism -t-shirts that say s stop the racism and bigoty , the insanity, did you think you where the only ones that was suppose to be in the world and all the other halft of the world was not, you the murders and rappest and wife beaters , the terrorist, becausse most bigots are these types of people thats why the do the things they do. because they are all ready filled with evil dark souls that can only deliver hate because its evil , it cannot walk in the light and love, becausse that soul chose to become possessed with evil and hatred is evils character and trait, they are so dark, they cannot even see the monster in themselves , thats why they go and preach in daytime and go and rape and murder in the evening,, and mess with children, then go and hate on families they dont even no and that have done nothing to them and have nothing to do with them at all, just they the hater filled with disfunction

  14. you get these organizations sued , take it to aclu and media human rights and activist a and lawyers, these bigots like the dollywood group attacked innocent people who where not promoting violence but peace and enlightnement, you have to make sure you sue theise organizaitons that stigmatize people out of racism and fire those who purposley choose to harm others instead of be curtious and do thier jobs and treat all with kindness that abuse, that attacks of visciousness you cannot allow that kind of climate its harms everyone and children and starts wars and kaos , when you simply could have stopped it in its tracks with no tolerance of a hate monster who cares for no but themselves, they are not the only people in the world and its a shame they exist at all because they bring nothing but trouble to everyone in every race and gender and thats fact, have every noticed that all the trouble and violence and kaos is comin g from the hetersexual bigots , otherwise our world would be peace

    1. @ carrie

      Please could you use paragraphs to make your posts easier to read. Thanks.

      1. Gayseraph 7 Aug 2011, 4:53pm

        And please remember that it is spelled heterosexual, not “hetersexual”. For some reason that particular misspelling irks me no end

  15. I dont get why people feel the need to wear these tshirts. Talk about attention seeking ! and hes probably thriving on the press coverage. Hes such a dislikable person on eggheads, so arrogant and smug

    1. Jock S. Trap 7 Aug 2011, 3:37pm

      Some people want to make more of a difference, to make things more Equal, to allow all to stop and think.

      So why shouldn’t some wear t-shirts like this?

      Attention seeking or happily making a point to making a positive difference to peoples life?

      I’d go with the latter.

    2. Prick. he might be on eggheads but ure a nobhead.

      1. Calm down dear 7 Aug 2011, 4:45pm

        Goodness, with an exchange like that we haven’t got anything to worry about have we?

        It’ll be ‘bloody queers’ next!

        1. i don’t understand what you’re talking about? what’s your point?

  16. de Villiers 7 Aug 2011, 4:00pm

    The individual should not have worn the shirt and the Chess Federation should not have prohibited it.

    The focus on the prizes should have been the persons receiving them rather than the presenter. It is as unwise to wear a shirt with the Stonewall message than to wear a shirt with any other such as ‘Justice for the Gurkhas’ or ‘We need an economic Plan B’. The whole prize giving ceremony should centre on the winners of the chess tournament rather than anything else.

    1. Leaving aside the rights and wrongs, this fiasco has served to highlight differing attitudes to being gay.

      The root problem is endemic homophobia in society, which shows no sign of going away any time soon.

    2. Are you a gurkha? Are you an economist? or are you gay? you’re deffo an idiot. and joanna lumley does go around talking about gurkahs at every opportunity, cause she’s a gurkha activist. and gordon brown does go around taliing about the economy cause that’s his agenda. marlon brando sent native americans to get his oscar, that was his agenda. when speilberg went for his oscar for schindlers list, should he not have mentioned jews and just talked about the actors and the cinematographer? cause he didn’t. you sound like a self loathing queen to me who thinks we should be neither seen nor heard. he should have worn the t-shirt if he wanted to and the chess federation should not have prohibited it. btw, do you know who won the chess championship last year? no. thought not.

      1. Dan Filson 7 Aug 2011, 6:39pm

        With respect, no. Lumley picked her occasions, Brown picks his, Brando did not and looked a fool as a result. It is a question of respecting the occasion, and the role of presenter of a trophy is not to go off on their own campaigning trip, however just the cause.

        1. lumley doesn’t pick her occasions, everytime I see her I think about the gurkhas, even if she’s selling cheese on an advert. brown doesn’t pick his occasions. everytime I see him i think about the economy, even if he is talking about, well he doesn’t talk about anything else, ever. brando may have looked a fool in your eyes and to those who wiped out the native americans. but he didn’t look a fool to native americans. john lennon may have looked a fool to racists when he took black panthers onto a chat show in the USA. he didn’t look a fool to the black community. question is, why would you think a gay guy wearing a t-shirt that says the words ‘some people are gay get over it’ on it looks like a fool? he was wearing a t-shirt. the t-shirt was not about, or connected to a group who are offensive. i guess some people want to change the way things are and are willing to put their necks on the line. whereas others just dont have the balls. i suggest, if you’re gay, then you’re the fool.

          1. de Villiers 9 Aug 2011, 2:33pm

            Uh oh, you are being very pompous and I think you are labouring under your own misinterpretations. I have not said the person looked like a fool. I said he should not have worn a political tee-shirt during an event that was neither about him nor his message.

    3. Dan Filson 7 Aug 2011, 6:36pm

      Absolutely!

    4. Maybe it should have said “some chess players are gay too!” for the sake of direct relevance. Though the tshirt itself was good for any bullied or bullying youngsters to see.

  17. lara’s point is not about real ale being comparable to gay equality. it’s about wearing a t-shirt and jeans at a formal awards ceremony – a t-shirt campaiging for a (any) cause when cj was there in his capacity as president of the ecf presenting the prizes in the biggest event of the year.

    her comment about children is misinformed, young people need to be educated about these matters.

    cj was asked (perhaps by a misinformed individual) whether he felt his clothing appropriate. he could have replied “yes, i do” and carried on, using his authority as president. then addressed the issue with those who raised concerns later.

    instead, cj went straight to the press, tweeting jeremy vine and so on. as a media professional he knows exactly how the ‘story’ would be reported, and now we have these stories ridiculing chess, the game which he has worked so hard to promote.

    it would be nice if these stories were reported with a quote from everyone involved, or at least some research.

  18. and cj was not ‘banned’.

    imo he can wear what he likes, but he too handled the situation badly.

  19. There’s a time and a place for activism. I wouldn’t expect any politically motivated t-shirts at such an event. We have dress-casual days at work and I wouldn’t dream of wearing this t-shirt. It’s not because the message is bad, or that it’s a threat to children, or a threat to anyone for that matter, but simply that the forum within which this message is being said has absolutely nothing to do with politics or sexuality. What’s the point? Equal rights does not penetrate every aspect of everyone’s lives, a lot of people who don’t have any problem with sexuality would look at this and just think… “Why here?”

    1. the question you should be asking if you are gay is, why not here? wearing a t-shirt is not activism. its a fricking t-shirt.

      1. Spanner1960 7 Aug 2011, 5:50pm

        Of course it’s activism. It’s making a personal statement. I’m sure you would be offended if he had a large swastika on his shirt, or would that be “just a fricking t-shirt”?

        1. Dan Filson 7 Aug 2011, 6:40pm

          Quite!

        2. Jock S. Trap 8 Aug 2011, 8:19am

          How exactly is the t-shirt he wore offensive?

          Are you really comparing “Some People Are Gay, Get Over It!” as offensive as to that of a large swastika?

          Apparent from the fact yes they are both “just a fricking t-shirt” and worn out of choice, this would not be an issue had the t-shirt read “Some People Are Black, Get Over It”.

          So why is it So offenisive because it happens to mention being Gay?

        3. People who wear swastikas killed millions of jews, homos and gypsies. thats a reason to be offended when someone openly displays that symbol. people who wear stonewall t-shirts did nothing to n-oone. so what is there to be offended by? i think swastikas coming in to your head says more about your own n4zi fantasies than anything else.

        4. Spanner1960 8 Aug 2011, 10:40am

          Oh typical of you lot to grab the sh|tty end of the stick.
          What I am trying to say is they are both political statements. I am not judging them on their merit, but simply, if you walk around with something on your chest, it is there to say something about you, whether you like Nike or Coca-Cola, belong to a fishing club, support the Labour Party or vote BNP – they are all advertising or promoting a like or opinion of the wearer.

        5. @Spanner

          Do you accept that some activism is acceptable and some is not?

      2. Well I explained why not in my first sentence. There’s a time and a place for activism – and it IS activism. It is without a doubt a bold statement in support of a minority group. I am gay and as such totally support that message (and I’ll be waving my flag at Brighton pride this coming weekend!), but it stands out as distracting and attention seeking at an event such as this. I quite agree however that to allow it throughout the entire event apart from the presentation of children’s prizes is ignorant and discriminatory, and if that is solely what the fuss is about then yes, the objectionable bint needs to do one. If you’re running anything like this you either allow slogans on t-shirts with messages you agree with, or you put a blanket ban on all of them in all circumstances – or somewhere there’s going to be an argument. Which I think is going on here :)

    2. He wore the T-shirt on other days during the tournament too and presumably he typically dresses in such a way, displaying a message about a cause which is important to him. Should he suddenly dress differently to present the prizes? That question could legitimately be put into the category of a “matter of opinion”. But what about the arbiter’s objection about children and her suggestion that if he really wanted to present the prizes wearing the T-shirt, then he should only present the adult prizes, not the children’s ones? That is not legitimate, and that is the crux of this row.

      1. Seems like the concern may have been that someone who was openly identifying as gay was being photographed with children, and how that would affect the image of the association.

        And that, my dears, is homophobia.

  20. Spanner1960 7 Aug 2011, 5:43pm

    Some people are gay.
    Obviously the English Chess Federation haven’t got over it.

  21. Gahh this is so infuriating!!

    1. Lara Barnes 7 Aug 2011, 8:08pm

      Right to reply and all that. I am sorry to see all the misinformed comments and feel sad that this has happened, taking away from the fantastic work that CJ did for the British Chess Championships.
      As an Inclusion manager at a secondary school in rural Northumberland I work with some of the most racist and homophobic families and children that you can imagine, a constant battle to educate them against bigotry.

      Had CJ’s t-shirt had any slogan that could even been thought of as controversial I would have asked him to reconsider, as not to detract from the achievement of the players. The reference to him being offered to present to the ‘adults’ only was misinformed. He sponsored the ‘adult’ event of The British Championship.
      And, yes, some of my friends and family are homosexual. I have marched for Gay Pride and raised money for Gay equality charities. To be branded as homophobic is really distressing.
      The English Chess Federation has been misrepresented in this matter .

      1. Lara, I am very glad that you are replying to this and engaging in dialogue.

        Are you suggesting that this slogan is “controversial” and therefore a shirt with it on should not be worn? If that is the case then I am sorry but (with a respectful acknowledgement of your day job) you made a very serious misjudgement.

        Also were you misquoted when you are alleged to have said that the t-short was inappropriate because it was “promoting a particular sexuality” to children – surely given your background you can see that that implies that children should not learn that, well, some people are gay? perhaps you could help us with what you meant by that remark, which to a neutral observer smacks of bigotry, or indeed, if that is the case, confirm that you did not say that?

        And again thank you for visiting. Incidentally some of my friends and family are Northerners :-)

        1. Lara Barnes 7 Aug 2011, 10:27pm

          If you look at the definition of ‘controversial’ then yes, I believe the t-shirt was controversial and have been proved right accross the media and social network world today!
          If you look carefully at that remark in the Guardian article you will see a – line before it, implying that the words were taken out of context, that something I said has been removed, like a … in the Harvard referencing system. If those words left my mouth it was in relation to something in a different context and I reiterate that I strongly support Gay equality and believe that children should be educated about all the wonderful variety of life. I just don’t think a prize-giving is the place to do it. I did not object in any way to him wearing it the day before as a spectator.

          1. Would someone wearing a crucifix be controversial?
            what about someone wearing a star of david?
            or a tshirt with bob Marley on it.

            All of these are technically controversial, but i doubt very much you would have asked someone to remove them.

            It isnt controversial to assert fact. Gay people exist – fact.

          2. Lara, you got it right: the slogan is provocative, and I would think it unprofessional for a prize-giver to use such a forum to promote a their own cause, however worthy, when they are supposed to be celebrating another person’s victory. It looks like arrogance on CJ’s part.

          3. lara, why try and explain your homophobic actions? I’m sure its distressing for some gay guys and girls to learn they are self loathing homophobes, but some are. they just don’t know they are because society has drilled the bigotry so far into them. just read the comments on pink news, (pepe, spanner) you see it all the time on here. but, stopping someone from wearing a t-shirt that says ‘some people are gay get over it’ was homophobic, it just is. if you’d have stopped someone from wearing a t-shirt that said ‘i’m black, get over it’, it would have been racist. if you’d have stopped a man from wearing a kippah (which effectively says I’m jewish), it would have been anti semitic. don’t get too distressed about it, just accept that you were being homophobic, apologise, and i’m sure most gay guys will forgive you, we forgive very easily, that’s why we have been getting fvcked over for the last few thousand years. or maybe, you’re just not really that distressed?

          4. Jock S. Trap 8 Aug 2011, 12:05pm

            What exactly is being promoted Adam… please do tell because I can’t see how you promote being who you are?

          5. @Lara

            I also applaud your willingness to engage and try to explain your views.

            As someone who comes from Northumberland originally, I can appreciate some of the strident attitudes you may have to deal with on occasion (not that the people of Northumberland are not accepting of diversity – just some are particularly vehement in their views).

            I wasnt involved in the incident and I am aware that social media etc can distort the real events when reporting is made partly due to misinterpretation, chinese whispers, a bizarre acceptance that anything written is true etc

            However, I do think that trying to ban the Tshirt, sends a message that is easy to interpret as homophobic (ie trying to censor sexuality) whether or not this was consciously or even sub-consciusly intended.

      2. Yes, I seriously doubt that Lara would have had the gall to ask someone to remove a smart tshirt that made a similarly positive statement about race.

  22. IM Jack Rudd 7 Aug 2011, 7:24pm

    I am in an interesting situation here, being both on the board of the English Chess Federation and a member of the backroom staff of the British Championships. Furthermore, I count both Lara Barnes and CJ de Mooi as friends of mine, and people who work very hard for the good of chess in Britain.

    This situation arose at the end of two very hard weeks – in a venue whose air conditioning couldn’t cope with the heat, and in an event that probably had too few arbiters for the workload. It’s the sort of situation where errors of judgment are made, and I have every hope that the parties involved will recognise this and sort it out amicably.

    1. Firstly, I am not offering an opinion on whether anyone was or was not homophobic here, and I question whether the facts are being fully reported…. however, your post does make it sound like being short staffed, tired and stuffy is an excusable condition for homophobia to arise. If all of this is due to a snap decision made by someone, one has to ask where the roots of that snap decision lay – in the person’s deep rooted prejudice, or in their worry that other people have prejudice? Either way it proves prejudice still exists and then people get very defensive. Error of judgement indeed…

      1. IM Jack Rudd 7 Aug 2011, 10:56pm

        My post was not seeking to excuse homophobia – and I would hate for it to come across that way – but to explain why someone who I respect as a friend and an arbiter might be in a situation where she made the wrong call.

        I am now pleased to report, by the way, that the situation has been resolved.

        1. Hmm, I do wonder how that answers anything, as that is still an admission of a “wrongful” act occurring, and those in authority are responsible for such behaviour….. in this context an arbiter has authority and so is held accountable for their actions. Happens every day on an even bigger scale.

          Nevertheless personally I’m happy to see the two parties are all peace and love again and there are no unnecessary resignations or lost friendships over this relatively minor drama, at the root of which I don’t think any real harm was intended.

          If anything though this serves as a good illustration of how careful one must be in this world of social media, and how quickly a private action can snowball into the public domain where it quickly becomes everyone-with-an-opinion’s weekend fodder :-)

        2. Ooer missus 8 Aug 2011, 6:21pm

          It seems to have been resolved by Mr Mooi resigning, which hardly seems fair.

          1. IM Jack Rudd 10 Aug 2011, 1:18pm

            His resignation wasn’t accepted by the board of the ECF.

  23. Even if it were homophobia (which I doubt), people have a legal right to be opposed to active homosexuality on moral grounds just as homosexuals have a right to have homosexual sex. Since neither side has acted illegally it must therefore be a moral issue.
    Therfore, is it immoral to bar a T’shirt with a slogan or to object to such a slogan? If you say that it is, please state the source of your morals or your moral guide, giving assurance as to why this moral guide should be deemd absolutely correct and infallible.
    On the other hand, perhaps it is not immoral to require that such a T’shirt not be worn.

    1. Chester36 7 Aug 2011, 9:59pm

      you saying hate is acceptable and moral and so is beating people up etc goes on logically within your stance

      1. It is not illegal to hate what you believe to be immoral. People hate what they believe bad or immoral. To illustrate, most people hate theft. That does not mean you should hate the thief. It is the same with homosexuality. People have a legal right to hate the act (not the person). In this way, the hate is acceptable. but certainly not beating people up.

        1. bobbleobble 8 Aug 2011, 9:57am

          Firstly people do hate the thief, your holier than thou ‘hate the sin not the sinner’ is total nonsense because it never works like that. Secondly gay people are not just gay when they are having sex. I’m gay 24/7, it’s a fundamental part of my life. I can’t stop being gay. So if you are going to hate homosexuality you are going to have to hate me and everyone like me.

          Oh and if hate is acceptable then I would say that I hate your so called morals, I think that hating any kind of loving act between two (or more) people is immoral, I think restricting the rights of free speech and freedom of expression is immoral. I think that you are immoral.

          1. There is no basis for your holier than thou accusation. I merely stated a persons hatred should be directed toward an act rather than the person. Are you saying it is wrong to hate homosexuality? If so, on what basis do you say this. People have a right to hate what they wish. It is called free-will.
            I also hate ibestiality even though soime people ‘cannot help themselves’ and are born that way.. I do not however hate those persons that practice bestiality (legal in many countries). I despair for them and would help them on the road to moral cleanliness should they be willing to be helped. I would be motivated by a desire to help rather than to hate or inflict injury.
            It is curious that you cannot see a way to separate hate of an action from hate of a person. Yet you call ME immoral! Unlike yourself, I hate nobody, I also have a clean conscience, I have a monogamous, happy marriage and a life free from fear of communicable deadly disease.

        2. Jock S. Trap 8 Aug 2011, 12:50pm

          If people aren’t Gay themselves then me wonders why such people would even think about ‘the act’? Pervs by any chance?

          Maybe they should stop looking at everyone by what they do in bed and concentrate on their own clearly meaningless lifes.

          1. Perhaps if the ‘homosexual community’ ceased marching annually (Gay Pride etc) and banging on about their sexuality, at every opportunity, people might stop ‘thinking about it’.
            Clearly, the word discretion is not in the ‘gay’ dictionary.

          2. Jock S. Trap 8 Aug 2011, 2:48pm

            So people marching and having fun and all you still think about is sex?

            Yeah, think that says more about you and your state of mind, perv!

          3. Jock S. Trap 8 Aug 2011, 2:48pm

            Keith – you only have You to blame for your narrow minded shortsightedness.

          4. Perhaps gays should stop defining themselves by their sexual preferences, stop shoving their un-natural disgusting perversions in peoples faces and accept that some people exercise their right to abhor what is bad! (Psalms 97:10). Hopefully you are not bigotted against God.
            Where does it end with sexual abandon? Do you believe a consenting father and son of legal age should be allowed to copulate? If not, is it on moral grounds that you object? If so, why should incest be wrong and un-natural but not homosexuality?
            Also, have you considered that there is no risk free way to practice anal sex. Even monogamous partners can infect one another with the Human papilloma virus which resides in fecal matter whereas a monogamous heterosexual pair run zero risk.

          5. Ooer missus 8 Aug 2011, 6:13pm

            Oh dear, it’s a slippery slope for a straw man isnt it?

          6. Jock S. Trap 9 Aug 2011, 11:04am

            Oh dear, you sad little man. Well least I know I’m happy. I think most of the LGBTQI community tend to be happy.

            So I guess that just leaves you, judging everyone while we just get on with it.

            Funny how it’s you who choose to rub other people’s sexuality in face’s coz it ain’t us you sick perv!!

            Tell you what, you go worry about what everyone else is doing while we just get on happy with our lives.

            Thanks…. moron!

          7. So if you think about the abomination of incest or bestiality and relate your disgust on a message board, does that also make you a perv? Amoral idiot!
            Do the twisted morals (in an effort to justify your loathsome, disgusting practices) of you and your ilk know no bounds?

          8. So if you think about the abomination of incest or bestiality and relate your disgust on a message board, does that also make you a pervert? A-moral idiot!
            Do the twisted morals (in an effort to justify your loathsome, disgusting practices) of you and your ilk know no bounds?

          9. Jock S. Trap 12 Aug 2011, 9:46am

            Keith

            It seems to be you calling all perverts but your the only one here who clearly has such a sewer mind that only thinks about people and the sex they have.

            Don’t take it out on us if you screwed up your own life, loser!

        3. Spanner1960 8 Aug 2011, 8:08pm

          That’s assuming your wife isn’t having a shag behind your back, possibly with an HIV+ man.
          She’s probably sick of your pompous moralising as well.

          1. My wife and I share the same morals . It is not pompous to endorse clean morals and to tell the truth about the dangers of loose morals. The mode of speech you employ reveals that you reside in the metaphorical sewer and are possibly a candidate for a loathsome yet avoidable disease yourself.

          2. Jock S. Trap 9 Aug 2011, 2:59pm

            “My wife and I share the same morals ”

            Yeah, clearly not or you wouldn’t be here.

    2. Keith/Pepa , There is no connection between your premise and your conclusion relating to legality and morality.

      Nor can it be Christian to hate anything, if it is a totally love- based philosophy. Hate is fear-based, which is the opposite of love.

      And as bobble says, hate the sin not the sinner is just a shorthand loophole indirect way to try and justify hating the person. It’s very clear from your posts and the language you use that you do hate gays. Unless of course you’re just a troll posing as an archetype hater ;)

      1. You are badly mis-informed. Nowhere does the bible state that love must be absolute. The bible say to hate what is bad (Psalm 97:10).also Romans 12:9 New International Version (1984)”
        Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good”
        Those therefore that hate the sinner aswell as the act are not Christians by definition.
        My hatred of homosexuality (I also hate bestiality, incest and fornication) is moral, lawful and required under scripture. Do you hate lying. If so, then under your terms you must hate everyone since everyone lies. Is it not possible for you to hate a lie but love the liar, say a spouse friend or relative or is this concept alien to you.
        I had a homosexual friend who was a DJ. I enjoyed his company very much but when he ‘came out’ I quit mixing with him. I never hated him and never will. He was a nice yet sexually immoral person.
        Ps. Difference of opinion does not a troll make! I am merely making a defence of my views. Please respect that.

        1. Jock S. Trap 9 Aug 2011, 11:13am

          The fact you come here with such drivel proves that what this bloke did was justified however way you wish to look at it.

          The difference, this t-shirt makes a harmless statement about who we are how we are born, You choose to be hateful and bigotted.

          Shame on you, muppet!

          1. Born Gay???? No gay gene exists!
            Are the incestuous, paedophiles and those that enjoy bestality born that way too?

          2. Jock S. Trap 9 Aug 2011, 2:56pm

            And the ‘straight’ gene is where, exactly?

          3. Jock S. Trap 9 Aug 2011, 2:58pm

            The fact you have to jusitfy you arguement with such other words just shows you up for the complete low-life you are.

          4. The point is it is not genetic. There is no bestiality gene, nor thief gene, no gay gene , no straight gene. Nobody is born with that way!
            The conscience and nature show us the right path. Some choose another path. Since in your opinion homosexuality is natural, why is it that there is NO safe way to have anal sex, even amongst monogamous couples? Even putting HIV aside, the HPV virus is transmitted through fecal matter, and is common amongst homosexual males. Nature is telling you something!

          5. So are the incestuous born that way then and would it justify their disgusting practices. At least , I am sure they are happy too, just as you are!

          6. Firstlyyes I do condemn any African heterosexual fornicators. If you look back you will see I have condemned fornication, homosexuality, bestiality, incest and paedophilia.
            Secondly, what made you laugh laoud, the facts and the truth about heterosexual monogamous couples. Do you deny that heterosexual monogamous couples are at zero risk from STDs? If so you are an idiot denying the facts.
            I notice your failure to answer the following also…
            According to you, if it makes you happy and harms no other people, it is not immoral, therefore…
            Please tell me whether in your eyes it would be immoral for a father and son of legal age to have anal intercourse if it makes them happy?
            Also, if anal intercourse is natural, why is there no 100% safe way to practice it?
            Answer these if you can!

          7. @Keith

            Good to see you have such a sophisticated argument that you believe homosexuality is comparable to bestiality and paedophilia … idiot, small minded, worryingly dangerous subversive that you are

        2. The sewer rat Jock S Trap is calling ME a lowlife on the basis that I condemn un-natural harmful sexual practices which spread diseases that kill even innocent babies.
          This amoral tittle sodomite has thinks people are BORN that way – which excuses paedophiles and the incestuous not to mention those who get their jollies with animals.
          If ‘lowlife’ means one who condemns the aforementioned (in some alternate gay universe), I am proud to be such. Also, the ultimate judge, God, agrees! (Jude verse 7)
          Which source of À la carte morality does Mr Strap espouse?

          1. Jock S. Trap 10 Aug 2011, 9:58am

            So when did you Chose to be straight? You know nothing. It’s all assumptions no facts.

            Whether you like it or not I am the way nature intended. Only Chose religious lifestyles choose to discriminate me for what nature created. Which would make you a big o hypocrite.

            No then lets see, I am a Gay Man 100%, I have a son, well adjusted and doing well and I have had a partner for nearly 20 years and we hope to marry when it becomes possible. I will add that while my son has only knows my one partner (his stepdad), his mother has had Seven ‘stepfathers’. He is also a law student at Uni and has a lovely girlfriend. Now you want to talk about whats normal?

            Doesn’t give much to your creditiliy really does it.

            May I suggest it is I that is natural here and your chosen bigotry and discrimination that is completely Un-natural.

            Thank you.

          2. Jock S. Trap 10 Aug 2011, 9:59am

            Yes, Keith, you truely are a low-life.

            If your life is so terrible may I suggest you stop taking it out on all others just because we’re happy.

          3. When dis I choose to be straight? At the same time I chose to lead a moral life regadless of any urges to do otherwise. ie steal, lie, commit incest, bestiality, sodomy etc! My point is that just because you have an urge does not make it right. Take paedophioles for instance. They are attracted to pre-pubescent chuildren (from birth it could be argued by your reasoning). However, because it is immoral to follow through on this attraction they have a moral duty not to follow through on such urges.
            If nature makes you incestuous in your eyes, you must fight against it, even though nobody is harmed where consenting adults practice homosexual incest. It is patently immoral or do you think otherwise since you appear to believe that if you are happy and nobody is hurt it is ok?
            If it was not for sodomites , gays and heterosexual fornicators , loathsome killer diseases that kill even innocent babies would not be spread would they. Nature is telling you NO NO NO!!!

          4. According to you, if it makes you happy and harms no other people, it is not immoral, therefore…
            Please tell me whether in your eyes it would be immoral for a father and son of legal age to have anal intercourse if it makes them happy?
            Also, if anal intercourse is natural, why is there no 100% safe way to practice it?
            Do you know why in Leviticus 23:13 the Israelites were told to bury their excrement? Because it is unclean and disgusting. Even when monogamous homosexual males commit anal sex, there is a high risk of the HPV virus which is transmitted from the fecal matter in the rectum onto the penis. Im am sure it makes you happy to do this but there is no safe way to have anal sex without resorting to un-natural protection (sheath) which itself is not 100% safe.
            Monogamous married couples that practice penile-vaginal exclusively run no risks from STDs. Clearly, there ‘s natural way and an un-natural, perverse one.

          5. Jock S. Trap 10 Aug 2011, 2:47pm

            The fact you compare being Gay to all that – you can go fvck yourself – creep.

            Your the reason society is in such a dire state.

          6. Jock S. Trap 10 Aug 2011, 2:50pm

            You are one Sick bastard Keith, stop projecting and concerntrate on your own sick, disgusting life you fvcking pervert!

            We’ve all heard your homophobia before, it’s boring and nothing new. We know you’d prefer people to kill one another than love one another so well, you reap what you so but don’t go blaming the LGBTQI community because we’re sorted and happy and your miserable and clealry jealous.

            Loser!

          7. Jock S. Trap 10 Aug 2011, 2:52pm

            Do you make such comment to the mostly straight African community dying of HIV and AIDS? No of course you don’t

            Which is why your nothing but low-life scum.

            I’m happy and alright thanks, so sad your not but hey as I said you reap what you sow. So don’t take it out on others.

          8. Jock S. Trap 10 Aug 2011, 2:55pm

            “Monogamous married couples that practice penile-vaginal exclusively run no risks from STDs. Clearly, there ‘s natural way and an un-natural, perverse one.”

            OMG – how stupid are you, fck that made me laugh so loud. You really are an uneducated idiot ain’t ya.
            Ah bless, sure you can’t help being stupid but I think your work is done.
            You live in denial mr and there no coming back from that.

            You’re one dangerous man – Loser! LOL

  24. Both parties have now released a statement: http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3343&start=465#p69060

    Whatever you may think of the situation, perhaps we can get a comment from the author of this piece as to why tweets from one person result in completely one-sided reporting of a ‘story’. Lazy journalism?

  25. if you need some guidance as to how to properly report a ‘story’, read this one from a relatively minor newspaper: http://sport.caledonianmercury.com/2011/08/07/chess-championship-ends-amid-gay-equality-t-shirt-controversy/002034

    also note the guardian story http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/06/chess-gay-rights-tshirt, uses the phrase “claims he was barred” in the byline. the headline here does not include the word “claims”.

    just my two cents.

  26. graham brown 8 Aug 2011, 9:42am

    I would quote from elder statesman of chess Leonard Barden: “There has never been a dress code before. It’s not something that happens in chess, it’s supposed to be non-discriminatory

    1. Well it seems that the item is sourced from the Guardian website (I am sure James Park will reply and correct me if I am wrong) so am surprised that quote at least is not included. Just the headline has been changed slightly to remove the word “claims”.

      As a result, we now have chess, one of the most inclusive, non-discriminatory games of all, associated with homphobia by the casual reader.

  27. Having read the two statements that have now been issued, I guess we will never quite get to the bottom of what did or didn’t go on or what was or wasn’t intended by SBs initial comments regarding the t-shirt. The 2 apologies seem ever-so-slightly to be apologies about what came after and the fact that it now makes chess look ridiculous, rather than true apologies. Clearly they have decided to issue ‘politicians apologies’ when clearly they still feel the same way. If he had been wearing a shirt with the slogan on it, would that have been acceptable? Is it just the fact that it was a t-shirt? The whole situation is a complete joke. If the issue had never been raised in the first place then probably none of us would have even known that these chess championships exist. Really shot themselves in the foot with this one! Now whenever we think of chess, we will think of homophobia, regardless of the apologies that have been issued.

    1. My above comment should refer to LB, not SB. Typo.

  28. On a slightly lighter note, I liked the comments of some of the presumably straight commenters on the English chess federation forum. They suggested getting t-shirts printed with the slogan ‘Some People Play Chess – Get Over It’ and donate the proceeds to Stonewall (well, I did say they were straight – most of them seem like a good lot).
    Anyway, my take on it is that it wasn’t a matter of homophobia. The more I’ve read about Lara Barnes the more she comes across a good woman (and to an extent is taking the fall for the other two male officials also involved in the decision). It was the end of a very successful, but incredibly busy tournament and bad decisions were made all round – including by CJ who could have just pulled rank and stated he was goingto present the prizes anyway – he is the president of the organisation and has done so much financially for the ECF that it’s unlikely anyone would have countermanded him.

  29. Whilst I agree with the sentiment of the shirt, it could be argued that there’s a time and a place.
    The question is whether any other slogan t-shirt with a political message would have been treated the same. I always assumed prizegivings were fairly formal events, but maybe that’s just my frame of reference.
    The question it begs is what else would’ve been acceptable? If for example they banned a CND t-shirt or something with a similar political slant, then I would clock it up to dress code. Ditto if it was a tuxedos and bow-ties type of thing. If it was that supporting gay rights is contrary to the ideology of ECF, then CJ is right to push the issue.

    1. Do you think CJ would be President of the ECF if supporting gay rights (he describes himself as supporting “gay equality”, not “gay rights” btw) was contrary to the ideology of the ECF?

      1. It’d be nice if EVERYONE turned up in the sodding tshirt next year.

        1. Quite. I played in the tournament, a couple of times on the top boards in front of many spectators, in photos etc. and have asked whether if I turned up in the same outfit, whether any concerns would have been raised. I doubt it. Personally, and I stress this is a matter of opinion, I think Lara (who is someone I have great respect for) probably got this one wrong. The ECF could have handled this better, but they are largely a voluntary organisation with little media-savvy (this is not an excuse, but an explanation). CJ, on the other hand is a media professional who should know the consequences of his actions.

          I became aware of this report when my sister (who is a journalist) posted it on Facebook. For a website that was (and I quote) “founded to produce broadsheet quality journalism for the LGBT community”, this report is so one-sided and lacking in depth/research/sources in is quite frankly at the level of the News of the World.

        2. …I’ve always been apathetic enough never to write to a newspaper before, but I may do on this one.

          Basically, as I said before, we now have chess forever associated woth homophobia. For some reason the reply button is greyed out on ‘Uh oh’s comment “homophobe” above, I was going to simply reply “twat”, but that would be stooping to his level.

          1. I hope chess isn’t ‘forever associated’ with homophobia, SA. Although there were some bigotted commentators on the ECF forum, most of the people there were far from homophobic and thoroughly reasoned and reasonable thinkers.

        3. oh yeah, and thanks for the 5pm update James, but you still managed to get Lara’s name wrong.

  30. Spanner1960 8 Aug 2011, 8:10pm

    All this wittering on about a bloody T-shirt.
    Strange how I’ve never seen him wear it on “Eggheads”. I wonder why?

  31. I had an interesting conversation about this slogan recently …

    I will start by saying that I personally fully endorse the slogan and campaign by Stonewall

    However, another gay colleague made me view it in a slightly different way. He had seen the poster put up in a different work location and said he was concerned about the poster.

    Firstly, he said that why should someone who was not accepting of homosexuality be forced to “get over it”, so long as they did not bring their views into the workplace and did not display prejudice or discrimination at work or in society – why should we dictate what their views should be.

    He went on to argue that if we had a strident homophobe in the work place who had complied with the code of conduct at work and never been intolerant or prejudiced in their comments or actions in work – then displaying this poster could be perceived as an attempt to brainwash and change views and thus create unnecessary conflict.

    Not saying I agree – made me think

    1. Jock S. Trap 12 Aug 2011, 9:52am

      I think the whole point of the poster is not to force anyone to accept anything but to increase the fact that we are just as normal as everyone else and that we are about in life just as much as straight people. A view the majority already do think so… It goes a long way to helping children esp who accept who they might be themselves.

      I do wish campaigns like this were about when I was at school, it might have made the journey a little more bearable.

      1. Jock S. Trap 12 Aug 2011, 9:52am

        You are right though, the debate is interesting.

        1. Jock S. Trap 12 Aug 2011, 12:59pm

          Why would you even make that assumption when we are talking about two men or two women being together. there is no connect except in your sick warped twisted head.

          I don’t answer because the fact you link being Gay to incest, bestiality and the rest make you a very sick bastard and why the world is having the very problems it is.

  32. who cares. get over it.

    1. @ Stu
      I would like to know exactly how a father and son incestual relationship such as I cited would produce congenital defects??? If the only
      grounds for opposition to incest is congenital deformity, it must be assumed that you are not opposed to a father and son liason If you are, on what grounds?

      1. Also Stu. Ypu said I was evil. I have merely stated my contempt for homosexual practices, not persons.I have not insulted, sworn or abused any person.
        Since you define opposing views as evil, you are hoist by your own petard since you are opposed to incest though manyn happily practice it without harm in the case of consenting fathers and sons!!

        1. @Keith

          I am entitled to my opinion of you being evil and I retain it

          Incest is objectionable for many reasons including health grounds which may or may not occur in a father/son setting, there are other reasons too such as psychological damage, consent issues etc and your argument is facetious at best

  33. …as dictated by the event’s dress code, I think this t-shirt is most smartly “smart-casual.”

  34. Jock S. Trap 12 Aug 2011, 1:02pm

    In other words you really are a low-life piece of scum!

    You will always be no better than sh!t, which is why the LGBTQI community will always be so much better than you will ever imagine yourself to be.

    Scum never far and clearly your evidence of that.

    Your are the weakest piece of trash… Goodbye.

  35. @Keith

    Let me make it perfectly clear from my view point, I would find the incest between a father and son who were of legal age as abhorent as that between a mother and son.

    I find equally as abhorrent the dehumanising of homosexuals by people such as yourself by persistently subtlely suggesting (sometimes not subtle) that homosexuals are similar to those engaging in incest, paedophilia and bestiality. Such a view is wrong, evil, inspired by hatred and lacks any sophisticated understanding of human sexual attraction.

  36. Try again and answer if you can or are you stumped as to any moral difference between homosexuality and consensual incest?

  37. Does your aversion to father and son consensual incest not expose your hypocrisy since many find homosexuality equally abhorrent! Are you practicing the same intolerance against the incestuous that you are opposed to against homosexuals?
    Is it not for consenting adults alone to decide what to do with one another in private? Yes , I do (as do others)see homosexuality as equally abhorrent (yet more harmful) as incest. In fact, between the two groups, homosexuals have spread more disease and killed more innocent people with contaminated blood whilst the incestuous tend to keep it in the family!
    So I ask, on what grounds (other than your own prejudice) do you deny a consenting father and son intercourse?

  38. Please understand that my hatred is for the act and not the person, just as you may hate incest but not the incestuous.
    Evil is a biblical concept. The bible is clear on the practice of homosexuality.(Jude 7)

  39. Jock S. Trap 13 Aug 2011, 8:56am

    Difference – you are filled with so much hatred, yet you accuse others of being unhealthy whereas Gay people don’t tend to hate, we have no reason to except for the pity you have created.

    Therefore all you do by your homophobic rants is proof how much better we are as people than you’ll ever be.

    Ending, I’m happy, my partner’s happy, my family and friends are happy, my son’s happy and I’m happy I brought him up without your kinds of prejudices with hopefully will help make the next generation of people a better one and little rats like you hopefully will be flushed out with the sewage, where you belong, away from any harms way.

    End of.

  40. Jock S. Trap 13 Aug 2011, 8:58am

    One has to wonder why one spends so much time here on a Gay news site… closeted much?

  41. @Keith

    I refer you to my previous comment about my abhorrence at your ill informed, judgemental and hate filled attitude at comparing homosexuality with incest, paedophilia and bestiality – they are unintelligent and patronising comparisons that deserve to be treated with no respect.

    The is no hypocracy at my finding incest of any form unacceptable. As much as you can repeatedly say that people are not made gay, that does not make your repeated comments right. There is a wealth of academic research showing the contrary. There are good, legitimate reasons why incest is not acceptable – bizarrely, most public cases involve those of religious organisations.

    You can come up with your twee comments that you love the sinner but hate the sin. That is such a patronising and fatuous comment, given that you are then condemning people to be untrue to themselves and psychological damage. As for disease – HIV is not a gay disease (despite what you may say), it is a disease of body fluids…

  42. … strangely not only gay people have bodily fluids.
    As for other diseases, the rate of infection increase for the vast majority of STIs is much higher in heterosexuals than homosexuals.
    Strangely both heterosexuals and homosexuals get syphillis, chlamydia, genital warts, HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases as they get chickenpox, pneumonia, the common cold, asthma, diabetes etc.
    Your assertion that gays caused disease (the logical extension of your hate filled argument) is both factually wrong and evidences the evil within your mind and heart.
    I am not surprised you know something of what the Bible says on evil, since you perpetuate it repeatedly.
    Incest has been shown to lead to serious genetic deformities and introduce to other aspects of society by other breeding (strangely a heterosexual thing) new genetic complexes later.
    Aversion is a strong word for my view on incest (I used the word to contrast to your use of vocabulary) but you clearly have a hatred and fear of gay

  43. … people which makes me fear for the well being of anyone in connection with your ministry (lay or ordained).
    I wonder what any of these comments have to do with a T shirt at a chess tournament. The reason for my responses – to counter the vehemence of the evil you are doing to any vulnerable person who could be damaged by your message.
    As for what you are doing on a gay site … bizarre … do you feel the need to cleanse yourself repeatedly after contact with us on here …. strange evil man

  44. Jock S. Trap 13 Aug 2011, 11:16am

    “I wonder what any of these comments have to do with a T shirt at a chess tournament.”

    Surely with comments like Keiths have proof of why the slogan and the wearing of the t-shirt are extremely important and very valid, Stu.

  45. @Jock S Trap

    I agree that the T Shirt could be useful in many (not all) situations

    I think most of the comments (including your and mine) countering the intemperant views of Keith were fully justified although none of Keiths were

  46. If it is acceptable to find incest abhorrent, why not homosexuality. Repeating that it incest wrong ad nauseum, and not explaining your reasoning, does not further your case.
    The defence for homosexuality that nobody is hurt where consenting adults engage in homosexuality. I would apply the same reasoning to incest so beyond this, why are you opposed to it?
    If you say homosexuals are born that way I would reply so are paedophiles but they must fight their unhealthy urges and not indulge them. So, again….why is incest a consenting father and son wrong?

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all