Reader comments · Gay birds have lifelong relationships · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Gay birds have lifelong relationships

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. martyn notman 16 Aug 2011, 11:01am

    ok so all you have to do if you want a monogamous relationship is change species?

    1. No – just work on keeping the life in your relationship with your partner and keep your pants on with other people.

  2. Jock S. Trap 16 Aug 2011, 11:20am

    Watch out Keith and his extremist Christians will probably have them culled.

    1. Dr Herbert Shellface 17 Aug 2011, 3:28pm

      His religion is irrelevant, his actions are caused by his obsessive homophobia. And his usual screen name is Pepa.

      I call on all people of faith to pray for him to be cured.

  3. Why have you got a picture of heterosexual finches then?

  4. Sweet little birds – I kept them years ago. They look like they are made of coloured felt and they sound like squeaky toys. However, the male bullied the female terribly. Maybe he would have been happier with a boyfriend!
    As I have always said, it would be astonishing if social animals didn’t produce some predominantly gay individuals and pairs. The evidence is that they all seem to do so.

  5. This news needs to be tweeted.

    1. Rehan
      You stole my thunder so to speak.
      Interestingly, the BBC have been singing the praises of Zebra Finches. Check out the report below

  6. As we are now taking our sexual cues from nature , is it acceptable for me to bite off my wifes head after mating like the Praying Mantis?
    Perhaps I should be defacating and urinating in the street to signal that I am up for it?
    A male Stoat will mate with infant females of their species. Pehaps this justifies paedophilia?

    1. People like you will often argue that homosexuality is “unnatural” then, when provided with evidence from nature, come up with arguments like this.
      Just as well you’re proud of being a bigot, really.

      1. Homosexuality sex is only practiced amongst homosapiens and is clearly un-natural, henve AIDs and hepatitis.
        In the animal and insect kingdom, mating is also between male and female. Now since animals are lower beings, not being moral agents and not having a sense of right and wrong, their behaviours cannot be viewed in the same context as that of humans, except by those who would adapt an insects ‘morality’…a few on here I perceive!

        1. So Aids is quite prevalent amongst black people in the straight community does that make them unnatural.

          Oh wait you wouldn’t say that would you because thats racist ok to say it to gay people though isn’t it.

          And as for hepatitis thats just as prevalent amongst the straight population as it is with the gay population so that proves nothing.

          1. Aids can be contracted through the natual method of sexual intercourse in blacks or whites due to immoral practice such as fornication and sex with multiple partners. It is a dumb question.
            Since racism is a belief in the inherent superiority of other races, why would it even be racist to mention any facts about AIDs and Blacks? The truth is the truth and that is what should be spoken!

          2. Ah you see now I have lost all interest in what your about to say “immoral practice” tells me everything I need to know. I won’t be taught morality by a man who will most likely be found paying a teenager for sex in a couple of years.

   – Wasn’t he big on telling everyone they where immoral.

            Oh and by the way places like africa are usually very Christian so they probably do act “morally” as you would call it.

          3. Dr Herbert Shellface 17 Aug 2011, 3:34pm

            Arguing with irrational obsessive homophobics is pointless. And every time this one says “fact” it is immediately followed by a delusional lie.

        2. “Animals are lower beings..” That is the most stupid comment I’ve read in a while. Regardless, you think homosexuality is un-natural, fine. But what exactly makes it immoral? Un-natural = immoral? You seem to be mixing both concepts. I’ll give you an easy example. It is natural for homosapiens to be and live naked. Yet, it is immoral to walk around the streets naked. See, what’s considered to be natural is not necessarily moral, and vice-versa. Your argument trying to “prove” that homosexuality is immoral because it is not natural is an epic fail. It is also very narrow-minded and ignorant of you to make homosexuality a “gay disease”. In fact, the highest infection rate is not among homosexuals but among AA’s. Does that make AIDS an ‘alcoholic disease?’

        3. David Myers 16 Aug 2011, 11:17pm

          You’re just a troll. People don’t feed the troll. Go back to Fox News since you don’t have News of the World to wrap what little brain you have in.

      2. Just to clarify. I hold that homosexual sex is un-natural for… HUMANS

        1. not that i think it is unnatural. but so what if it is? so is flying in aeroplanes. cooking food in microwaves. watching tv. and blogging on the internet. or did nature grow your computer? u r such a dipstick.

        2. That scraping sound is of goalposts being moved. First it’s unnatural, then it’s only humans that do it, then it’s only unnatural for humans. I’d leave the “Natural = moral” canard well alone if I were you, it always gets homophobes tied up in a knot trying to decide which homophobic rant will stick.
          Natural and moral are 2 seperate philosophical criteria anyhow… my earwax is natural, it’s just not that great.

          1. Yep, they move the goalposts and roll out more astroturf so that their pointless little hate game can go on and on – more moves, more twisting and turning in their detremination to score a point against other human beings who are no better nor no worse than them.

            Sad really.

          2. Dr Herbert Shellface 17 Aug 2011, 3:37pm

            Obsessive homophobia is a serious mental condition. Pray for him.

        3. Oh aswell since when was religion natural or even good for you I generally find its usually the ones proclaiming to know the facts are the ones making up the most lies.

        4. @Keith
          What do you mean by homosexual sex?
          Heterosexual men kiss each, other without this being referred to as homosexuality.
          Since sexuality is a continuum of physical expression, when does it become unnatural in your view?

      3. Dr Herbert Shellface 17 Aug 2011, 3:30pm

        He’s not a bigot, he’s a sick man. Have compassion.

    2. Thats funny haven’t homophobes been saying homosexuality is against nature for the past 2000 years so I think its a bit odd that the arguments change when your proven wrong.

      1. Staircase2 16 Aug 2011, 2:42pm

        …”Goal”, “shifting” and “posts” are three words that spring to mind…….

        1. “Bonkers”, “nutter” and “saddo” as well (can’t think why).

    3. is it acceptable for me to bite off my wifes head after mating like the Praying Mantis?
      Actually Keith, it’d be your wife who’d be biting your head off and eating you, not the other way around – and in this particular instance I think you’ve kindly provided a powerful argument for emulation of nature.

      1. David Myers 16 Aug 2011, 11:20pm

        Just shows his know-nothing style. Give people like this a little info and they’ll twist and distort it to fit their preconceptions. He’s just a troll. Ignore him.

    4. Jock S. Trap 17 Aug 2011, 10:26am

      Oh what a surprise, Keith takes a lovely story about Zebra Finches and turns it, Yet again, into his obsesseion with Gay sex.

      What a fvckin perv.

      For someone who keeps banging on about being immoral you do seem just a little bit too obsessed.

      Fvck you agenda Keith, go play on a motorway there a good chap.

  7. Smart birds!

  8. The following article should help straighten some confused twisted minds!

    1. Your source is too laughable to deserve any attention. :)

      1. But you don’t say why or go on to deconstruct it do you? Hmmm!

        1. Quite frankly George Rekers who founded NARTH did more to tear his own quack psychology apart than anything we could add. Or did you not read the news?

          1. Would you like to address the actual content and point out which parts of the article are incorrect and why?

          2. You really expect me to fisk a 10 page article or will you just accept that the entire article attempts to have it’s cake and eat it re. “natural = moral” and move on?
            In short all of it’s crap.

          3. “Homosexual” Animals Do Not Exist
            In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:
            Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.

          4. That is not the impression one gets from Bruce Bagemihl’s 1999 Biological Exuberance.

          5. And the stats for monogamous lasting heterosexual relations in the animal kingdom are?
            You can twist the stats to say anything if you conveniently airbrush out any homosexual animals who don’t split up the moment they’ve done the 2 backed beast. Nature has no bearing on morals and neither does the bible, which provides the stamp of approval to polygamy, infanticide and ethnic cleansing to name but a few of the “moral” lessons within the first few chapters.

          6. So you say that homosexuality isn’t in the animal kingdom because it’s only a shag. Have you read the article because it seems to me that it’s on about monogamous homosexuality to me.

        2. Very well, let’s ride this train. The thrust of your argument is that animals engage in a whole load of barbaric and immoral acts, ergo gay people are no better than animals (who also engage in gay sex from time to time).
          But hang on, you don’t get to have your cake and eat it. If you cling to “natural” as a synonym for all that is objectively right and good as many fundies do when they point to homosexual sex as an ‘unnatural act’, then you’ve simply shot your own argument down in flames too. All you’ve proven is that nature and morality are not mutually inclusive terms.
          Can’t have it both ways mate. Next…

          1. I do not cling to ‘natural’ as an indicator of anything and I do not suggest that morals are inextricably linked with natures law. Many things can be un-natural yet not immoral. Organ transplants are one example. However, in the case of sexual intercourse, it is clear to see what is natural and works well and what is un-natural and bites you in the butt (with disease).
            Do you think that because certain animals behave in ‘apparently’ homosexual ways, that legitimizes homosexuality in humans? If so,does that not grant us license to emulate the animals in all their sexual habits including cannibalism,mating with young (Stoats) etc etc?

          2. So now you’re cherrypicking bits of nature to support your argument, just as you cherrypick the old testament to prove homosexuality is wrong. Sorry but you’ll have to come up with better proof than that. BTW you can also catch STDs. Sorry to break it to you but there it is. The best way to avoid them is to remain a virgin forever as I assume you’ll be doing.

          3. Dr Herbert Shellface 17 Aug 2011, 3:41pm

            If God created homosexuality in animals, clearly he has nothing against it.

          4. Dr Herbert Shellface 17 Aug 2011, 3:43pm

            If an animal has gay sex or a gay relationship, is it a lifestyle choice? And does God approve or disapprove?

        3. @Keith
          I was wondering which Fundamentalist Evangelical branch of Christianity do you belong to ?

          1. Dr Herbert Shellface 17 Aug 2011, 3:44pm

            Don’t blame the religion, he’s just sick.

        4. Paddyswurds 16 Aug 2011, 11:25pm

          …to “say or deconstruct it” as you say or to debate this subject with you would only serve to give your argument a legitimacy it clearly does not have . Your link is just more of the drivel you have been spouting since you started trolling this site. When are you going to start searching for a rent boy to meet you somwhere, like the rest of the GOP do. I pity you your sad unfulfilled life.!!

          1. Dr Herbert Shellface 17 Aug 2011, 3:48pm

            Narth has already been discounted as a valid source of research by the legitimate professional bodies. They’ve done the work, no need to repeat it here.

    2. what a weirdo.

    3. and this video should help you understand your own twisted mind

      1. Ooops forgot to attach the video lol

      2. Good video

    4. I read as far as Narth. Heard it all before. It was b0llocks the first time and it’s still b0llcks now.
      BTW how is George Rekers doing with that rentboy he hired to lift his luggage? Seems like founding Narth really straightened him out huh?

    5. David Myers 16 Aug 2011, 11:21pm

      People. He is such a troll. You know you’re not supposed to feed the trolls. It just makes them feel important in their tiny tiny lives. Don’t debate this as#hole, just ignore him.

    6. @Keith –

      Please …you may a swell shoot yourself in the foot as to quote NARTH to back up your comments on this site….

      1. Dr Herbert Shellface 17 Aug 2011, 3:51pm

        or any other, as it is not professionally recognised as a valid source, being primarily concerned to back up religious dogma.

    7. Re:Narth Link
      NARTH is a discredited organisation, and universally ignored by the academic community.
      Nowadays it’s main outreach is to Fundamentalist Christians, and other literalist religious types with hangups about sexuality!

      1. It always was, as they created it and Focus on the Family, they are sister organisations.

    8. Jock S. Trap 21 Aug 2011, 4:34pm

      narth? seriously, you got to be kiddin. Now you just look like a complete wan… loser!

  9. Non-story.

    Why has Pink News not reported on the 4000 strong marriage equality march in Dublin 2 days ago?

    Surely that’s more newsworthy than this non-story.

    1. set your own news website up and report it.

    2. Why, what happened there?

  10. Deeside Will 16 Aug 2011, 5:48pm

    Keith, you are right that homosexual behaviour in animals cannot provide any justification or validation for homosexual behaviour in humans. Does that matter? Not in the least, because no such justification or validation is needed. What animals do or don’t do provides no kind of guide for us. Gay relationships are good and beautiful, whether or not there exists any exact counterpart in the rest of the animal kingdom. They can’t be unnatural, because nothing that actually occurs can be contrary to nature. You may disapprove of gay sex, of course, but so what? Why the hell should we care? I suggest that you keep your hang-ups to yourself: no-one else needs them.

    1. “What animals do or don’t do provides no kind of guide for us”…
      Which prompts the question… Why did PN see fit to post the article here? A sloppy attempt to moralize homosexuality is the answer.

      “Gay relationships are good and beautiful,”…
      Not the ones that spread AIDs , hepatitis and kill innocent babies!

      They can’t be unnatural, because nothing that actually occurs can be contrary to nature…
      So do you apply this to paedophilia bestiality and incest which all occur in nature too,.. human nature?

      1. bestaility, paedophilia and incest may be your choice of sexual behaviour keith, I’m not into animals, children or family relations myself. But what have your sexual fetishes got to do with homosexuality?

        1. Because all are un-natural perverse.
          The typical respons at this point is that if homosexuality hurts nobody and is practiced between consenting adults, it in nobodies business.
          Therefore I say that if those two consenting adults are a father and son, by your criteria this would be acceptable. See the problem? You are allowing father -son incest by your criteria. If however you condemn father -son incest, on what grounds?
          The classic ‘born this way’ defence can also be appliued to the paedophile or to bestialitty. What is your criteria for determining what is moral and what is not? You don’t have any!

          1. Pedophilia and bestiality are not done with both peoples consent so not even in the same category and as for incest (I may be wrong here) as far as I know it is not an attraction only to family members it is just a particular attraction to a certain family members so there are plenty other people out there why would you need to go out with that one person.

          2. Jock S. Trap 17 Aug 2011, 10:37am

            Your too obsessed you fvckin perv.

            You keep banging on about how immoral this and perverse that but your the only one who keeps on insisting every comment page turns into a Gay sex talk.

            Stop using us as your w@nk bait find your fantasies elsewhere you sick pervert.

          3. Dr Herbert Shellface 17 Aug 2011, 3:55pm

            He is a sick man, pray for him.

          4. Dr Herbert Shellface 17 Aug 2011, 3:57pm

            Making delusional statements as if they are fact does not make them so. Poor guy.

      2. Deeside Will 16 Aug 2011, 8:21pm

        This story appeared on Radio 4 and in numerous national newspapers, as might be expected in August, when news is in short supply. The writer of the article did NOT try to moralize homosexuality on the basis of the story, and any attempt to do so would have been a sheer waste of time, as I have already indicated. Human homosexuality is absolutely fine and does not need moralizing, as you put it, by finding animal models. Whether or not such models even exist matters not one iota.

        As for sexual relationships which spread AIDS, hepatitis and kill innocent babies, straight ones that do this are no more beautiful than gay ones that do the same. In fact, it is the straight ones, not the gay ones, that are going to kill innocent babies.

        It is interesting that you should mention paedophilia in this context. I have never yet heard anyone condemn paedophilia on the grounds that it is unnatural, whatever that is supposed to mean. They condemn paedophilia, as I do, on the basis that it is WRONG, and they certainly do not arrive at that judgment after first asking themselves pointless questions such as whether or not it is natural, or whether other species in the animal kingdom do it.

        1. I really don’t see how “killing babies” could be a consequence of gay relationships anyway. The fact that keith chose to put in that ridiculous claim shows that clearly he has no logical backing to any of his views. Ye gods I hate that sort of lazy thinking!

        2. Dr Herbert Shellface 17 Aug 2011, 4:03pm

          For religious folk this sort of story does show that God is fine with homosexuality, or he wouldn’t have created animals that do it. I’ve seen a friend’s two large lesbian dogs insist on “doing it” at family gatherings to consternation and embarrassed smiles all around.

      3. @Keith
        Which Fundamentalist Evangelical branch of Christianity do you belong to ?

        1. I don’t belong to any Church. I despise religion. I do however believe in a creator and accept the bible as a moral guide.

          1. Dr Herbert Shellface 17 Aug 2011, 4:05pm

            Good luck with that approach.

          2. If you accept the bible then your rejection of religion seems a bit strange. Most people who reject religion yet countenance a creator are pretty scornful of the bible and the like.

          3. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 3:08pm

            Oh well, explains the why your so delusional, I guess.

      4. @Keith
        Do heterosexuals never catch HIV or Hepatitis?

      5. @Keith
        Why do you raise the issue of Paedophilia and incest in the context of a discussion about homosexuality.
        Why do you juxtapose sexual practices which are illegal, in a discussion about a sexual practice which is not illegal

        1. Paedophilia is not a practice it is amental inclination (attraction) and it is legal .However, homosexuality is NOT legal in many places and is punishable by death in some.

          1. @Keith
            Would you like homosexuality to be punishable by death in the UK?

          2. @Keith
            .Would you like homosexuality to be punishable by death in the UK?

            Only for those that know they carry the virus but do not disclose it to a sexual partner.

          3. @Keith
            And what about heterosexuals who carry the HIV virus, and infect there partners, should they be sentanced to death or only homosexuals?

          4. @Keith It’s already manslaughter if you knowingly pass on a fatal STD and GBH if you pass on a non-fatal one so whats your point, basically your just saying you want capital punishment back (not anything to do with a gay news site is it complain to your government about that)

  11. 16 Aug 2011, 6:41pm

    See. That goes to show you. The more complicated and highly evolved are the gay coupled birds. The simple minded birds were the heterosexual coupled birds, and most likely a practicing member of some fundamental religious cult that is anit-gay:)

    1. @ John K

      Heterosexuals too

      1. It is curious how we have strayed into HIV infections and the death sentance, especailly when this thread is about monogamy in same sex pairings of Zebra Finches?
        Is this not a little bit odd?

        1. Not really. I doubt PN’s intention was to teach wildlife. It was a half baked attempt to validate human same sex relations using some rare avian example.

          1. Why does Pink News (PN) need to validate same sex relationships ?
            Especially, when all mainstream political parties in the UK validate same sex relationships!
            Were you suggesting that PN was some how preaching to fringe groups?

          2. keith, you can be cured of homophobia and discrimination. There are many professional people who are listed that can help you! Seek help before it is too late!

          3. Dr Herbert Shellface 17 Aug 2011, 4:07pm

            It shows gay Christians that God approves of homosexuality, as he created it in the animal kingdom.

  12. Tell you what Keith, us homosexuals will continue with our ravenous life styles slowly killing ourselves with disease after disease we contract from our wild orgies while no one is listening to you pathetic excuses.

    before you die a sad and lonely death try and get a life. No one is listening to you Keith, you are on a one person mission !!

  13. Paddyswurds 16 Aug 2011, 11:30pm

    I understood that pepa was to be ignored in all his guises. keith is clearly pepa and rich the original Ignore him until PN grows a pair and bans him …Again!

    1. I agree that Pepa and Rich (Original) should be ingored or lampooned.
      But should ignorance, misunderstanding, and misinformation be ignored?
      Or challenged?

      1. Paddyswurds 17 Aug 2011, 7:43am

        ….I think that debating with these creatures only serves to give their argument a legitimacy it does not deserve. One doesn’t debate with a fart in a lift and this drivel from these people is one and the same thing; just a bad smell to be ignored. Nothing confers contempt like being ignored.

        1. I have to say, despising religion yet using the Bible as a ‘moral guide’ takes bonkers to a new level – and engaging with anyone that demented is unlikely to achieve anything.

        2. Point taken, but you cannot stop Fundemantalist Christians running for presidency of the USA, or stop then claiming a right to discriminate against LGBT people in this UK
          Exposing their circular logic on this site, surely can only sharpen our mind, and help others to stand up to their bullying tactics?

  14. Clutching at straws. Subject an animal to a dysfunctional situation and see what you get.

  15. David Gervais 17 Aug 2011, 5:23am

    From Keith: “I don’t belong to any Church. I despise religion. I do however believe in a creator and accept the bible as a moral guide.”

    The Bible as a moral guide? Do you mean the one that promotes genocide, slavery, sex with under age girls, puericide, regicide, fratricide, and so many other moral activities?

    Based on what you said, you believe that your version of god created the world including humanity. The humanity he/she/it created includes LGBT people and animals.

    Homosexuality is one of the many ways of expressing God’s love and plan for life on earth. When you oppose that expression, you are opposing the will of god. You are committing the sin of pride when you think you know better than god what his/her/its will is.

    1. This is the ususal mis-information given out by those that have not read the bible. There are answers but this thread is not the place. except to say that nowhere in the bible does it say or imply “Homosexuality is one of the many ways of expressing God’s love and plan for life on earth”.
      Homosexuality is condemned in many places including Jude 7.

      1. Whilst you’re at it you might like to explain why the old testament advocates ethnic cleansing, the death penalty for working on sunday, selling your daughter into slavery, incest, stoning adulterers etc. etc.
        The only reason we don’t do these things now is because morality is found in sources other than ancient religious texts.
        Abraham had a pretty good stab at killing his own son because the voice in his head told him to. Social services anyone?
        For every moral lesson, the Old testament basically greenlights any kind of psychotic behaviour you care to mention, so I can safely dismiss it with the same breath I would reject “Confessions of an Axe Murderer” as a template to live my life by.

        1. Nobody is asking you to accept the scriptures. indeed, your post above leads me to believe that you think we are under Israeite law!
          That aside, even if the bible were an evil book, would that mexcuse un-natural,perverted immoral, unclean behaviour such as sodmy?

          1. Dr Herbert Shellface 17 Aug 2011, 4:10pm

            Darling, since god created homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom, clearly he approves.

          2. Excuse? Sorry I wasn’t aware I required a permission slip from you.
            In any case, I think you’ll find it’s predominantly the mosaic bit of the bible which you’ve been using as a source for your prejudices (Leviticus/ Deutoronomy). That and the bogus assertion that only gays get STDs.
            Regardless, my point still stands.
            The bible is the only moral authority you have to back up your prejudices and it’s riddled with contradictions and random outdated draconian laws which you cherry pick to suit your agenda.

          3. Well yes because the only reason it is “immoral” or “unnatural” is because your bible says so.

      2. Fvck off and die you freak.

      3. Jen Marcus 17 Aug 2011, 1:33pm

        Keith, based on your previous comments I submit to you that you do not know a “damn thing” about the bible and its origins ! Parroting and proof texting lines out of a humanly authored, constructed ,redacted ,amended and mistranslated collection of ancient manuscripts compiled by a group of “old men “in 325CE that they determined to be the canon of the Christian bible does not make you biblical scholar.or an authority on Christian morality. Tell me what university or seminary you studied your scriptural and moral theology at to authority and license to lord and judge and condemn any one of us? Those ancient old men , nor you ,or anyone of us, know the mind and will of God and it would be blasphemous for us to think and say that it is contained an ancient pre- scientific collection of books we nor call the bible.I suggest you go back to school,get a life, or go find another forum with like minded uninformed people to express your ignorant rants!

        1. Dr Herbert Shellface 17 Aug 2011, 4:12pm

          His homophobic condition is not caused by the Bible, but his reading of parts of the Bible is conditioned by his homophobic obsession.

          1. Very true!

      4. @Keith
        Which version of the bible were you thinking of, there are many versions, and many translations
        Do you not think that his situation points to something relative, uncomplete, and rather subjective concerning any argument derived from these many “bible’s” per se.

      5. No, it’s not – except in the twisted bigots’ bible loved by many fundies. They’ve carefully inserted the word ‘homosexual’ where it doesn’t exist in the original.

  16. I won’t allow homophones to ruin this article. It’s too cute. Makes me think of my bf.

    He sings to me too lol ok it’s all mostly eurovision and he’s so out of tune but it’s the most adorable thing ever.

    How can love be wrong in two consenting adults.

    1. How can love be wrong in two consenting adults.

      they could be father and son,
      mother and daughter
      male and male
      female and female
      16 year old boy and 75 year old man
      etc etc etc!!!
      by your criteria thought, love and consent is all that is required, which allows the above list in your terms..
      Disguting individual!!!

      1. Jock S. Trap 17 Aug 2011, 3:01pm

        Hilarious – you call others disgusting individuals yet it is only you that comes here to contantly and obsessively go on about man on man action. Constantly adding your pervy comments which have absolutely nothing to do with the story that we’re all commenting on.

        Prehaps you should get your head of sewer you disgusting perv and go find someone else to w@nk over. Stop using us as w@nk bait.

        1. Dr Herbert Shellface 17 Aug 2011, 4:16pm

          Jut the usual straw man/ slippery slope arguments from Keith/Pepa. Funny the he can’t see that if God created the animal kingdom, he did it with homosexuality included. Therefore he does not disapprove of homosexuality. QED.

      2. Not to mention that as a guide for sexual morality, the Bible is somewhat racy. What about the only devout man in Sodom, Lot, having incestuous sex with his daughters (having previously offered them to be raped by the townspeople!). And his excuse for incest? He was drunk!

        1. Dr Herbert Shellface 17 Aug 2011, 4:29pm

          His stand against homosexuality has nothing to do with morality or religion, and everything to do with his homophobic condition. My theory is that such conditions may have been caused by sexual abuse when young, perhaps by a priest or father figure.

          1. Or in the case of homophobic tory grandees, the fagging system at Eton, if it ever led to similar abuse?

      3. On all those examples given by Keith, only the non incestuous gay ones consist of consensual loving relationship between equals. All the others involve the abuse of a power relationship.

        1. Rigght. ‘Bears’ and ‘twinks’ is not about abuse of power though is it? So… no homosexual relationships are never about power and control but incestuous relationships always are? is this a joke? How about a pair of loving consensual female twins, both passive, neither domineering? What a sad attempt at a defence after me exposing the fact that just consent and love do not necessarily equal morality!

          1. That is a non sequitur and change of tack.

          2. Bears just means beefy hairy men, not anything to do with power more to do with what kind of men your attracted to.

            And Twinks is about younger men, once again nothing to do with power just a way of describing someone.

      4. You judge relationships on your distaste for their outward forms on the basis of an appeal to supernatural beliefs you cannot prove, and not on the dignity and autonomy of individuals over the age of discretion. You are an enemy of the Enlightenment and human freedom. Now bugger off, it really is mad and tedious.

        1. I can prove you wrong without invoking the supernatural. Answer this question and see…
          Do you believe that as long two adults are consenting and there is no harm to anybody else, they should be allowed to engage in any sexual act together?

          1. Do you believe they shouldn’t, and if not on what basis?

          2. We know where your going with this and we have tackled this before your just repeating yourself now.

          3. Yes, I do, and you have proved nothing beyond the fact that we have different moral perspectives. I also believe that much harmful activity (lying, deceit, breach of trust, emotional blackmail, irrational belief) needs also to be allowed simply because the repressive remedies needed to suppress them would be worse.
            It is plain from your posts that you feel that a sense of revulsion at the sexual activities of others is a sufficient reason for their moral condemnation. This is as mad as saying that my disgust at rap music or eating seaside welks constitutes grounds for censure of them.

      5. @Keith
        We are discussing gay birds, not the visscitudes of incest, or relationships between younger and older adults.
        Keith, I have noticed that you are fascinated by these issues, by virtue of the many references you make to sexual perversity.
        Keith, were you sexually abused by your parents, or were you sexaully abused by a priest?

        1. I have never been to church except for funerals and I espise your religion. You are condemned by your own perverted idea of what is moral and what is not. i am merely highlighting the inconsistency of the idea purported (and in Gaydom)here that anything goes with consenting loving adults. Clearly this is flawed thinking since it allows for all sorts of sick perversion, including father and son anal intercourse.

          1. Dr Herbert Shellface 18 Aug 2011, 10:59am

            Ah, now we come to it…is that what happened to you my dear, and what caused your obsessive homophobia?

      6. Then by your logic, Keith, we should ban ALL sex – after all, straight sex can lead to man+daughter, 80yr old woman+ 12 yr old boy etc etc blah blah

        1. I am not calling for a ban on sex. i am calling for people to practice morality. and recognize moral boundaries. Your own principle that as long as adults are consenting anything is fine between them, allows for allsorts of disgusting practices. I am trying to find out what moral boundaries should be set by yourself and like minded ones and you don’t seem to have stated any..

          1. So you ignored my point that apparently, according to you, gay relationships are a slippery slope to whatever, but – miraculously – straight ones aren’t.

            You’re blinded by your dislike of gay people, Keith. Your argument is ‘gay people are immoral, immoral is bad, therefore gay people are bad’. It’s simplistic and sad.

          2. As for moral boundaries, what on earth makes you think that mine are that different from yours, apart from the no sex before marriage bit?

          3. Dr Herbert Shellface 18 Aug 2011, 11:03am

            It seems you want to set the boundaries for everyone, for some reason at a point to exclude gay relationships. That is typical of the obsessive homophobic condition, as well as various types of fundamentism. You need to get over your desire to control the universe, my dear.

  17. Deeside Will 17 Aug 2011, 8:13pm

    Keith, you obviously find the thought of gay sex repellent. That’s fine by me. If that’s how you feel about it, then just don’t do it. No-one’s forcing you. I suggest that you get on with your own life and leave us to get on with ours. I can’t understand why you bother to post on here. Do you really imagine that your tedious anti-gay rants are going to win anyone over? Face reality, for God’s sake.

    1. Well said!

      Keith, normal adults don’t care what other consenting adults do in bed. If you do, you’ve got a problem. Get help and find out what that problem is, because distracting yourself by pointing the finger at others won’t help you at all in the long run.

    2. Of course I find homosexual sex repellent. that is a given. Do you find bestiality repellent. It is legal you know and in some countries it is quite popular. I suppose your view on bestiality is to leave people to get on with their lives.
      I find homosexuality (as does the creator) as abhorrent as consensual loving bestiality and consensual loving incest,.

      1. @Keith
        Your questions concering a whole range of sexual perversion is irrelevant. Keith, you only bring these issues up so that you do not have to take responsibility for your disgust of LGBT people.
        Keith, how do you manage to function in a world full of LGBT people.
        Are you a hermit?

        1. Your assertion that homosexuality is the only relevant sex is preposterous. Many consenting incestuous adults that practice safe incest such as fathers and sons are barred by law from their harmless acts. Do you think that these consenting, adults should be allowed to practice their incest or are you going to avoid answering again. Remember, your position is “normal adults don’t care what other consenting adults do in bed”.
          Ps. you may consider incest irrelevant because you consider it a perversion, however , I also consider homosexual sex a perversion and I can make the case using incest and you moral (or lack of) framework!

          1. Keith.
            You appear to be off again on pointless self absorbed rant.
            If you find LGBT so disgusting, why have you been posting all week on a LGBT website?

          2. Dr Herbert Shellface 18 Aug 2011, 11:03am

            Because he is a sick person, have compassion and humour him.

          3. Keith, I find straight sex unappealing but I don’t feel the need to rant and denigrate straight people and compare their habits to bestiality. If I suddenly got that urge, I hope I had enough sense to realise I had a psychological issue.

            Get help, Keith, and you’ll feel a lot happier.

      2. Keith – You can’t speak for the creator. The only people who claim to literally hear his actual voice tend to be schitzophrenics and people who have some kind of psychotic break.
        For the rest of us we create god in our image as proven by recent psychological research. The only reason you’re worshipping this god and not Zeus is because of Emperor Constantine’s little PR drive. It has nothing to do with cliching proof of his existance.
        As for bestiality, it’s non consentual and has never floated my boat, but I’m starting to wonder if you should be left alone with a flock of sheep.

        1. “Keith – You can’t speak for the creator.”
          I have not done so. i have quoted his own words from the bible!

          “As for bestiality, it’s non consentual”
          You think an animal cannot consent??? Has a dog ever tried humping your leg?
          1. to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield (often fol. by to or an infinitive):

          When we scratch a dogs head we can tell the dog enjoys this, he may roll on his back and let you rub his stomach.

          1. @Keith
            You appear to be rambling incoherent
            You do not appear to be very well

          2. Dr Herbert Shellface 18 Aug 2011, 11:06am

            He seem to think the Bible was written by god. This is an alarming delusion, as theologists agree it was written by 40 different authors, all men.

          3. No you haven’t quoted god’s words from the bible, Keith – you’ve quoted a sad little version of the bible that has inserted the word ‘homosexual’ where there is no reference to that in the original text. That’s not godly, it’s an example of human hate and prejudice.

          4. Scratching a dogs head and having sex with it is not the same thing.

          5. Jock S. Trap 18 Aug 2011, 3:15pm

            “i have quoted his own words from the bible”

            Ding Dong – Looney City Centre.

            Only over inflated male egos wrote the Bible to control the people like you who couldn’t think for themselves. Nothing to do with ‘the creator’ everything to do with lazy single minded morons who just want justification for discrimination, hatred and bigotry.

            Your clearly a very sick indvivdual but why do you think you have the right to stop people debating on the stories at hand to pander to your over obsessed fascination with beastility and incest.

            You tell everyone else here we’re immoral yet you are the only one who wants to talk about what 2 men do in bed.

            I really wish PinkNews would sort this out because this is a LGBT covering LGBT stories for all to take part in not for the likes of you to practise your obvious homophobia and hatred.

            As for your obsessions with sex, don’t take it out on us that your one sick bastard, so ugly that your even you dog and Dad turn you down.

          6. Jock S. Trap 18 Aug 2011, 3:16pm

            Now do us all a favour, fvck off and go play with something, preferably heavy and life threatening.

        2. Actually there were more than 40 authors, but when it was put together by Constantine’s advisors in the 4th Century, they took out loads that they considered too far fetched, or that didn’t fit in with the beliefs that had developed by then.

          1. Lets not forget the “oral period”, or rather the “Chinese Wispers” period
            Conservative estimates 50 years, but more likely to be a few hundred years of story telling before the various books were finally written down.
            As if we need reminding about what happens when you play chinese wispers as a party game.!!!

    3. This is a diversionary tactic since I have stated numerous times that sex between a married man and woman is a good thing.

      1. @Keith
        Why would you post obessively on a LGBT website, and rant about LGBT people being disgusting, unless you were struggling with your sexuality.
        Keith, when are you going to come to terms with your homosexuality
        Keith, I can see that you are loving my comments and attention, perhaps you fancy me?

        1. Dr Herbert Shellface 18 Aug 2011, 11:15am

          Keith dear, no you don’t, you are clearly anti all sex, since you think all sex leads to disease. However having no sex also leads to disease, in your case a mental one. If you were able to maintain a loving relationship with another human being, you would not be on here obsessing about gay people and taking out your own inadequacies on them.

          Your pretence of a moral stance is simply to hide the fact that you are terrified of of sexual relationships of any sort. You should see someone about this.

          1. I see that my comment regarding the fact that animals CAN consent has been ignored in favour of childish ,easily refuted retaliatory claims which I will not even dignify.
            Since I have shown that animals can consent and this assertion remains unchallenged remains unchallenged, bestiality, which is a detestable thing in the bible, must be acceptable in the homosexual community since it fulfills tyour criteria for what is moral, seeing as the animals give consent.

          2. @Dr Herbert Shellface
            Your analysis is eloquent, succinct tothe point!

          3. Keith
            If your comments are ignored, it is because they are off topic. Why do you insist on discussing bestiality, perhaps you fancy your pet dog?

          4. @Keith
            What are these “childish ,easily refuted retaliatory claims”, as you so put it
            You have lost me on that one!!!

          5. Try again Freud. Surely you are amongst the group of confused hypocrites on here that on one hand say that any sexual practice between consenting adults should be legitimate and in the same breath condemn consensual incest between a father and son.
            It is not about me and my life neither is it about you or your life. It is about morals and views. I can defend my position that fornication damages society. You on the other hand seek to moralise fornication ,which includes homosexuality.
            How much disease and innocent death has fornication directly caused through spread viruses?
            How much disease and death has abstinence till marriage an marital monogamy caused through spread viruses?

          6. @Keith
            Where exactly on this thread did I mention that Paedophile is legitimate?
            I will give you 24 hours to present your evidence!

          7. @Keith abstinence through marriage hasn’t killed people via virus’s but repression and then forced marital sex has harmed alot of people but “back in the good old days” it was common place when fornication was a sin and your terrible religion oppressed the masses.

          8. No, keith, YOU were the one that added in the incest and all.

            If you were to say to me that you believed sex between a man and a woman in a marriage was good, and then I replied “Ah, Keith, so you’re saying that a father and adult daughter could have sex – have you no morals?” you’d rightly think I was twisting your words and being stupid.

            We think the same about you – you make assumptions about people, you twist and amend what they say, and you insist you know what we think eevn when we go to the trouble to correct you. You don’t actually want a discussion at all, I feel.

            Get help and feel happier.

          9. Well Keith, good luck with setting up your christian theocracy, who knows, with a decent following you could be the next Torquemada, rather than just a sad lonely voice in the wilderness.

        2. Jock S. Trap 18 Aug 2011, 3:25pm

          Indeed JohnK, a very valid point because if Keith found same sex sex so disgusting he would be talking about it equally for both men and women but he doesn’t. Whats interesting is he only focuses on man on man sex, justifying his ‘disgust’ not woman on woman sex which means he’s not telling the truth about something because a true homophobe would say about all not just focus on one.

          Unless of course he’s focusing only one to justify a secret desire which is indeed a classic example of the ‘closet’ homophobe who turns his own questioning of justifying himself to using it to justify his so called ‘hatred’ of others.

          What he is actually doing is by channeling his own anger about his true self to others he is trying hard not to have to justify his own feelings and self loathing. Of course the more he’s made to see himself the more he’ll get nastier.

          It’s a kind of hidden reflex if you like. Basically it all boils down to a complete fear of himself being found out.

          1. Jock S. Trap 18 Aug 2011, 3:27pm

            Trouble is why come to a LGBT site where most can tell? It’s very sad.

          2. Dr Herbert Shellface 18 Aug 2011, 4:06pm

            No Jock, I think it’s clear Keith thinks that all sex is disgusting and disease ridden, even for a heterosexual married couple. He clearly has issues, which suggest he may have been sexually abused when young by an adult, probably male, but perhaps female. Probably he is very lonely and unable to maintain a relationship of any sort. Fear of sex, homophobia, religious mania, none of it looks good for him or anyone in his life. I hope he has the courage to seek professional help.

          3. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 3:05pm

            Indeed Dr Herbert Shellface.

            Trouble is their something about ‘forbidden’ sex too don’t ya think? :P

            Poor Keith. LOL

        3. Dr Herbert Shellface 18 Aug 2011, 3:54pm

          I appear to have touched a nerve, as Keith refuses to address the questions I have raised.

          He is a seriously ill person, and quite delusional, as he makes up answers to his own questions and then claims that is what someone else here has said. Even if he is just Pepa winding up “liberals”, as he sees it, it is still a mental sickness, homophobic obsession mixed with religious mania. Seek help Pepa.

  18. @ Hamish.
    Fornication still IS a sin and continues to kill innocent people including babies. Also, I have stated numerous times that I am not attached nor do I endorse any religion.

    1. Maybe you don’t endorse a specific church or sect but it’s disingenous to say you don’t endorse any religion. The fact you derive the lion’s share of your moral bearings from your reading of the OT Bible belies that.

      1. So which religion did Jesus endorse?

        1. Doesn’t matter, before Jesus Christianity didn’t exist in its present form. Now it does.
          Its sacred text is the Bible, the one which you keep returning to for pointers. All else is just schisms.

          1. It certainly DOES matter if you are claiming that it is disingenious of me not to endorse any religion. Especially when Jesus did not endorse any religion himself and even denounced the religion of the day for its heavy burdens it put on people.
            I have made it clear that whilst I am not attached to any religion and I do not call myself a Christian and neither of the former are a requirement in the bible, to which I hold true.
            If you have an irrational urge to put labels on people that is a problem for you. I am quite clear in my beliefs.

          2. So you do endorse a religion then. Thanks for clearing that up.

          3. Dr Herbert Shellface 18 Aug 2011, 3:34pm

            Keith, you are here again pursuing your obsessive homophobia and religious mania. I’m serious, you really do need to seek professional help before you do yourself or someone else some sort of physical harm. Is there a psychiatrist you can call? Is there medication you should be taking?

    2. Who says sex outside marriage (the definition of fornication) is a sin? Does sin actually exist, or is it just a man made concept for social control and engineering?

  19. @John K.
    I am not sure why you mention paedophilia but since you ask, Paedophilia is NOT a crime, it is a mental inclination, like racism.
    Did you think there is such an offence as paedophilia?

    1. @Flapjack.
      Also, John 4:24 Jesus says …”God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.””…
      Nothing there about needing to label oneself or attach oneself to a particular religion.

      1. You’re endorsing christianity in everything bar name. Let’s not split hairs over semantics.

        1. I have already said I do not care if people want to label myself as Christian since it is not a biblical obligation. If you consider me Christian, that is fine by me!

          1. Dr Herbert Shellface 18 Aug 2011, 3:36pm

            more religious mania…

          2. Do you believe in christ?…. yes? then your a christian the hint is in the name CHRISTian

          3. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 3:02pm

            Woo, stop Hamish… his brain will explode with that kind of education.

          4. Yer Jock my brains starting to explode trying to comprehend his stupidity

  20. Funny that these so calle ‘gay’ birds dont have sex with each other. they are merely social alliances. When humans have lifelong friends they are not called gay unlless it is a sexual relationship or there is sexual attraction, so why label the birds gay when there is none of this?

    1. Dr Herbert Shellface 18 Aug 2011, 3:42pm

      They do have gay sex. So do other animals. And some gay couples don’t have sex, as with heterosexual married couples. Have you ever had sex Keith? Or a romantic relationship, same or opposite sex? Why do you spend all your time on gay websites making homophobic comments peppered with religious mania? You really do need to get medical help.

      1. You have it wrong. Mating is between male and female finches. Do you think that 2 same sex finches can reproduce?

        1. Oh dear – sex is only for reproduction then?? You’re seriously missing out, Keith.

        2. Notice he didn’t answer whether he’s ever had a boyfriend or girlfriend…my guess is that the answer is no…

        3. Yes the lesbian dogs I saw humping each other were not trying to reproduce. Come to that I doubt any animals are thinking about reproduction when they are having sex, gay or straight.

        4. Answer the other questions Keith!

        5. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 3:03pm

          My partner and I ‘mate’ perfectly happily thank you.

    2. Keith still hasn’t explained why God would make homosexuality occur throughout the animal kingdom if he was not ok with it.

      1. It is not homosexuality. In this case it is social alliance, a bit like human friendship, if you can take your mind out of the sewer and imagine that some humans have non sexual same sex friendships.
        As regards perceived homosexuality in animals , I have already posted an article on how it is wrongly perceived to be such. At any rate, animals are not moral agents as are humans, therefore they have no accountability for their actions. If you cannot differentiate between nonhuman and human behaviour that is a problem for you since you must then conclude that whatever non humans do sexually, so may humans,hence the stoat and praying mantis dilemmas. The Stoat mates with newborns and the praying mantis becomes a cannibal after mating.

        1. So you’re merely aping the animals, keith, with your straight sex? So that means you must eat your wife, etc etc.

          You’ve single-handed decided that gay sex is ‘unnatural’ and not only ‘unnatural’ but ‘bad unnatural’ unlike TVs, computers, etc, so on and on you go. Any attempt to disabuse you of this notion is pointless.

          Moreover, you seem to spend an inordinate amount fo time thinking about what gay men do in bed. Can you not see how weird most straight men would find that?

          1. I am putting you on my igmnore list. You are not assimilating the information I post, infact you are completely ignoring it as evident with comments such as “So you’re merely aping the animals, keith, with your straight sex? So that means you must eat your wife, etc etc.”
            What are you talking about here? I post an sensible, reasoned comment and you respond with gibberish!

          2. You are a scream, keith! You can’t even recognise your own comments repeated back to you. YOU mentioned the mantis, dear, remember?

            And your pathetic tactic of pretending my comment is gibberish because want to block out my last paragraph is so transparent, not only to me but to all my straight friends.

          3. Ooh, and your ignore list! Really?! I’m so gutted! You should be a comedian, keith.

        2. Deeside Will 18 Aug 2011, 5:12pm

          Whether or not human homosexuality has any real counterpart in the rest of the animal kingdom tells us nothing whatever about how we should live our lives. There is no logical reason why what occurs or does not occur among animals should be either prescriptive or proscriptive for us.

          As for the Bible, which is a disparate collection of books, the importance that you give to its pronouncements and how you interpret them are matters for you to decide. The evidence that God writes books is poor.

          1. Deeside Will said…”Whether or not human homosexuality has any real counterpart in the rest of the animal kingdom tells us nothing whatever about how we should live our lives.”…

            So why did post this article if not to legitimaize homosexuality with avian comparisons?

          2. Because people like you have long been saying, and many still do, that homosexuality is unnatural because it does not occur elsewhere in the animal kingdom. Whereas it does, in hundreds of species. It’s a rebuttal of that position, not an opening argument.

        3. I’ve seen a lesbian pair of dogs humping, rather embarrassing to those present at the time, and male dogs humping each other, and chimps having gay sex too (on TV).

          But it’s only relevance is to counter all those people that (still) say the reason homosexuality is unnatural is because it doesn’t occur anywhere else in the animal kingdom, as if that were proof, though in fact it does occur in many species.

          1. Yes, so basically they get shown up for lying on that one, so they try and move the goalposts and claim we are using that as part of an entirely different argument !

          2. But also they try and get around the logical conclusion that God has nothing against homosexuality if he created it as a natural instinct in animals, by inventing concepts that distinguish humans from the rest of the animal kingdom.

      2. I explained in some detail that it is only perceived to be homosexuality by humans. It is a human concept and a human sin. Animals cannot sin and do not have morals. Animals, like humans, need male and female to mate and reproduse. Animals have no accountability to God and therefore any behaviour in animals certainly would be compatible with Gods will.
        What is laughable here is that you lot have read the article and ubderstood that the finches are having sex. They are not! Their behaviour was observed to be…i”nesting together, singing to each other, perching side by side and greeting each other.”
        Wash your minds out pervs!

        1. Hello, wake up call, humans are animals, and God is not human! Assuming he exists in the first place. Are you saying other animals don’t have perceptions? What is your evidence! Animals cannot sin? Previous generations would disagree with you, as animals were put on trial in Medieval France! How do you know animals have no accountability to God? You don’t know God’s mind, that would be incredible arrogance (which is the true sin of Sodom along with inhospitality – see Ezekial 20). You are so arrogant you think you understand the Bible without any input from any other teacher or learned source! And you apply it simply as a peg for your own sexual fears and phobias, relying on “morality” as an excuse for not going out and getting a boyfriend or girlfriend. Sad.

          If homosexuality is a human concept, why would God make it a sin? Isn’t he above human concepts? Anyway, your use of Biblical mistranslations by modern day evangelists on these issues is a travesty of theological learning. Fact!

          1. Oh dear! The intelligentsia has arrived, and armed with pedantry!
            All humans are animals but not all animals are human.
            It is not incumbent on any person to disprove a negative ie an animal cannot sin, a tree cannot think etc etc. The burden of proof regarding any positive claim, in this case that animals sin, is on the claimant. Since it has never been proven that animals sin and certainly from a biblical standpoint they do not sin since the bible says sin entered the world through Adam, who was created After the animals and that HUMANS inherirted sin from Adam.
            Incidentally, I am happily married and have no need of a girlfriend!
            God made homosexuality asin since it defies his clean moral code and causes disease, just as with fornication in general..
            Please cite a mistranslation rather than just accuse. Which chapter and verse have I mistranslated?

          2. Careful, Pippa, he’ll put your on his ignore list ;)

          3. yea…wasn’t there something about stoning a goat because the animal carried the sins of the chosen… what was that all about???

          4. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 3:01pm

            You know you’ve made it when you get on Keith’s ‘ignore list’.

        2. I’ve seen dogs, male and female, having gay sex, and chimps too. It’s not sinful for them, and it’s not sinful for humans either. Sin is a human concept invented for social control, and for the righteous to feel superior to other people.

          1. But dogs cannot sin. Only himans can sin or commit a moral crime. Ever seen a chimp or dog on trial?

        3. Dr Herbert Shellface 18 Aug 2011, 7:17pm

          People, can I ask you again not to encourage this person in his delusions. I have realised that in addition to his obsessive homophobia, his fears around sex and relationships generally, and his religious mania, that he appears possibly to have a messianic complex too, hence his presence here, altogether it adds up to a picture that he should be seeking professional help, possibly involving medication.

          1. @Dr Herbert Shellface
            Having just read through Keiths recent post, I agree that this person should not be encourged. I largely agree with your analysis of this person mental state

          2. You’re dead right, Dr Herbert. Keith is getting worse definitely. I agree that he needs some kind of help – and let’s all hope he gets it.

          3. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 8:52am

            Personally I think ‘it’s’ beyond help and needs locking up for it’s and our protection.

  21. Mercy…how long must this go on..??

    1. Mercy indeed,
      But just to respond to your question Jonpol, presumably this nonsensical ranting will continue for the next 100 years.
      Do you see any decline in religous or biblical fantaticism

      1. Actually, JohnK, what I see is an increased awareness and respect for human rights, and a backlash – sometimes deadly – to democratic progress.

  22. Actually it’s quite entertaining seeing all the classic fallacies of argument and fundie tricks and often blatant lies put out by Keith, but I do agree he may be ill.

    1. A.N.Spit, presumably more Cuckoo than a Bavarian clock
      Rollup, let the next fantatic take the stage, so to speak
      Get ready with those rotten tomatoes

    2. name ONE lie and link it please!

      1. Deeside Will 18 Aug 2011, 9:22pm

        No, Keith, I agree. You haven’t written any lies on here. You have simply stated your opinion that human homosexuality is “unnatural” – a pretty meaningless assertion – and tried to support it with arguments which no reasonable person is likely to find convincing.

        1. @Deeside Will
          Wasting your energy with this one, have you seen his incoherent ramblings
          In a nutshell, Religous fanatic, refrain from fanning the mania!!!

        2. It is demonstrably un-natural when you see what comes out of the anus, and then consider that anal prolapse is a common result of male homosexual acts
          Of cousre the bible confirms it is against nature also…
          Romans 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. …
          … Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. … T
          Jude 1:7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding …
          … just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged insexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire,
          1 Timothy 1:10 for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and …
          … For those who go after loose women, for those with unnatural desires,

          I am not stating my opinion, I ammerely agreeing with the bible which millions find reasonable.

          1. Oh my god Keith I’ve seen the light from now on I will be a good little choir boy and only take co<k when it is given to me by some priest in a church.

            How could I be so silly as to think that my sexual conduct has nothing to do with you.

    3. A N Spit, sadly this is probably the only outlet he has for his self-absorbed masturbatory rants!!!

      1. Yes, a manic street preacher for real :D Misquoting the bible, ranting and raging, obsessing about gay sex. I can’t help pitying him really. Poor man.

        1. Looks like a case of “care in the community again”, I think we should receive goverment funding for the mental health charitable work we do on PN

      2. mmm… I wonder why K prefers to quote that Paul of Tarsus guy to the sermon on the mount… er ..da beatitudes…

        Birds of a feather, I guess…

        1. Jesus and homosexuality…
          Jesus Christ declared that God’s Word is truth. (John 17:17) That means that he endorsed God’s view of homosexuality as described at Leviticus 18:22, which reads: “You must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing.” Moreover, Jesus listed fornication and adultery among the “wicked things [that] issue forth from within and defile a man.” (Mark 7:21-23) The Greek word for fornication is a broader term than that for adultery. It describes all forms of sexual relations outside lawful marriage, including homosexuality. (Jude 7) Jesus Christ also warned his followers not to tolerate any professed Christian teacher who minimizes the seriousness of fornication.—Revelation 1:1; 2:14, 20.
          That enough for now?

          1. What is your opinion on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Keith?

          2. Deeside Will 19 Aug 2011, 1:39pm

            By the way, Keith, although I do not particularly care one way or the other, Jude 7, which you cite, accuses the people of Sodom of going after “other flesh”. The expression in the original Greek text is “hetera sarx”, “hetera” being the word from which “heterosexual” is derived. It refers to attempting to have sex with angels, as is clear from the analogy with the angels in the previous verse who had sex with humans. (I don’t know how any of this would have been possible anyway, since angels are supposed to be immaterial beings.) If the writer had intended to refer to gay sex, he should have accused the Sodomites of going after SIMILAR flesh. If you insist on adhering to your superstitious view of the Bible, you should at least learn to understand it properly.

          3. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 3:00pm

            You know the one thing I love?

            Having my own mind and being responsible for my own action. Not by some book created to satisty those over inflated male egos.

            It kinda puts ones mind at rest knowing I have my own mind.

          4. Didn’t you say you weren’t jewish so the Old Testament doesn’t mean anything any more? Then why are you quoting Leviticus thats in the Old Testament isn’t it.

        2. I think Iris hit the nail on the head so to speak
          “Manic street preacher syndrome”, PN seems to be a magnet for these types.

          1. right on..that must be why his rigidity fails to penetrate me, even though I am by nature quite receptive.

          2. @Jonpol
            I am in favour of any human right that does not contradict Gods laws or moral code.
            Isn’t that rather off topic?

          3. And if I didn’t answer I would be accusd of ignoring!

          4. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 8:57am

            “Isn’t that rather off topic?”

            You fvckin hypocrite since you’ve hijacked nearly all stories to promote your homophobic agenda away from anything the actually comment page story is about.

          5. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 8:59am

            I think most would happily be ignored by you somehow!! I know I am.

            It’s just a shame you don’t take a hint or that PinkNews fails to act against homophobia on this sight.

          6. I do love keith’s preaching about morality while calling for the re-introduction of the death penalty. Oh dear, ‘thou shalt not kill’, keith!

            Presumably, ‘living by the bible’ just means ignoring any bits that don’t suit you or that interfere with your very human expressions of hate and prejudice.

          7. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 12:56pm

            Indeed, a nice example of the classical religious hypocrite.

            Must be some Biblical lottery going on… “mmmm and this weeks winning suitable comment from the Bible will be….”

            Wonder if Dale Winton is hosting that one?

          8. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 12:57pm

            Of course to us it would be ‘unsuitable’!! ;)

          9. Iris, exactly, Keiths contradictions are breathtakingly, presumably he will be telling us all next that he has a PhD in theology.

  23. @ Iris. It is nit thou shalt not kill, the correct translation is thou shalt not murder.
    Deeside Will
    The common translation for Jude 7 is…
    ‘sarkos’ (flesh) eteras (of queer).
    It is you that needs to brush up on the scriptures if you are goping to use them to defend immorality and perversion.
    as for the angels , the reason they were there in the first place , before the residents even attempted to rape them, was because they were sent to destroy the city, which had been earlier marked for destruction along with its’s perverted inhabitants in Genesis 18:20-23.
    I have grown weary of explaining basics.

    1. @Keith –

      Attempts to restructure the world and society according to divine dictates have surfaced, and continue to do so to this day.

      The Acts of the Apostles does, after all, describe a promising religious community.

      In fact, if I remember my History correctly, the entire North American continent was colonized by devoted god-fearing men and women intent on escaping the violence, the confusion, the heresy of Europe, to convert heathen tribes, and to live in love and peace in heaven on earth, a utopia.

      Also, theocracy as a means of governance can be observed in many middle eastern countries at we speak.

      As an agnostic, I am inclined to test and verify a vision, or an intuition, such as yours against the many examples of theocracies the world has seen, and I am curious to know how your experiment would differ from these…. or if it would.

      1. For example, Keith, are you postulating an existence free from sin, pain, poverty and death; and in contact with angelic beings?

        More to the point, how would existing and forthcoming homosexuals be eradicated in a perfect world: government ministry, private enterprise or individual initiative?

        Also, if you believe in an afterlife, could you briefly describe it?

    2. Deeside Will 20 Aug 2011, 10:12am

      Sorry, Keith, “heteras” does NOT mean “of queer”. It means “different” or “other”. Sarkos heteras = other flesh, different flesh. That’s why people who are sexually attracted to the OTHER sex are described as HETEROsexual. I’m not trying to use the scriptures to defend anything. I’m simply pointing out that your citation of Jude 7 to support your interpretation of the legend of Sodom won’t stand up. But it’s preposterous to use this decidedly amoral fairy tale as the basis for a moral judgment on anything.

      1. @Deeside Will
        Interesting how Keith not only misunderstands the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah concerning “Inhospitality”, but then he goes onto enact the sin by his inhospitable conduct on this forum. When you are invited to a party (As Keith has been by virtue of this being a free access forum), one does not rape ones quests.
        Since Keith has been unrelenting in his intrusive bible bashing on PN, one might argue that rape could also been seen as a metaphor for aggressive, rude an obsessive proselytizing.

        1. “Since Keith has been unrelenting in his intrusive bible bashing on PN, one might argue that rape could also been seen as a metaphor for aggressive, rude an obsessive proselytizing.”

          Yet how many ‘hetersexual themed’ news websites are there, indeed how many heterosexual themed websites are there at all (name one), not to mention that there are no Straight pride marches, no pubs or clubs defined as ‘straight pubs’ no straight ‘policemans association’ (, no gay pilots association, (, gay body builders ( and it goes on and on.
          And you say I am proselytizing!!!. If There was a ‘straight police association’, the phone lines would be red hot with complaints from the ‘gay community’

          1. Jock S. Trap 20 Aug 2011, 2:16pm

            You really are thick as sh!t ain’t ya.

            Your hilarious.

          2. One wonders when the theocrat will repent of his inhospitality, repent of his homophobia, and repent of the stupidity which blinds his intellect.

          3. Jock S. Trap 20 Aug 2011, 3:32pm

            Don’t know what my man thinks but all this ‘forbidden’ sex is leaving him a bit worn out.

          4. My wonderful partner and I often spend hours talking about the pervading and nauseous amount of subliminal heterosexual propaganda that exists in advertisements alone.

      2. the bible makes it clear that Sodom and Gomorrah were marked for destruction because of homosexual practices before the angels were even sent there. I
        Did you not get a CLUE when the angels were welcomed by the ‘buggery committe’?
        If you persist in this preposterous interpretation of scriptures which are clear to any person that does not have an agenda, please show in the bible where it says or implies that inhospitality is a sin worthy of death!
        this should be fun.

        1. Jock S. Trap 20 Aug 2011, 2:17pm

          Talks a lot of sh!t too, don’t ya bigot?!

      3. @Deeside Will
        Perhaps Keith has a PhD in theology

        1. Jock S. Trap 20 Aug 2011, 2:19pm

          Keith has a PhD in talking absolute sh!t!! It’s so hilarious!!

        2. Putting together a puzzle can be a challenging hobby, never a reliable doctorate..

      4. It is your right not to accept accurat interpreation of scriptures just as it is your right to assert that 1+1=3.
        What exactly do you think Jude 7 is condemning?
        Also, even if we disregard Mosaic law Sodom and Gomorrah and any other of the scriptures that are used to condemn homosexuality, it is STILL a sin scripturally since it is fornication.
        Chew on that for a bit!

        1. Jonpol wrote
          “Also, theocracy as a means of governance can be observed in many middle eastern countries at we speak.”
          One might also argue that theocracy as a constitution of a state, no longer exists in western europe in the 21st centrury
          Moroever, since logic and reason prevail, not Fundamentalism, philosophy and science have eclipsed the circular dead-end thinking of theocrats like Keith

          1. “philosophy and science have eclipsed the circular dead-end thinking of theocrats like Keith”
            Since when has morality had any basis in science or been a scientific study?

          2. @Keith –

            You ask:

            “Since when has morality had any basis in science or been a scientific study?”

            I’m guessing it happened when magisterial biblical pronouncements failed to solve our moral dilemmas and did not absolve the individual from the right and duty of acting according to the dictates of his or her own individual conscience together with the tremendous discoveries of modern medical science.

            For example, because of medical ethics, we are no longer bound to alienate sick relatives from our societies because they may have a skin blemish.

        2. Deeside Will 20 Aug 2011, 12:41pm

          Just a few points, Keith. The Bible does NOT make it clear that Sodom and Gomorrah were marked for destruction because of homosexual practices before the angels were even sent there. No sexual practices of any kind are even mentioned until the men of Sodom demand that the angels be brought out of Lot’s house to be raped. Lot, a righteous man, so 2 Peter 2:8 tells us, offers them his virgin daughters to be raped instead; the offer being declined, the same righteous man later gets drunk and shags them himself in a cave. A wonderful example of biblical morality.

          If you read Jude 6-7, Jude first speaks of angels who were condemned for having sex with humans (a theme which is elaborated in the apocryphal Book of Enoch) and then condemns the men of Sodom for attempting to do the same thing in reverse. Hence the expression sarkos heteras, other flesh.

          But why should anyone who does not have a moral screw loose take either the legend of Sodom in particular, or the Pentateuch in general, as a guide to morality?

          1. Proof that Sodom was maked for destruction before the angels arrival is in
            Genesis 2:13-24…
            “What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it?”
            The scripture you quote in 2 Peter 2 continues in verse 10 wher still in the context of righteous Lot…”especially those who SATISFY THEIR FLESH by indulging in its passions and who despise authority. Being bold and arrogant, they are not afraid to slander glorious beings…

            I do not accept any uninspired, apocryphal writings. You do know apocryphal is defined as @of doubtful authenticity? Incidentally, I am contesting a false assertion that Sodom was destroyed ‘inhospitality’ and not the morality of Lot’s action regarding his daughters which is a mere (easily explained) diversionary tactic.
            Still waiting for you to show in the bible where inhospitality is punishable by death or even punishable!

          2. Deeside Will 20 Aug 2011, 2:07pm

            @ Keith

            “marked for destruction before the angels arrival”

            Yes, but no mention is made at that point of any sexual practices.

            There is no reason why anyone should accept the Book of Enoch as an authority, but Jude’s remark in v. 6 is a reference to a theme in the Book of Enoch.

            As to the matter of inspiration, if something is true, it doesn’t need to be inspired. If it’s not true, no amount of inspiration will make it true. I think it was Colonel Ingersoll who observed that only a lie needs to be inspired. And how do you know whether a book is inspired anyway? If your answer is that it’s in the Bible, how do you know that those who decided which books were inspired enough to be part of the Bible were correct in their judgment? And if the answer is that they wre inspired too, how do you know this?

          3. Jock S. Trap 20 Aug 2011, 2:27pm

            Deeside Will

            What are you saying? That Keith like so many of his ilk take one thing and add more to suit their own ends?

            What a surprise…. Not!!

            Yep you are right though Deeside Will no mention but hey he knows that but is trying to justify his own hatred of Gay men it seems.

            Guess he’ll try anything for someone to agree with this sick twisted mind.

            Keith it is not us that is immoral, it is completely you dear.

          4. “What are you saying? That Keith like so many of his ilk take one thing and add more to suit their own ends?”
            Jock, exactly my thoughts too, notice how Keith ignores both the contribution of philosophy and science to debates on ethics.
            Interesting how theocrats like Keith think that science some how exists in a amoral vacuum. Not only does this show the theocrats ignorance of science, but also the theocrats lack of understanding of role of the ethics committee in promoting or halting research.

          5. Jock S. Trap 20 Aug 2011, 3:55pm

            Problem is JohnK he doesn’t think, he uses the Bible to do all that for him apparently and changes what he needs to suit. That way he has ‘God’, ‘Jesus’ and all else to blame for his own nasty bigotry, discrimination and homophobia.

            He is by definition an big pile of steaming hypocrite.

          6. So far, K has not attempted to discern or recognize patterns in past and present theocracies, as if he were incapable of thinking.

        3. Jock S. Trap 20 Aug 2011, 2:21pm

          Boring. I don’t give a toss what Jude 7 condemns nor the other fairy tales you wish to delude your with and the only thing I’m gonna chew on for a bit is my partner’s massive…

  24. Jock Wrote
    “Indeed, a nice example of the classical religious hypocrite.”
    Exaclty !!!

  25. Poor Keith – blinded by his bigotry. And showing how lacking his knowledge of the bible is. All in the name of hate. Sad.
    Why are you so obsessed with gay men, Keith?

    1. Jock S. Trap 20 Aug 2011, 3:53pm

      mmmm, I wonder, what could it possibly be…? think now… :)

      1. I’m thinking, Jock : D Hmmmm – could it just be that keith…… Yep, I’m sure you can fill in the rest ;)

        1. Yep . . . . just filled that in, so speak

  26. @Deeside Will.
    Jude 7 supports the claim that the inhabitants of Sodom were destroyed for homosexuality and excessive fornication and the impartiakl reader can see this, even without referring to the original Greek.
    Also, Jude 6 was referring to rebellious angels that became demons., not the angels that visited Sodom. and certainly not to any apocrypha!
    Not only have you failed to cite the scripture which purportedly condemns as punishable by death (or just condemns) inhospitatlity, you have also ignored that I quoted the 2 Peter 2:10 since you yourself quoted verse 8 in the context of the righteous man Lot and ignored the following verses including verse 10 which ( still in the context of Lot dwellling amongst the immoral) reads….”especially those who SATISFY THEIR FLESH by indulging in its passions and who despise authority. Being bold and arrogant, they are not afraid to slander glorious beings…
    Nothing about inhospitality there!

    1. Jock S. Trap 20 Aug 2011, 3:20pm

      You are a bore.

      Why don’t you take your Bible bashing and fvck off. This is a news site for LGBTQI people to debate the issues of the day not a right for you to come in and turn all stories into a dictatorship viewpoint about who we are.

      Some people are Gay, Lesbian etc. This is how we are born if you don’t like it tough. Get over it. This is who we are and we don’t need to justify it to anyone esp to the likes of ignorant bigots like you, so fvck off.

    2. Deeside Will 20 Aug 2011, 4:16pm

      No, Keith, Jude 7 does NOT support the claim that the inhabitants of Sodom were destroyed for homosexuality. Simply reiterating continually an interpretation that has been read into the text will not make it correct. Jude 6 refers to the legend of the Watchers, angels who left their appointed sphere and had sex with mortals, just as Jude 7 refers to mortals who attempted to have sex with angels. But what does it matter anyway? These stories are simply legends, not history. Since angels, even if any such beings existed, are purely spiritual not corporeal beings, they cannot eat meals with people (Gen. 19:3) and one cannot have sex with them, with or without their consent. Nor do people get turned into pillars of salt (Gen. 19:26).

      I am not the one who suggested the inhospitality explanation, although it has respectable scholarship supporting it, so I feel no need to comment on it. In any case, I am not particularly concerned about the “correct” reason for a mythical event. We might as well spend time arguing about whether Orpheus, whose beautiful singing in the Underworld persuaded Pluto to let him have Eurydice back, was a tenor or a bass.

      Homophobia is evil, and no amount of quoting from the Bible or from any other supposedly sacred text will justify it. If there really were a God whose attitude to gays was as despicable as yours, it would be wrong to worship him/her.

      1. I’m reiterating Jude 7 as is referring to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah which Rehan says was due to inhospitality yet the verse says it was due to sexual immorality and perversion. There are no verses in the bible that support this view and there are no verses that call for the death penalty for inhospitality. Rehan has yet to provide support for this claim or show where inhospitality is a capital crime in the bible.
        I ask none to believe what I believe, I defed my own views and refute nonsense disguised as biblical information.
        As for homophobia being evil.
        Homophobia is ‘irrational fear of homosexuals’ I do not fear homosexuals if I did, here’s why it is not evil… To be evil means to be morally reprehensible. I am reprehensible to God, it is morally reprehensible (or evil) to condone that which he hates. Therefore, it is obligatory upon godly persons to hate homosexuality which is evil by definition, it’s proponents also being evil (morally reprehensible)

        1. Deeside Will 20 Aug 2011, 5:44pm

          Keith, let’s not bother about the precise definition of homophobia. Even though the word is philologically unsound for a number of reasons, it is here to stay, and you know what people mean by it. Free people in a democracy can depise or not despise anything that they choose. You are free to hate homosexuality if you wish, but such hatred is irrational, and any form of discrimination against gays is evil, no matter how many bible verses you quote to excuse your attitude. If you disagree, you disgree. Fortunately, this country, at any rate, is not run by your rules. People who think like you are increasingly regarded as oddballs – and rightly so.

          1. Feelings and attitudes, when used as thinking tools, are unreliable.

            As a “philosopher and enlightened educator”, surely you know that, Keith.

          2. I wouldn’t have bothered about the definition at all had I not been constantly accused of it! It is not irrational to hate something you consider perverted. Do you consider hatred of incest irrational too or is it ok to hate that, if so what is the difference morally when both are performed by consenting adults?
            As for this comment…”People who think like you are increasingly regarded as oddballs “…
            the bible predicts this would happen ..
            Matthew 7:13 “”Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.”

            2Timothy 4:3
            “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,”

          3. @ Deeside Will.
            Yes, this country affords me freedom of thought and speech. This means that if you knew me, under the laws of this country, a person that accuses another
            of being homophobic without grounds, they xcould find themselves in court for libel or slander and in court, the true actual definition (not the perceived one) would count.

          4. Keith, ‘sexual immorality’ doesn’t mean homosexuality. To insist it does is not being true to the bible. At best you’d have to say this immorality was undefined, but most Christians I know take it to mean rape and general promiscuity – that is, to use you favourite word ‘fornication’

          5. Jock S. Trap 21 Aug 2011, 8:51am

            I’m starting to get really pissed off with Keith hijacking this site for his hateful agenda, it’s getting in the way of debating the issues.

            If PinkNews don’t sort, I’m off, this is not why I come here.

            Who I am is not up for debate. If you don’t like Gay people don’t be here.

            End of.

      2. Also, who are you to say what is evil and what free people in a democracy can and cannot despise?
        What authoritative reliable source are you quoting as a guide?

        1. So far, you have not attempted to discern or recognize patterns in past and present theocracies.

          Perhaps you are lacking data.

          1. You seem to to basing your morals on culture which is changeable and variable. I assume that you disregard those societies as moral,which deem homosexuality morally wrong though, which rather prejudices your position.
            Can you elaborate so as not to look as though you change with the wind?

          2. So far, you have not attempted to discern or recognize patterns in past and present theocracies.

        2. “who are you to say what is evil…?”

          We could ask the same question of you, keith. Does pointing the finger at gay people distract you from your own problems?

          1. I don’t claim to be the authority on what is evil. I cite the creator as the authority on what is evil,based on his inspired.
            Who do you cite as your authority and arbiter of right and wrong, good and evil?

          2. As I’ve said before, keith, I don’t think you’d find that my values are that different from yours.

    3. Think, Keith…that’s what minds are for…

      1. Indeed, Jonpol, but some people are too afraid to think and cling to dogma as a comfort, pushing aside all evidence that might undermine their way of thinking.

        I pity them because it’s obvious that they live in fear.

        1. Fear of what?

          1. Fear of examining one’s beliefs too closely causing a pushing away of anything that might threaten those beliefs rather than a level-headed examination it.

            A general fear – of death, of the unknown future – which often leads to superstitions (not always religious) as a perceived protection.

  27. Deeside Will 20 Aug 2011, 8:29pm

    Keith, if you wish to regard homosexuality as perverted, that’s your problem. As a gay man, I’m glad not be saddled with that problem. Coming on here and trying to convince everyone else to share your eccentric views is simply a waste of your time, so I can’t understand why you keep doing it. What are you hoping to achieve? Do you seriously imagine for one moment that the trash that you write is going to persuade one single gay person on here to stop having sex? Pack it in and go and watch The X Factor instead, why don’t you?

    1. You are full of false ‘homophobe’ accusations, which I showed to be fallacious, and failing to answer questions that will expose your hypocrisy such as ” is there any sexual act that two consenting adults may practice which you deem to be immoral?”
      I have the right to come on here with my views and questions, so, either address my points or signore me and stop trolling!
      I am not here to convert gays to morality. I am here to defend the right to be disgusted by homosexuality and challenge the misinformation I encounter.

      1. What misinformation would that be, keith?

        1. This article for instance calling the birds ‘gay’ and leading several posters to believe that the birds copulate.
          Pretty much any article I have posted about contains either misinformation or false claims either in the article or comments of a poster to which I am minded to respond.

          1. keith, I haven’t read the finch study and I have no idea whether the finches had sex, but that’s irrelevant to me because:

            1) I’m not a finch
            2) I don’t consider sexuality to be based on sex – ie someone can be straight or gay and still a virgin.
            3) Many gay animals DO have sex

            Moreover, I fail to see why it matters to you. I believe you’ve said above that you believe sex is only for procreation, yes?

          2. keith, you, yourself, have posted what you refer to as misinformation – eg saying most paedophiles are gay.

      2. Deeside Will 20 Aug 2011, 9:26pm

        Keith, I’m not aware that there is any legally recognized definition of homophobia, and there is no English equivalent of the Académie Française or the Accademia della Crusca to rule on the matter. The word itself was coined only some time in the 1970s and, as I have already said, it is unsatisfactory from a philological point of view. It appears in the 1997 edition of Chambers Dictionary (the most up to date English dictionary that I possess) and is there defined as “an intense dislike or fear of homosexuals”. Does any part of that definition fit you?

        And now you’re accusing me of hypocrisy, although I can’t understand why. You ask me, “Is there any sexual act that two consenting adults may practice which you deem to be immoral?” Well yes, one obvious example is where either one (or both) is cheating on someone else, otherwise called adultery. But I can’t see the relevance to the present topic. You say that you are here “to defend the right to be disgusted by homosexuality.” Why do you need to defend it on here? I, for one, fully acknowledge your right to be disgusted by homosexuality (or by anything else). I also couldn’t care two flicks of a camel’s prick whether you are disgusted or not. I am disgusted by your attitude to gays, and I am sure that you are as indifferent to my reaction as I am to yours. As for your desire “to challenge the misinformation I encounter”, you haven’t challenged any misinformation; you have just challenged opinions that you disagree with, mostly on extremely flimsy grounds, and provided some misinformation yourself, e.g. your assertion the “most paedophiles are homosexuals”.

      3. “I am not here to convert gays to morality. I am here to defend the right to be disgusted by homosexuality and challenge the misinformation I encounter.”
        One wonders how Keith manages to live in a world full of LGBT people, when he is perpetually full of disgust for the many LGBT people he must encounter everyday.

      4. Jock S. Trap 21 Aug 2011, 8:55am

        But by you doing so your stopping others enjoying debating the stories of which these comment pages are Supposed to be for.

        1. I agree, his disgust is so intense that it appears that he has to try halt any discussion concerning the normalising of homosexuality across the animal kingdom.
          I also think that this is an indication not only of Keiths intense hatred, but I suspect that some one like this probably already has a criminal record for either incitement of hatred, or physical assualt on a LGBT person.

          1. Jock S. Trap 21 Aug 2011, 11:13am

            Yes, that actually does sound possible. It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest.

  28. @Iris. You asked me which misinformation. I merely answered. Even if I had posted misinformation myself , that does not mean that PN has not (this article for instance). However, I stand by all my posts, including the statistical fact that paedophiles (that go on to abuse) are disproportionately gay.

    1. @ Iris.
      I have never said sex is only for procreation and there are no ‘gay’ animals. there is animal behaviour that is perceived to be gay by humans. the vast majority of animal behaviour is heterosexual and the perceived gay behaviour is often mistakes or confusion. I have posted a link to a study of perceived gay behaviour in animals near the beginning of this thread. You should be concerned that PN is fooling people with articles such as this one. Some if not all posters have been led to believe these biurds have gay sex when it is a mere social alliance! Your lassitude toward being hoodwinked by PN could be caused by your irrational hatred of my legally held and scripturally supported views.

      1. Ah, keith, there’s no way that I can look through all your many posts, but I thought you posted somewhere a number of days ago that you – sorry, I’m paraphrasing here – think that only straight sex is ‘proper’ and the reason for that is that sex is for procreation. I remember your comment because I made one after as did a poster called ‘pippa’, I believe.

        1. That is not, nor has it ever been my position. If you find where I said that, I promise to never post here again. I will save you time though as the post does not exist.

          1. So am I to think you believe sex for pleasure is OK then?

          2. What is your position on sex, then?

            Do you think all sex is disgusting?

            For example, do you believe we should refuse the needs and desires of the flesh in order to be closer to god?

      2. I haven’t been ‘hoodwinked’ by Pink News re the finches. I didn’t assume they had sex when I read this story nor does the story claim they did. I had no impression either way actually.

        1. Many commentators have been fooled and are insisting the birds have sex!!! This is the purpose of the article. If you disagree, why do you think this article was posted on a gay news site with ‘Gay’ (a lie) in the headline? What does wildlife have to do with gay issues?

          1. I presume it was posted in response to the ;it’s not natural’ stance of US fundies. And I agree with you – wildlife has nothing to do with gay issues but sadly because of the aforementioned fundie lie sites like PN sometimes refer to such stories.
            And – again – one does not have to have sex to be gay or straight. As you believe in sex only within marriage, I presume you waited till you were married, but you were still straight before you had sex.

    2. Yes, and I thank you for answering and giving an example, keith. But I still can’t fathom why it matters to you that much.

      You believe in a creator – fine.
      You say homosexuality disgusts you – fine.
      You don’t believe in sex before marriage – fine.

      And…… And what? Why spend your time on a gay news site? I can’t believe there’s that much ‘misinformation’ you need to correct among the many stories here each week.

      1. @Iris
        It is interesting how Keith reports that homosexuality disgust him yet despite this, Keith is the 2nd top users on PN this week with 190 messages to his name.
        What can we logically deduce about Keiths disgust?

        1. Jock S. Trap 21 Aug 2011, 9:03am

          mmm that he’s a big ‘mo’ himself, prehaps?

    3. @Iris
      I was wondering if Keith had provided to date, peer viewed evidence, i.e, links to Journal articles highlighting emprical support for the hypothesis that Paedhopiles are predominalty Gay?

      1. Empirical ??? Isn’t that immoral?

      2. I have had problems posting links, but here goes..

        A study regarding child abusers dated 2002 by the University of Colorado which states that 90% of child abusers are married heterosexual Caucasian men..

        1. Jock S. Trap 21 Aug 2011, 9:04am

          Oh, I’m guessing his response will be predictable.

    4. “However, I stand by all my posts, including the statistical fact that paedophiles (that go on to abuse) are disproportionately gay.” Then you are ignoring scientific evidence then. Then again not a surprise saying as how your a religious nut!!

  29. @ K.

    A few minutes ago you said:

    “I am here to defend the right to be disgusted by homosexuality and challenge the misinformation I encounter.”

    As it happens, we all challenge misinformation when we encounter it, don’t we?

    For example, what makes you so certain that god exists?

    1. I am not trying to convince anyone that God exists. I am merely staing my belief that he does. I have no interest in convincing people on here of my beliefs..

      1. And I am challenging your belief just as you are challenging mine.

        We are engaged in a dialectic, and that’s ok by me.

        Again, what makes you so certain that god exists?

        1. I am not challenging your beliefs. I don’t even know or care what they are, neither am I interested in explaining my personal assurance in the existence of the creator.
          You are welcome to disbelieve in a creator. I will not pursue you on that!

          1. You are confusing me now.

            I understood that it is because of your belief in god and the bible that you are disgusted with homosexuals.

            In that sense you are challenging my belief that I am a homosexual be nature, that I am proud of who I am, and that I am no better or worse than you or anyone else, certainly not a disgusting person.

            Furthermore, I’ve already told you that I am an agnostic, and I am most interested in the kind of religious experience that has made you so certain that god exists.

          2. @Keith –

            You said;

            “I am not challenging your beliefs. I don’t even know or care what they are… ”

            Don’t you remember? I told you that I believe in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.. :)

  30. I accept that one can be inclined toward the same sex without having sex and that is their orientation. That does not excuse it on a moral ground, especially as a paedophile use the same defence, but most would agree that it is immoral to be attracted to prepubescent children, despite the strong urge. This urge can and must be controlled for moral reasons(regardless of prevailing law or lack of) , even if the alternative is abstinence. On the same basis, it is immoral (despite the strong urge) to act on homosexual urges.

    “As you believe in sex only within marriage, I presume you waited till you were married, but you were still straight before you had sex.”

    I answer and defend views about my beliefs, not my personal history which is irrelevant and does not alter anything I have said. I could be a raging homosexual and the biggest hypocrite in Christendom yet my comments stand alone.

    1. keith, I wasn’t after personal info from you. I posted that so you could better understand my point that one’s sexuality is not dependent on having sex.

      We all, I think, get your beliefs but what I don’t get is why you want to post them on a gay site. You don’t need to show us there are people like yourself who ‘are disgusted by homosexuality’. We know that. That’s your and their right.

      So – what next? We now know your beliefs about gay sex well, I hope, so what would you wish to say now?

      1. I don’t wish to say anything until one of these occur.
        A question is asked of me which I deem deserves an reply.
        An article contains lie/s or misinformation .
        A poster lies, appears to be misinformed or denigrates the bible.

        1. omg, you sound like Christine O’Donnell now… :(

    2. Deeside Will 20 Aug 2011, 10:36pm

      “This urge [sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children] can and must be controlled for moral reasons(regardless of prevailing law or lack of) , even if the alternative is abstinence. On the same basis, it is immoral (despite the strong urge) to act on homosexual urges.”

      Keith, that is simply a fatuous statement. The basis on which it is immoral for adults to have sex with children (of either sex) has no application whatever when it comes to consensual gay sex between adults. You may still regard it as “immoral to act on homosexual urges”, of course, but there is no analogy here with sex between adults and children. Speaking for myself, I see absolutely nothing immoral about gay sex in itself. There may be times when it is immoral, but in such cases it is the circumstances that make it so (as with heterosexual sex), not the fact that it is homosexual. But what all this has to do with same-sex partnerships between finches, whether they involve actual sex or not, I completely fail to see.

      You insist that no animals can be considered homosexual in the sense that humans can. I am no expert on the subject, but you may well be right. Indeed I will concede, for the sake of argument, that you are. So we have three erroneous assumptions that are commonly made. The first is that there exist gay animals (excluding humans); this you have corrected: there aren’t. The second is that, if there WERE such creatures as gay animals, this would provide a moral justification for homosexuality and for gay sex in humans; it wouldn’t. The third error is the assumption that any such justification is even needed in the first place; it isn’t. There! That’s that tidied up. I’m off now with my mates for a really gay night out on the town.

      1. My intent was not to compare two demonstrably different practices but rather to assert that just because there is an overwhelming urge to indulge in certain behaviour does not make it moral.
        It is easy for me to defend my view of what is moral as it is written in the bible.
        However, not so for you since your criteria (as long as adults consent then it is moral) allows for incest..
        Further, even if all animals acted in gay abandon , they are not mortrally accountable to God and cannot sin. Also, if we take our moral model from the animals (if animals do it so can we) we would be endorsing cannibalism , murder, theft etc etc.

        1. @Every one
          Do you feel that Keith’s statements are becoming more a more circular, intense and repetitious, as to be an acute form of mental masturbation

          1. holy moses, johnk…that’s a corker !!

  31. @Jonpol
    I take my morals on every aspect of life from the bible so my position on sex is that it is wholesome and pleasurable when practiced between monogamous marriage mates.

    1. @Keith –

      You said:

      “I answer and defend views about my beliefs, not my personal history which is irrelevant… ”

      No, your personal history is certainly not irrelevant, Keith; please don’t ever think that.

    2. @Jonpol, Iris, Jock, Deeside Will
      Have you noticed how Keith appears rather like a broken record, and how the paedophile, homosexual equation has been a constant thesis the theocrat has attempted to interject into nearly every discussion?

      1. And I will repeat until this is answered…
        ” Do you believe there is any sexual act that when practiced solely between consenting adults is immoral?”

        None (including yourself, have been able to answer.

        1. That question was answered some time ago, Keith… maybe you missed it.

          Mind you, I am still waiting for an answer from you, aren’t I?

          1. The question was never answered, it was avoided.

          2. Have posted my answer below. Beware of slippery slope debates, they are just as likely to ensnare you as us.

          3. The question was well answered some time ago.

        2. There may be certain immoral acts which you could argue logically lead on from consenting gay adults on a slippery slope basis.
          Just as I could argue that a literal fundamentalist reading of the Old Testament could endorse incest, slavery, stoning people and genocide. Happily in both cases the extremes are the exception rather than the rule.
          But what it does mean is that in both instances the prevaling cultural morality has a lot more influence on us than some cooked up objective morality [the one you’re clinging to which wasn’t even written by any god].
          The reason we don’t cop off with our dads in a loving consentual context is much the same reason you don’t practice genocide or stone people for wearing poly-cotton socks and picking up sticks on a Sunday [Leviticus]. Because it’s culturally taboo and personally repugnant.
          At least we don’t quote some biblical Nuremberg defence.

        3. Jock S. Trap 21 Aug 2011, 9:27am

          Because you’re only asking it to get someone to agree with you then shout how we’re all immoral and some twisted proof etc.

          My sex life is not up for debate and the fact you seem to focus on little else says everything about you.

          Just wish you would fvck off and stop hijacking this site with your perverted mind. Sicko.

      2. @JohnK –

        mmm… K is on the bumpy road to self-discovery, and he could not be in better company… :)

        1. @Jonpol
          Do you not think that Keith’s thinly disguised question is really aggressive political posturing, emanating from Keith’s disgust, which he is desperately trying to find a legitimate reason to uphold in a one last of vindicated, righteous triumph ?

          1. Despite, already being answered . . . .so to speak, as you mentioned.

          2. @JohnK –

            Oh my… do have the Finale of Beethoven’s Emperor Concerto on hand to celebrate K’s climax… mmm… I suppose the canon scene from the 1812 Overture might do just as well..

          3. Hi Jonpol
            Beethoven’s Fifth paino concerto could be just the ticket.
            Unless, you fancy going straight to the 4th symphony

          4. Right on, JohnK…

            flutes, oboes, clarinets, bassoons and horns… mmm.. I’m starting to see a pattern of sorts…

            and of course we’ll invite Santa…well, we are post-modern, after all…

          5. Most definitely yes, JohnK! keith is looking to legitimise his hate and tossing aside anything that might threaten his position.

      3. Jock S. Trap 21 Aug 2011, 9:24am

        Exactly JohnK – Kinda getting pissed off with it to be honest.
        It’s not why I come here to debate because who I am is not up for debate. I want to debate on the stories PinkNews provides but Keith’s single message repeatedly hijacking of this site is putting me off. I have mentioned this to PinkNews and I hope they take some kind of action coz if they don’t, I’m outta here.

        PinkNews needs to do more to protect it’s readers, it’s bad enough that names can be hijacked but willingly allowing bigotted homophobes to spoil these pages tends to give acceptance of abuse not condemnation of it.

        1. Exactly Jock
          Since the theocrat Keith, thinks he has a right to be disgusted with the whole of pinknews. We also have a right to stand up to his mindless attempts to incite hatred of LGBT people through association, misinformation and insinnuation.
          We also have a right to ridicule, this mindless theocrats hatred, and we more than justifed in telling him to and tell P**s off, especailly since he has been unrelenting in asserting an unfounded link between homosexuality and paedophilie

  32. @johnK
    Where was it answered and by who?
    what was the answer?
    The question was . ” Do you believe that there are any sexual acts between consenting adults that are immoral”?

    1. Jock S. Trap 21 Aug 2011, 9:32am

      Fvck off, Keith!

    2. Jock S. Trap 21 Aug 2011, 10:22am

      Because you’re only asking it to get someone to agree with you then shout how we’re all immoral and some twisted proof etc.

      My sex life is not up for debate and the fact you seem to focus on little else says everything about you.

      Just wish you would fvck off and stop hijacking this site with your perverted mind. Sicko.

      Sorry peeps, getting bored of typing the same response. Good ol copy and paste.

    3. @The theocrat
      Just as you have a right to be disgusted with my homosexuality, I also have a right to be disgusted with your mindless incitement to hatred of LGBT people by proxy.
      P**s Off

      1. Jock S. Trap 21 Aug 2011, 10:42am

        Here! Here! JohnK.

      2. People should be encouraged to hate what is bad!
        Psalm 97:10
        I also hate incest. Are you disgusted by my hatred for incest and incitement to hatred of incest?

        1. How dare you try and interogate me, with you mindless moronic bible bashing!!!
          P**s off . . . you pathetic bullying theocrat

          1. You will find that it is the homosexual brigade that are bullies, thought police and bibliaphobes.
            They seek to enforce their pervberted values on all yet when challenged as to the origins and fallaciousness of their moral code (all sexual acts between consenting adults are moral), they run screaming and become abusive

          2. Jock S. Trap 21 Aug 2011, 11:49am

            Yet again your comments have nothing to do with Gay birds have lifelong relationships.

          3. Jock S. Trap 21 Aug 2011, 11:52am

            Your clearly trying to stop democracy by deliberately interrupting and spoiling debate of the stories to suit your own hateful, homophobic and discriminating agenda, now fvck off.

            This site is for US to debate relevent issues not your sad, pathetic homophobia.

          4. @Keith
            It is interesting how you are now playing the victim
            Why is it difficult for you to understand that if you call LGBT people names, either directly or by insinuation, you will not be treated with care and respect.
            Keith do you suffer with Aspergers, the reason I say this is because you appear to have very little understanding of social intereactions

        2. I’m not that hot on incest myself. But wherever you got your personal loathing of incest from, it wasn’t the Bible…

          1. @Flapjack & Jock
            Do you not think it is rather sad when the theocrat announces . . .
            “I also hate incest. Are you disgusted by my hatred for incest and incitement to hatred of incest?”
            Moreover, that he will try any means to steer a discussion towards talking about sexual perversity, or attempting to prove by our refusal to be bullied into agreeing or disagreeing with him, that we are some how complicit in incest or paedophilia as LGBT people.
            There is only one solution to bullies . . .
            . . .
            Keith – P**S off and ram your bible up you’re A**e

          2. Jock S. Trap 21 Aug 2011, 11:16am


          3. Jock S. Trap 21 Aug 2011, 11:18am

            Yes JohnK it is very sad.

            Whats sadder is he bangs on about immorals yet he is the only one in each thread to bring up the topic of sex.

            He’s clearly a fvckin perv.

          4. JohnK – I’m rather amused that he proceeds to claim some kind of moral objectivity/ superiority because he clings to the Bible, when a quick google search reveals that any relationship between the bible and conventional morality as we know it is purely co-incidental.

          5. @Jock – it reminds me of the joke about the neurotic on the Psychiatrist’s couch.
            – What does this inkblot remind you of?
            -Shafting a horse
            -and this one?
            -two whores licking chocolate off each other
            -and this one?
            -me doing my sister at an orgy
            -Mr Jones, from my observations I think you’re sex obsessed.

          6. @Flapjack
            The inkblot analogy is brilliant, and made me chuckle a few moments ago.
            I think the ditty is a great lampoon of Keith’s rather perverse mission to date
            Unhealthy obsession with anything, indicative or a deficit in the object of obsession.

          7. Jock S. Trap 21 Aug 2011, 11:43am


            Yes, I think you have just hit the nail on the head with that joke!! LOL

          8. Are you saying that incest is immoral even when practiced between consenting adults?

          9. Jock S. Trap 21 Aug 2011, 11:48am

            Oh fvck off, Keith. We’re not interested.

          10. Keith for the sake of argument… without recourse to the Bible which as previously referenced sanctions incest anyway, can you explain what objective all encomassing moral philosophy brought you to the logical conclusion you don’t want to shag your dad? Or is that just a loaded question?

        3. Jock S. Trap 21 Aug 2011, 11:20am

          What has that got to do with Gay birds have lifelong relationships?

          1. Jock S. Trap 21 Aug 2011, 11:44am

            Just realised this comment was to Keith’s insistence on talking about incest… not that he’s obsessed or nothing.

  33. Jock S. Trap 21 Aug 2011, 10:20am

    It’s typical of Religion and religious extremists to try and stifle democracy by deliberately trying to stop people debating in favour of then sharing their hatred and discriminating agendas.

  34. It does not matter whether I am wron in my beliefs, ignorant , bigotted, homophobic or anything else. I have put YOUR values and moral (or lack of) here and none have been able to defend. they are inconsistent. If some sexual acts between consenting adults are deemed moral and others not, you have to establish the foundation of those morals, who is the arbiter? Explain why one is moral and one not!

    1. Jock S. Trap 21 Aug 2011, 11:58am

      What has that got to do with Gay birds have lifelong relationships?

      Fvck off.

    2. “It does not matter whether I am wron in my beliefs, ignorant , bigotted, homophobic or anything else.”
      You said it!!!
      Which bit of P**s off do you not understand

    3. When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares also.
      You can’t set yourself up as judge jury and executioner in this little kangaroo court of yours without conceding that your moral framework is no more robust than ours. Who is your arbiter? The same group of bronze age peasants who couldn’t see much wrong with a little incest and ethnic cleansing?
      A little humility goes a long way.

      1. The bible is my moral guide as I have stated. You are welcome to dismiss that but you will not state your moral guide or source of morality nor why you wink at incest due to the fact that your moral code (whatever sex acts consenting adults do are moral) allows it and does not deem it immoral!

        1. Jock S. Trap 21 Aug 2011, 4:32pm

          Get lost weirdo.

        2. Jock S. Trap 21 Aug 2011, 4:36pm

          Personally I find you breathing immoral but hey-ho what you gonna do about it?!

        3. But if your bible is a moral code you should agree with incest shouldn’t you? it is in there.

    4. @Keith –

      You do sound like a Morality Czar.

      As for me, I do not believe the bible invented morality…

      In fact, morality existed long before the bible was put together, and so did myths about a thousand gods, all with their moral code. Morality then is relative, and because it changes from one society to another, from one century to the next, it has given birth to skepticism.

      There have been societies in which incest between consenting adults was compulsory, you know that. Others, in which parents very willingly gave or sold their children to notable characters as sex toys.

      It appears to me that you are asking us to name secular sources of morality, and there are many. Just Google it.

      As Iris said a number of times though, there is not much difference between our sense of morality and yours.

      1. Jock S. Trap 21 Aug 2011, 2:41pm

        Excellently put Jonpol.

        1. Thanks Jock ! :)

      2. the sources of morality need not be secular but I would like to know where people turn to (other than themselves) for wisdom and guidance, especially those that assert that it is wrong to hate homosexuality. What is their source or on whose authority other than their own, do they make this assertion.

        1. Jock S. Trap 21 Aug 2011, 4:37pm

          What the fvck? You crazy man.

        2. My moral sources are many. There is a wealth of moral philosophy to choose from from across the ages. It informs politics and law.
          I consider the golden rule (do unto others etc.) to be a relatively common thread in most moral philosophy, and that predates Jesus by several hundred years.
          If philosophy isn’t your bag there’s a whole load of self-help books available, some good, some full of new-age hot air. Ultimately you have to observe what works in practice.
          Religion doesn’t have the monopoly on moral authority or even a watertight version of it. It merely pretends it does.

          1. Many moral sources.??? Then they must sometimes contradict each other on certain issues. When they copntradict, which is right?Who is to say it is right?If they do not contradict, why many , not just one?
            Name a moral source?

          2. Keith, moral sources do contradict each other. The only people who loose that degree of sleep over it are zealots and theocrats who stick dogmatically to one text, but don’t really have much to bring to the table but zealotry.
            For the rest of us general consensus and a dialectic between moral sources is enough. Since you ask, I pick up bits from Stephen Covey, Sartre, Kant, and a wealth of authors and writers too numerous to name. I don’t mind if they don’t agree. If it works it’s in. That’s where experience is your friend.

        3. Who exactly is asserting that it is wrong to hate homosexuality?

          Homophobia is a mental illness, and inciting hatred against a legitimate minority group is illegal.

      3. Except I accept homosexuality practices are immoral, that is the big difference.

        1. The above post was for Jonopol, not Sock J trap who is on ignore and is a buffon.

        2. And by ‘accept’, you mean ‘assert’.

        3. That comes as no surprise; you have already told us you have been reading material from NARTH.

          1. The material I quoted has not been rebutted though. His character has been attacked. Big diifference!
            Also, I accept the bible as my moral guide, not Narth as you imply.

          2. @Jonpol
            Do you not think that incest is implicit in the old testament.
            Since without incest how would the world have been populated from a hand full of individuals, according to the genesis story in the bible.
            So when Keith projects incestous relationships onto LGBT people, we can see quite clearly that the nature of incest lies with Keiths beloved bible, not LGBT people per se.

          3. I would say the old testament has two major bottlenecks in the genepool… Adam and Eve for starters, (so far as I’m aware they only had two sons… begs a question, was Cain a mo-fo?) and of course Noah who had to repopulate the earth from his close family. There were a fair few club-footed babies that year.

          4. Also whilst we’re on the topic of Noah, if you credit the Old Testament account that all species on earth were accounted for on the ark –
            the 10 most righteous human representatives selected by God would’ve been carrying every venereal disease in history between them. What do you give the man who has everything? – an ark, naturally.

          5. Keith –

            There are more than many sources of morality; there are many versions of the bible as well.

            Would you recommend a version?

          6. Jock S. Trap 22 Aug 2011, 8:31am

            Keith just says what suit regardless of what the ‘Bible’ says.

        4. Jock S. Trap 22 Aug 2011, 8:29am

          I except you breathing is immoral but it seems neither has a choice in the matter.

  35. Jock S. Trap 21 Aug 2011, 3:04pm

    So it’s ‘immoral’ (pathetic) to have same sex relationships but absolutely fine to keep having children and over populate the planet so now we have people and children dying of treatable diseases, wars and starvation because of lack of food either from failed harvests, shortages of food or religious created wars.

    Yet again when we have love it is considered ‘immoral’ but Religion created wars, murders, tortures, maiming, famines, etc, etc are fine.

    And we are the ones being accused of being immoral.

    Religion – The true Evil of this planet and clearly a few of it’s supporters, not all but quite a few.

    1. mmm…overpopulation…such glaring evidence of irresponsible sexual activity is deplorable and immoral because it threatens the survival of the entire human race, not to mention the fact that millions of women are being raped every day.

      1. Jock S. Trap 21 Aug 2011, 4:31pm

        Exactly. Strange how some people just assume what they want to see and avoid what is actually happening just to satisfy their own bigotry and discrimination.

      2. Jonopol.
        Millions of women are not raped every day. It is important to be accurate and not second guess regarding serious crime.

        1. Koot –

          Hyperbole is a legitimate figure of speech… my point is obvious… Is breeding irresponsibly immoral or not, by any standards?

          The fact is, according to the UN, there is presently 3 times the sustainable population of our species on this planet while other species are disappearing as a result of it.

          At this rate, it is estimated that the world’s human population will triple in 20 years.

          1. Hypebole is legitimate and has no place in statistics.
            I could say for instance that a billion people contract AIDs every year from homosexuals. Would you contest that or view it as legitimnate hyperbole?

          2. Is breeding irresponsibly immoral or not, by any standards?

          3. @Keith
            So how many heterosexual do you think are diagnosed with HIV or AIDs each year in the UK?

        2. @Keith
          So how many women do you think are raped by heterosexual men in the UK each year?, or in the world each year?

          1. I havent thought about it. Is it the same amount every year then?
            Is this relevant

          2. @Keith
            Perhaps the reason you have not thought about this, is really about how you want to deny the extent of heterosexual violence and sexual abuse in marrage.

          3. • At least 47,000 adult women are raped every year in the UK (BCS 2001).

            A total of 6,630 people were newly diagnosed with HIV in 2009

            Seems to me Heterosexual sex is more damaging that Homosexual sex

        3. Jock S. Trap 22 Aug 2011, 8:32am

          You mean in countries where raping ones wife is perfectly legal? Therefore it isn’t considered rape.

          I take it you fully support that too.

  36. @JohnK
    “So how many heterosexual do you think are diagnosed with HIV or AIDs each year in the UK?”

    Don’t know, ask Jonopol. He is a qualified statistian!… (chortle!)

    1. @Keith
      Is the reason that you cannot guess how many heteroseuxals are diagnsoed each year with HIV or AIDs, is really about how you do not want to acknowldge this fact?

  37. @ John k
    “So how many women do you think are raped by heterosexual men in the UK each year?, or in the world each year?”

    Don’t know but I can tell you that AIDs (as spread by homosexuals and heterosexual fornicators) kills more people than incest which has killed nobody in years, yet the homosexuals on here defend homosesxual acts and fornication whilst coondemning consensual incest!

    1. Thats not what I asked You!

    2. You don’t seem to be trying to fight misinformation or even promote your right to be disgusted by homosexual relationships, but actually to promote incest. Is this a sign of what your actual agenda is?

      1. Jock S. Trap 22 Aug 2011, 8:36am

        Sounds about right. It’s abuse and I hope PinkNews sort it out.

  38. @ John k
    Don’t know how many heteroosexuals are killed each year but I can tell you that AIDs (as spread by homosexuals and heterosexual fornicators) kills more people than incest which has killed nobody in years, yet the homosexuals on here defend homosesxual acts and fornication whilst coondemning consensual incest!

    1. As I said before, the most foolproof prevention is to never have sex. I assume that’s your solution too.

      1. Monogamous married couple do not get STDs from each other. That is the solution. It is certainly more effective than your own morality, which appears to perpetuate the problem.

        1. Are you claiming I’m not monogamous? I think you just made a succinct argument for gay marriage myself.

          1. I anm using the term ‘your’ in regard to practicing homosexuals, whose values you share, not you personally.

          2. I must say we wouldn’t be “fornicating” if they just let us marry.

          3. Jock S. Trap 22 Aug 2011, 8:37am

            Indeed. I’ve been monogamous for 18 years to my man yet apparently accounts for nothing.

            Why can’t I marry the man I love and raised my son with?

        2. @Keith
          If as you say
          “Monogamous married couple do not get STDs from each other.”
          Do monogamous married heterosexual men rape their wives?

    2. @Keith
      “Don’t know how many heteroosexuals are killed each year”
      That is not what I asked you?
      Why have you distorted my question?

      1. I suppoose because I consider HIV a death sentence, preventable when moral boundaries are observed!

        1. Jock S. Trap 22 Aug 2011, 8:38am

          Not if you were raped and given it like I was Keith.

          1. Jock S. Trap 22 Aug 2011, 8:39am

            Oh and no it isn’t a death sentence thank you.

    3. Is breeding irresponsibly immoral or not, by your standards?

      1. It would not be breaking any law on sexual misconduct so it would not be sexually immoral. In extreme circumstances it could be considered irresponsible and even immoral in the generic sense.. Why do you ask?

        1. That is not what I asked…

          1. I have answered your question accordi
            ng to my undersatnding of it.
            My question to you is… Are there any sexual acts between two consenting couples that you deem to be immoral?

          2. Who exactly is asserting that it is wrong to hate homosexuality?

  39. @Flapjack
    I don’t mind if they don’t agree. If it works it’s in.
    So if they disagree on say abortion, where would you stand,and how would you know which of these guides was right ?You are trying to steer a ship with more than one captain, each one disagreeing on the destination.

    1. I don’t think anyone has an abortion for the hell of it, put it that way. Ideally contraception should prevent it getting that far, but so long as we are talking within the legal limit it’s up to the mother to decide. I certainly don’t subscribe to the “every sperm is sacred” rule.
      BTW which trimester was Isaac at when Abraham went to stab him on God’s orders?

      1. I was not seeking your view of abortion though. I was using abortion as an example of something that your moral authorities or teachers that you cite, could disagree on, leaving you wondering who is right and who is wrong. How do you choose? What if one of your moral guides says homosexuality is wrong. Is he dismissed as a guide?

        1. I would say that person has no point of reference, is more than likely a religious dogmatist and about as far away from any kind of guide I’d listen to as it was possible to get.
          The burden of proof that homosexuality is wrong is squarely on their shoulders. The natural explanation is irrelevant as is the STD argument which just leaves a highly subjective assertion.
          You would have to define “wrong” in terms other than “I wouldn’t do it myself” or “My holy book says”.

      2. Isaac waas a fully grown man who could have easily over powered his father.

  40. As for the false accusations that god condones incest. The bible is clear on it .Fornication, adultery, and incest are detestable toGod. Under the Law the adulterer and the incestuous one were to be put to death, and none of the daughters of Israel were to become prostitutes. (Leviticus 18:6, 29; 19:29; 20:10; Deuteronomuy 23:17) .
    I doubt this will dissuade the liars and professional muck spreaders from their falsehood on here though.

    1. Too damn right. There are so many other bits of the bible which support it, you can’t simply cherrypick the ones that don’t.

      1. Bet you can’t name one passage where GOD supports incest?

        1. Genesis 19:31-36 “And the elder said to the younger Our father is old, and there is no man left on the earth, to come in unto us after the manner of the whole earth. Come, let us make him drunk with wine, and let us lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.”

        2. Genesis 11:26-29 “Thare begot Abram, Nachor, and Aran. And Aran begot Lot. And Aran died before Thare his father, in the land of his nativity in Ur of the Chaldees. And Abram and Nachor married wives: the name of Abram’s wife was Sarai: and the name of Nachor’s wife, Melcha, the daughter of Aran, father of Melcha, and father of Jescha.” – Notice how Nachors wife is his niece Melcha.

          1. Where does it say that God supported any of this (as per My question) ? Also, do you not know that the law on incest was not instituted till much later in Moses day?

          2. Ah sorry how silly of me to think that morals change because incest was a completely different act before Moses wasn’t it.

          3. Speaking of time lines, approximately when did god create the earth?

        3. 1 Corinthians 7:36-38 – “But if any man thinks that he is behaving himself unseemly toward his virgin daughter, if she be past the flower of her age, and if need so requires, let him do what he will; he is not sinning; let them marry” – Paul gives permission for a father to marry his daughter.

          1. is that your serious interpretation of that passage or are you on a wind up? The fact is, though, that in the original text these verses do not mention a ‘betrothed woman’ or “fiancée.” Further, this approach puts all the emphasis on the man. But does it seem consistent with Christianity that Paul would be concerned with only the man, showing no interest at all in the needs and feelings of the woman, whom Peter calls the “weaker vessel”?—1 Pet. 3:7.

          2. Your original version would this be the long dead version of hebrew in which it was originally written because if you speak that you really should get in touch with someone, especially as the language has been dead for about 1000 years.

          3. Not just Christianity aswell that believes women are the “weaker vessels” it comes from the mouth of Lordy boy himself.

          4. In fact that passage doesn’t mention betrothed or fiancee’s at any point.

        4. Is that enough or do you want more?

          1. Jock S. Trap 22 Aug 2011, 8:41am

            Nice one Hamish.

        5. He may not say it in so many words, but given that the only people in the Garden of eden and the Ark were members of the same family expected to perpetuate the human race and in both cases could be counted on your fingers, it’s a fairly safe bet that he implicitly condoned it.
          As I said before, huuuuuge genetic bottlenecks right there.

  41. @Jonpol
    “Who exactly is asserting that it is wrong to hate homosexuality?”
    The homosexuals on here of course. Do you think it is wrong to?
    Also, are there any sexual acts between two consenting couples that you deem to be immoral?

    1. Yes I think it is wrong to but I also think it is wrong to be racist however I have no “guide” as to why I use my brain to work out what is wrong and what is not.

      1. Then if morality is a matter of personal choice, how can it be said that ANYTHING is immoral since only the person decides. This means that it cannot be absolutely stated whether racism and paedophilia (not child abuse) are immoral since they are inclinations of the mind or mental dispositiuons, just like homosexuality which you say is moral but by your own criteria, you accept that it can also be immoral, to those that believe it so! So why should your version of morality be above mine?

        1. Well I decide my morality by who it effects negatively, the effects it has on society and wether or not it is detrimental to me personally.

        2. Oh and I see you haven’t commented on the quotes I put from the bible regarding incest.

      2. So are there any acts between consenting adults that you deem immoral and if the consenting adults deem them to be moral, who is correct?

        1. Well that is the question I will not force my views on anyone but I will explain my reason why I disagree with it and if they then do it there’s not much me or you or the government can do about it.

          But you see I except people will do things that I don’t think are good but I can accept that maybe thats because I’m not a <unt

          1. Let me rewrite that last bit it is missing all punctuation and correct spellings.

            But you see I accept people will do things I don’t think are good, but I can accept that, maybe thats because I’m not a <unt

      1. Jock S. Trap 22 Aug 2011, 8:42am

        Spot on again Hamish!!

        1. Yer went a bit Anti-Keith mad last night haha :P

          1. Jock S. Trap 22 Aug 2011, 1:08pm

            Understandable Hamish!! ;)

  42. Deeside Will 21 Aug 2011, 9:14pm

    Keith, you began by making the perfectly valid criticism that it is, strictly speaking, a misuse of words to describe birds or other animals as “gay” or “homosexual”. You have conceded my point that what other species do or don’t do cannot tell us anything about what is morally right or “natural” (whatever that’s supposed to mean) for us. You have then spent five days hi-jacking this thread to propound your superstitious views on the Bible and your disputable interpretations of the same, to tell us how “unnatural” you think homosexuality is and how disgusting and hateful you find it – as if anyone else could care less – to give misinformation on homosexuality and paedophilia and to babble on about the irrelevant subject of incest. It really is time now for you to pack it in. Remember that a gentleman always knows when it’s time to leave.

    1. You will find that my comments are mainly in reply to questions.
      Incest is not related to homosexuality physically speaking, morally, I believe it is on the same level except that homosexuality and fornication cause more harm.
      That is a moot point anyway since homosexuality has nothing to do with the birds in the article and you should be condemning PN for implying that it does, in order to further the gay agenda, which in this case is to employ nature as a moral compass.

      1. @Keith
        Why are you not taking this up with the the BBC
        In relation to the link above. Why are you not addressing the BBC’s support of the Gay agenda by using nature as a moral compass?

        1. That is a good point-which doesn’t negate my point.

          1. @Keith
            So what letters have you written to the BBC, complaining about their support of the “Gay Agenda”?

          2. @JohnK –

            Have you seen the Miro’s at the Tate?

          3. @Keith
            Still waiting for a response?
            What letters have you written to the BBC complaining about their support of the Gay Agenda?

  43. I think there is just no basis to the claims that we can’t be good without god.

  44. @ Keith –

    You are neither brain-dead, nor stupid, nor infantile.

    You certainly will find a way to save yourself from your delusions.

    Good luck.

  45. Deeside Will 22 Aug 2011, 12:25am

    Keith – since you are so fascinated by incest – if you are one of those peculiar people who still believe that the Book of Genesis is literal history, then there is one undoubted instance at any rate where the Bible does condone incest. Since Adam and Eve are said to be the only man and woman living at the beginning, from whom the entire human race is descended, Cain’s wife must have been his sister. The only alternative is that his wife was his niece. If we choose the latter as being “less” incestuous, other, unidentified siblings of his must have engaged in incest to provide him with a niece. There is no way round this.

    1. And let’s not forget there were only 10 members of the same family on the Ark expected to perpetuate the human race, who in spite of being the most righteous people on earth would have had every human STD in existance betweeen them… otherwise STDs would not have survived the flood! That surely gives rise to a huge bout of cognative dissonance.

    2. I could think of one alternative to Cain’s wife being his sister, but we’re firmly in Oedipus territory with that one. So far as I recall from my bible classes at school, Adam and Eve had two sons and that’s it.

    3. Have you got a harder one? Cain married his sister. This was long before God’s law on incest was instituted.

      1. There are several ‘harder’ ones above, Keith.
        So God’s laws (I notice you’ve elected to speak fro him, those voices in your head are the direct line no doubt) aren’t eternal after all. Brought in as and when needed, eh? So when did he ‘institute’ his laws on incest then?
        Incidentally, what was this sister-wife’s name?

        1. What I say is not of MY originality but it is from the bible so why do you childishly caccues me of having voices in my head. Seems you are struggling and must therefore resort to insult and diversion.
          Gods laew on incest was instituted in (Leviticus) 18:6-17, 29; 20:11, 12, 14)

          1. Elsewhere you have rejected some of the laws listed at Leviticus by saying you’re not a Jew, therefore they don’t apply to you. Cherry-picking again? It’s truly amazing the hoops you and your ilk will jump through to try and justify your inconsistencies.
            Oh, and the name of Cain’s sister-wife?

        2. I have comprehensively answered your questions and until you answer me as to whether you deem any sexual act between consenting adults as immoral , ythere will be no more answers. Shamne really as I feel you are getting an accelerated moral education

          1. I have already told you this before so until you except my answer I will report every comment you make on PN :)

          2. You HAVE been answered, keith, but presumably none of our answers were the ones that satisfied you – ie proved your unique theories.

            It seems to be YOU who are in need of an education. The vast, vast, majority of ALL people – straight AND gay – do NOT approve of incest or paedophilia.

            OK? But – and here’s a big difference between us and you – we don’t have any interest in it either. It is YOU who keeps going on about it.


          3. Talking of an accelerated moral education:
            “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it, a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak: a vindictive bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser: a misogynistic, homophobic racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, meglommaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully”. Discuss.

          4. Actually Keith, you haven’t, you keep avoiding the questions you’re clearly unable to answer without making even more of a twit of yourself. Don’t think it hasn’t been noted.
            Bless. Some acceleration certainly is needed.

      2. Deeside Will 22 Aug 2011, 1:57pm

        Cain also murdered his brother Abel. But that was O.K., and it was very unreasonble of God to get stroppy with him over it, because he did it before God’s law on murder was instituted.

        1. Cain was endowed with a conscience , as are all humans. Did YOU have to be told it was wrong to murder?
          Back when the human population had been given a mandate to populate the earth and there was no danger from genetic abnormality, it would not have been wrong to marry a close relative. God instituted the law further on in the human race as protection from genetic defect.

          1. But that would mean that same sex incest would be ok.. yes? Once again your argument is turning on itself to question why you don’t like incest.

          2. Deeside Will 22 Aug 2011, 3:27pm

            No, Keith, I didn’t have to be told that it was wrong to murder. I didn’t have to be told that it would have been wrong to have sex with my sister, either. And how do YOU know that there was no danger of genetic abnormality back then, especially since all this took place AFTER the mythical “Fall of Man”? That’s just pure ad hoc surmise. Not that it really matters, since the whole of Genesis is merely ancient Jewish mythology. But by agreeing that Cain’s wife must have been his sister, you have conceded that in one instance, at any rate, the Bible DOES condone incest, thereby negating your previous assertion that it never does.

        2. Speaking of a time line, does anybody have any dates?

          For example, when exactly did God create the world and humanity?

  46. keith, I noticed you said above that sex is OK between a man and a woman in marriage.

    As you’ve previously explained to us that you’ve never been to church apart from for some funerals, are we to presume that you’re not married?

    1. I have previously stated that I am married though what does that have to do with church?

      1. Jock S. Trap 22 Aug 2011, 1:10pm

        Indeed and what has Civil Marriage got to do with the church?

      2. keith, I asked because you’ve stated that you follow the bible as a moral guide – yet you didn’t get married in a church.

        I personally have no problem with that but many, many people who follow the bible like you, would only consider marriage in a church to be marriage under god and anything else to be not true marriage – ie adultery/fornication/what you will.

        I’m sure you wouldn’t like them judging and labelling you as an adulterer or fornicator, so why would you presume to label us?

        1. I don;’t really care if people want to call me or label me anything. What matters more to me is whether it is true.
          I am not labelling or accusing any one person of being an adulterer or fornicator. I am saying that homosexual practices are fornication as is sex aoutside marriage. Bothh are condemned in the bible. It is a difference of opinion. Some are offended that many concur with the bible but people are free moral agents and have the right to hold a moral viewpoint and to attack opposing views. i welcome such attacks as an opportunity to state my case.

          1. Well you’ve stated your case now Fu<k off

          2. OK, keith. But ‘true’ as used by you there is wholly debatable. If someone wasn’t married in a church, many Christians would say that person was a fornicator and state that that was the truth, according to the bible. You also use the bible (wrongly, I believe) to state that gay people are fornicators. I’d hope that you can see the irony in that.

            We all understand what you’re saying and you’re entitled to think what you like. But why do you keep saying it on Pink News?

  47. “Elsewhere you have rejected some of the laws listed at Leviticus by saying you’re not a Jew”
    The statutes that were specifically for the Jews and Converts were abolished at Jesus death (Galatians 3:19) which reads” Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive”
    The Bible shows this results from persons having ‘the law written in their hearts.’ Those not under a direct law from God, such as the Law given through Moses, are shown to be “a law to themselves,” for their consciences cause them to be “accused or even excused” in their own thoughts. (Ro 2:14, 15)
    Of course all persons are under moral law such as ‘you must not murder’ despite this law.being given to the Jews. Conscience can be a good guide or a poor one, depending upon the knowledge and training of the individual. (1Ti 1:5; Heb 5:14) One’s conscience can be defiled and, therefore, can mislead. (Tit 1:15

    1. Yet YOUR conscience leads you to denigrate gay people – even though there is no passage in the bible condemning two adults of the same sex who are in a consensual relationship.

      Why, keith?

      1. I am condemning the act. It is not for me to judge the person.
        Hebrews 13:4 reads…
        “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.”..
        Homosexuals are fornicators so even without the passages that condemn “men who lie with men” homosexuality is detestable to God , as is fornication.

        1. Then let us marry and its all gravy

          1. Marriage is and always was defined as the union of a man and a woman. regardless, the command nfor men not to lie with men is clear.

          2. So unmarried men who have sex with other men are fornicators, which is wrong (to you); but men can’t marry men. Wow. Your capacity for logic passeth all understanding.

          3. “Marriage is and always was defined as the union of a man and a woman.” Wrong the definition of marriage only being between a man and a women is a fairly new thing. In Roman times Same sex marriage was common place (even when the christianity became the major religion it took them about 350 years to forbid it) and even then same sex marriage was practiced in spain for example as recently as 1061.

          4. Jock S. Trap 22 Aug 2011, 2:49pm

            “Marriage is and always was defined as the union of a man and a woman.”

            Wrong. It has been hijacked by religion. Civil Marriage has nothing to do with religion.

          5. Right on, Hamish.. although there is evidence of same-sex christian marriage liturgy, complete with the names of the grooms, etc. right up to the 14th century..

            See –

            “Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe” by John Boswell, 1994

            “”Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality – Gay people in western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century”, by John Boswell, 1980, University of Chicago Press

          6. Hmm 14th century now that is recent I wonder how Keith and his Marriage stealing religion will deal with that :P

          7. Jock S. Trap 22 Aug 2011, 3:16pm

            He blames religion for his bigotry but can’t see that we all just see his own hatred, no-one elses.

      2. Let alone in what the poor fellow refers to as “the direct law from God”.

        1. (That was to follow Iris’s comment.)

      3. @ Iris
        “there is no passage in the bible condemning two adults of the same sex who are in a consensual relationship.”

        Leviticus 18:4 reads…
        “‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD”
        Since it says no one, this would include consenting adults!.

        1. My girlfriend is not in any way related to me, keith, so what’s your problem?

          1. if she was related, why would it be immoral (not unlawful) in your opinion? Remember, if you invoke the ‘law’, I will remind you that homosexuality is also against the law in many places..
            the law aside, do you believe it (consensual incest) immoral?

          2. Because I cannot conceive ever fancying a relative, keith. Obvious really, so why do YOU keep going on and on about incest?? No-one here wants to do it – YOU’RE the one harping on and on about it.

            Can you think of nothing but sex and the bible?

          3. And you totally failed to see my point – your quote was about RELATIVES having sex. That has no bearing on me and my girlfriend because she’s not my relative!

            More incest obsession, it seems.

        2. Jock S. Trap 22 Aug 2011, 2:54pm

          Exactly, my partner isn’t a relative either so no problem.

          Funny how Iris wasn’t talking about relatives but Keith can’t help himself.

        3. “Leviticus 18:4 reads…”

          And I quote: The statutes that were specifically for the Jews and Converts were abolished at Jesus death (Galatians 3:19) which reads” Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive”

          1. Jesus said he came to “fulfill the law”. In a nutshell this means retaining the moral parts and ditching the ceremonial parts
            Matthew 5:17

          2. How convenient for you. You really make it up as you go along, don’t you?

          3. Indeed he does. We are to assume he didn’t get married in a church and thus he himself is a fornicator, yet apparently keith can ignore that bit. Presumably along with any other parts of the bible that don’t suit him.

    2. Deeside Will 22 Aug 2011, 2:30pm

      Keith, your distinction between different kinds of laws in Leviticus, although long popular among biblical fundamentalists, is both factitious and fraudulent, and will not survive any intelligent reading of the actual text. There are no paragraph headings saying, “The following laws are specifically for Jews” or “The following laws are binding on everyone”. On the contrary, there are repeated reminders that ALL the laws are commands of Yahweh, and that ALL are to be rigorously obeyed. Gruesome divine punishments are threatened for those who do not observe EACH ONE of the Levitical laws (Lev. 26:14-16).

      If the so-called Mosaic Law no longer applies to Christians, it cannot be logically be appealed to as an authority for condemning gay sex (or as the basis for moral judgements on anything else, for that matter).

      “Is it not far better and wiser to say that the Pentateuch while containing some good laws, some truths, some wise and useful things is, after all, deformed and blackened by the savagery of its time?” (Robert G. Ingersoll) Yes, of course it is.

      1. Jock S. Trap 22 Aug 2011, 2:55pm

        I think they get these from the Bibical ‘Pick ‘n’ Mix’ at their local Woolies, sorry they’ve gone Hoolies.

  48. @Iris
    “The vast, vast, majority of ALL people – straight AND gay – do NOT approve of incest or paedophilia.”

    Apparently you are wrong because you allappear to be saying that it is nobodies business what sexual act consenting adults get up to!

    Muat dash for a few hours.

    1. Yes, but WITHIN THE LAW, keith. Neither having incestuous sex nor sex with children is legal in the UK.

      You’re either facetious or malicious to keep on misunderstanding that.

      1. And – before you say it – I do NOT want either of those to be legal.

        1. And while you’re away, let me just fil in your argument for you, because it’ll save time:- and how do I know that that’s ‘right’ without having the bible as my moral guide?

          No-one needs some old book to have morals. Most people would think it patently obvious that it’s wrong to murder, steal, etc etc etc without having to wait for some special book to tell them.

          If the bible didn’t exist, keith, would you think all those things were OK then?

          1. I agree with you, Iris.

            I think there is just no basis to the claims that we can’t be good without god.

            The boot should be placed on the other foot – God can often be used to justify what most humans consider morally wrong.

          2. Jock S. Trap 22 Aug 2011, 3:14pm


            Exactly. Common sense is key for those who have their own minds.

          3. With God, anything can be permitted.

            For example, recently in Afghanistan we had the sight of two sets of protesters opposing each other but both chanting “God is great.”

            Women protesting at ‘pro-rape’ law attacked by Afghan men:


            video: Afghan women protest against marriage law:


            Obviously both the women who were opposing new legislation limiting their sexual and human rights, and the men who were supporting the legislation (and opposing the sexual and human rights of women), thought they had their “God on their side.”

          4. …er …oh..oh.. is it OK if I leave the world of pure moral concepts and offer an example from real life.. ???

          5. @Iris
            “Most people would think it patently obvious that it’s wrong to murder, steal, etc etc etc without having to wait for some special book to tell them.

            If the bible didn’t exist, keith, would you think all those things were OK then?”

            No, the god given conscience tells you that. It is writtten in the bible just as governments now have written law . I suppose you don’t need government telling you you shouldn’t steal or murder either do you?

            “If the bible didn’t exist, keith, would you think all those things were OK then?”
            No, I would not, but I would not know whether abortion, euthanasia, suicide, patriotism , war, etc etc and other polarizing issues were ok without God’s word.

          6. Jock S. Trap 23 Aug 2011, 10:28am

            Prehaps thats the difference then Keith, we’re intelligent enough to make our own minds up whereas your clearly not.

      2. Jock S. Trap 22 Aug 2011, 2:57pm

        It’s clear what Keith want is someone to agree with him so he can then tell us all over again how we’re immoral. This is the only reason he keeps banging on about it, trying to get us to say what he wants to smear us.

        1. Absolutely – and what kind of person would want to do that? No matter whether it’s Christian or not – it’s simply not very nice.

        2. One should derive one’s understanding from reality rather than dogma.

          1. August 22, 1662 – on this date a leader of the Mexican Inquisition sent a letter to his supervisors in Spain complaining that the severe punishments given to sodomites had been ineffective.

            He noted that over 100 had been indicted, that a large number of the offenders were clergy, and that torture had been used to extract confessions.

            (One man was tortured to the point of confessing to sex with forty men, several mules, and some chickens.)

      3. If the law is your moral guide, incest is lawful in many lands and homosexual acts are a criminal offence and punishable by death in some cases. Furthermore , it was only in in the 80s it was allowed in Britain..
        Now that your position has changed to whatever sexual practices consenting adults do within the law, they are moral and outside of the law they are immoral. Do you realize that your own criteria states that the homosexuals of Uganda are immoral?

        1. Jock S. Trap 23 Aug 2011, 10:31am

          Actually it was 1967 dear.

          The rest of your comment is absolute codswallop too.

    2. Aww Keith has your rent boy arrived.

      We’ll miss you :(

      1. No, we won’t!

        1. Jock S. Trap 22 Aug 2011, 2:59pm

          Just wish he’d fvck off perminently!

        2. I agree, Rehan :) keith’s had his say and is entitled to live his life how he wants, within the law, of course, but he’s obviously slightly insecure about his decisions if he feels the need to come on Pink News and justify himself – and so many times too :D

          1. Jock S. Trap 22 Aug 2011, 3:03pm

            I question your use of the word ‘slightly’! :)

          2. I think probably massively insecure I wonder if his wife knows what he does all day at home on the computer

          3. Jock S. Trap 22 Aug 2011, 3:11pm

            She’ll suspect something, why else would whole boxes of tissues keep disappearing and the loo always blocked up.

          4. ” keith’s had his say” – alas, Iris, over and over and over again! (And it’s no more interesting now than at the beginning.)

  49. “God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.”

    Ok, keith – but nowhere does god say that two non-related adults of the same sex having a relationship is immoral. YOU have said that. You’ve decided that gay people are immoral and thus you see that the bible ‘condemns’ us. BUT it only does because YOU have already decided in advance that we’re immoral.

    Using your logic, anyone could prove anyone else immoral.

    1. Jock S. Trap 22 Aug 2011, 3:10pm

      I think the fact he is nit picking so much that your having to word things bit by bit perfectly for him to understand show he is nothing more than a mindless simpleton.

      I made sure my son was not taught Religious education or the Bible until he was old enough to make his own decisions on the matter and Keith and his ilk are the very reason why.

      Thankfully when he was old enough he did read and research and decided he was better making his own mind up about things.

      All thanks to not being allowed to be taught hatred, bigotry and discrimination.

      It’s the discrimination and bigotry of religion that made him realise he wanted to study law and become a Human Rights lawyer and in a way I have bigotted people like Keith for helping him make that decision.

      1. Jock S. Trap 22 Aug 2011, 3:13pm

        should have read bigotted people like Keith to thank for … on last line.

      2. I personally think kids should learn about religion but not in this golden light that religion is taught in, by the religious. It should be taught with merely facts and not just from one religions angle but holding all religions values (and atheist values) equally.

        1. Using the authority of a god to sanction the moral code is part of the rationalising process, i.e. manipulating logical arguments to produce the wanted conclusion.

        2. Jock S. Trap 23 Aug 2011, 10:33am

          Exactly, Hamish. Thats what I wanted for my son but on his own terms, when he was old enough to decide for himself.

    2. Of course it does. Firstly it says fornicators will be judged. You cannot have same sex marriage without fornicating. Secondly, the bible condemns same sex relations in males and females .
      Romans 1:24-27…
      “Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
      They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.
      That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.
      In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

      1. Jock S. Trap 23 Aug 2011, 10:36am

        As much as you try, you can never make excuses for your own bigotry and hate.

        This is who YOU, who YOU are and not what some book tells you.

      2. Dear oh dear, keith. Fornicators? We’ve already been through this – LGBT people are not fornicators in most people’s opinions. As I said before, some people would consider YOU a fornicator. They’re entitled to their view but that doesn’t make them correct, right? Same with you regarding us.

        As for Romans – your translation is sorely lacking and very biased. Read the original and then you’d realise it says that the women turned against their OWN nature (not Nature) – ie straight women had gay sex and vice versa. And the ‘indecent acts’ you wrote is NOT what the Greek says. Just like your quoting of the word ‘homosexual’ elsewhere was an incorrect translation of the bible.

        Swap your US fundie bible for a less prejudiced version.

        1. If someone wishes to accuse me of fornication, on which authority would that be. Everything I say is from the authority of the bible and is checkable. personal opinions have no value to me. I accept criticism of my views if it is founded in the bible that is all. No other views are truthful, relevant or important to me.
          As I have already exposed you fallacious morality which relies on prevailing governmental law and therefore sanctions homosexual death sentences in Uganda (and other lands), not to mention that it is changeable with the law, I cannot treat anything you say seriously.
          I am happy to use any trabnslation you choose however to justify my bible based views oon homosexuality. Did you have one in mind?

        2. If someone wishes to accuse me of fornication, on which authority would that be. Everything I say is from the authority of the bible and is checkable. personal opinions have no value to me. I accept criticism of my views if it is founded in the bible that is all. No other views are truthful, relevant or important to me.
          As I have already exposed you fallacious morality which relies on prevailing governmental law and therefore sanctions homosexual death sentences in Uganda (and other lands), not to mention that it is changeable with the law, I cannot treat anything you say seriously.
          I am happy to use any translation you choose however to justify my bible based views oon homosexuality. Did you have one in mind?

  50. 500 comments responding to the troll you bunch of idiots

    1. *shuffles off in embarrassment*

      1. He probally has a wank while reading the comments

      2. he probally has a five finger shuffle while he reads them

  51. gay zebra finches, = 560 comments? WTF.

  52. We are a naturally a moral and intelligent species.

    Our leaders and our thinkers have been able to move beyond social constraints, access ideas of objective morality, and apply moral logic.

    In other words, we have been able to produce documents such as an international moral code, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    1. Jonopol
      Regarding human rights. Do you think that a father and son should the human right to have have consensual incest without fear of punishment, and is it a moral or immoral act?

  53. My conclusion in this lengthy thread is that the homosexuals on here that have commented, hold that morality is to be determined by the individual. Therefore, if an individual believes that homosexuality is immoral, they are not ‘wrong’ by those standards, so why are people trying to correct thinking(beliefe that homosexuality is immoral) that is not wrong in the first?place?

      When Keith asserts that homosexuals are predominantly paedophiles, and claims that this has been reported in academic Journals, what Keith does in a rather coy way, is avoid telling you what Journals he is referring to.
      Keith is actually referring to published research by the discredited psychologist Paul Cameron. Dr Cameron was thrown out of the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1983.
      So how did Paul Cameron publish his research linking homosexuality and Paedophilia? Simple, he set up the four Journals below by gathering together like minded thinkers. Universally known as the Cameron Group.
      Journal of Psychology & Theology
      Psychological Reports
      Journal of Psychology
      Omega: Journal of Death & Dying
      The Journals above are universally ignored by the academic world

      1. Thanks for this, JohnK…

        ‘… Cameron’s credibility was also questioned outside of academia.

        In his written opinion in Baker v. Wade (1985), Judge Buchmeyer of the U.S. District Court of Dallas referred to “Cameron’s sworn statement that ‘homosexuals abuse children at a proportionately greater incident than do heterosexuals,'” and concluded that “Dr. Paul Cameron…has himself made misrepresentations to this Court” and that “There has been no fraud or misrepresentations except by Dr. Cameron” ‘

        Paul Cameron is well-known to the gay community, esp at BTB.

        But what kind of a person would use Cameron’s misrepresentations of the professional research of the University of Nebraska to antagonize the LGBT community?

        That would be bullying, wouldn’t it?

        1. I have not mentioned the guty in a single post neither have I ever heard of him until YOU mentione him!
          What was that you said about misrepresentation?
          I see the level that posters are willing to stoop to now to save face. Lies, falsehood, subterfuge, misrepresentation etc.

      2. As for Cameron’s impact on the academic world:

        “All of the journals used by the Cameron group were in the lower half of the rankings and, in many cases, near the bottom.

        For those journals, the impact factors were substantially less than 1.0, meaning that the average article published in them was not cited at all in the two years after its initial publication.”

        Sounds like a bottom-feeder’s delight… only a pompous and desperate fraud would use Cameron’s journals.

      3. Dr. Paul Cameron on Phil Donahue Show – YouTube:

  54. @Jonopol
    “God can often be used to justify what most humans consider morally wrong.”
    Yes ,but those humans may be in error.
    Also, what would you use to justify what some humans consider morally wrong that you do not?

    1. Keith
      Drop the platitudes and respond like a Gentleman to my Paul Cameron links, unless you have no dignity and no honour?

      1. To be honest I have no interest in defending that view since it will be an exercise in futility with articles posted back and forward all day with no absolute proof either way. For that reason, I am happy to concede that my statement that most homosexuals are paedophiles is unproven.
        My main purpose and what drives me to post on here is to respond to bigotry, intolerance, Christianophobia and general misinformation about the bible and God as known in the bible.
        I also seek to address the notion of perceived in equality wherby the proponents set themselves up as victims when they ARE equal. The establishment of ridiculous
        discriminatory organizations such as the Gay Polce Association, Gay
        Pilots Association , Gay Builders Association etce etc on and on yet,
        the set up of their heterosexual counterparts would cause uproar.
        The attempts at social engineering nd curtailment of peoples right to hate what they perceive to be bad or sinful

        1. Keith wrote
          “For that reason, I am happy to concede that my statement that most homosexuals are paedophiles is unproven.”
          Keith it is now time for you to leave, unless you have no dignity and no honour!!!

          1. Not at all. I was not quoting cameron as you implied . Also, it is not disproved either. I merely am not interested in pursuing that line.

          2. It’s important to have accurate statistics when reporting on serious crime.

          3. Keith
            I can see that your “Life style Choice” of lies deceit and misinformation, does not allow you any dignity or honour.
            When you have written to the following about your concerns:
            Gay Polce Association,
            GayPilots Association
            Gay Builders Association
            Let us know their response!!!!

  55. I reckon a lot of you are masochists and get off replying to Keith. you think you can change his opinion and get him to love you. You bunch of spineless punks

    1. Jock S. Trap 23 Aug 2011, 10:40am

      I’ve let homophobes get on with it too many times in my life, ignored them until eventually the ignoring turned to extreme acts that force me from my home.

      Am I going to ignore them again? no way.

      We are entitled to fight bigotry and homophobia.

    2. @James
      I reckon, you need to look at your glaring contradiction.

    3. Staircase2 23 Aug 2011, 5:59pm

      How is them trying to change someone’s opinion making them into ‘spineless punks’?

      Something suggests to me its not really you!

      I also suggest that the best way to shut Keith up is to write really nice things about gay people and log in with the name ‘Keith’….

      1. Thusly:

        I think gay men and women are lovely – I think God clearly loves us all equally without reservation (how do I know this? ….The Bible tells me so)

        I would like to apologise unreservedly for all the pain, heartache and distress I have caused any of you due to my malice, spite and thorough lack of knowledge about God, Jesus and the Bible.

        I have said things I shouldn’t because I was weak and self absorbed. I have written things in anger and taken The Lord’s name(s) in vain.

        Once again, I sincerely apologise and suggest that the best way for me to make it up to you is to encourage you to all write your own pro-gay comments using my name to log in.

        God Bless

        1. Staircase2 23 Aug 2011, 6:04pm


          Wasn’t that better?

          Well done, Keith! It wasn’t that hard now was it…..

  56. Deeside will wrotte”’
    “There are no paragraph headings saying, “The following laws are specifically for Jews” or “The following laws are binding on everyone”

    Matt. 5:17, 21, 23, 27, 31, 38: “Do not think I came to abolish the Law I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill.” Jesus included in his further comments. “You heard that it said to those of old , ‘You must not murder [Ex. 20:13; the Sixth Commandment]’ . . . If, then, you bring your gift to the altar [Deut. 16:16, 17; no part of the Ten Commandments] . . . You heard that it was said, ‘You must not commit adultery [Ex. 20:14; the Seventh Commandment].’ Moreover it was said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce [Deut. 24:1; no part of the Ten Commandments].’ You heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth [Ex. 21:23-25; no part of the Ten Commandments].’” (Jesus mixed references to the Ten Commandments and other parts of the law making no distinction between them)

    1. Deeside Will 23 Aug 2011, 8:36pm

      Precisely, Keith. “…making NO distinction between them”.

      1. This is the point I have been making elsewhere on the site where I was accused of invoking Jewish law when it suits. Jesus arrival was the end of the Jewish ceremonial law but the moral law still applied to ALL persons.
        Nobody (including Jews) would have to get circumcised or observe the Sabbath anymore (ceremonial law) however, the commands not to covet, murder or have same sex relations etc etc (moral law) still applied to ALL.

  57. Universal Declaration of Human Rights –

    1. …that all men are created equal… (Romans 1:20-21; Galatians 3:28)

      …that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights… (Romans 8:35-39)

  58. @JONPOL
    “It’s important to have accurate statistics when reporting on serious crime.”

    paedophilia is not a crime..(rolls eyes)!

  59. @ Iis
    “Swap your US fundie bible for a less prejudiced version.”
    name a translation and I will use it. Makes no difference to me.but it will expose your weak argument.

    1. The above post is FAO Iris .

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.