Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Brighton football supporters urge FA to tackle anti-gay chants

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. What do they plan to do employ lip readers? Voicing ones opinion regarding sexual orientation is not unlawful. It is only when incitement to hatred is invoked does it become criminal. Deal with it tossers!

    1. Homophobia kills. Fact. And that’s something no-one should ever have to deal with.

      1. Spanner1960 31 Oct 2011, 3:50pm

        Unfortunately, you are both right. It is not illegal to be homophobic, but homophobia can have lethal consequences.
        However, this is not a matter of law. If a supporter chooses to hurl malicious remarks, then have them thrown out of the grounds and their season tickets revoked if they have one.

        1. @Spanner1960

          Regardless of ones opinion of public order laws etc – which have been debated ad infinitum on PN, there is another good reason for criminal prosecution when it is regards football chanting.

          If a fan commits a criminal offence such as racist chanting in a football ground, then the court can issue them with a football banning order which effectively bans them from all Premiership and Football League grounds for a season, a number of years or life.

          Whilst a club can rescind a season ticket and potentially bar individuals from their home matches, they have no control over away matches or matches at other clubs.

          1. Spanner1960 1 Nov 2011, 1:45pm

            Yup. Sounds fair to me. Taking away their toys is the only way these morons can comprehend that others disapprove.

    2. @Keith

      I imagine the police will deal with it in a very similar manner to how they have successfully (on some occasions) tackled racist chanting in football crowds

      Here is an example:

      http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/at-a-glance/main-section/mixed_race_leeds_fan_banned_for_racial_slurs_at_man_utd_crowd_1_3851448

    3. Keith, You are a vile pig!

  2. No. It is weapons and violence that kill. Homophobia is perfectly legal a state of mind and it does not follow that you are a killer if you are homophobicusually based on hatred of disgusting immoral practices that spread killer disease. It is right that people should have a phobia against such unnatural perversions.
    Actually, phobia is an irrational aversion or hatred ohf something. Since homosexuality is harmful and immoral, on that basis, hatred of homosexuality can be rationalized. However, thegay brigade being the bigotted innorals that they are will continue to misapply his word.

    1. Spanner1960 31 Oct 2011, 3:55pm

      So don’t bleat when people equally have a pop at the church and it’s false idols and writings.
      Homophobia is no less moral than attacking a person for having a different skin colour to you. It is a) not their fault, and b) there is nothing they can do about it.
      Or are you the sort of sick cretin that points and laughs at cripples, because what you state here amounts to much the same thing.
      You really are a nasty piece of work and I hope your heart fills with cancerous cells and you die a slow, lingering and painful death before you disappear to the black void beyond it.

      1. @Spanner1960

        Given Keiths behaviour on these threads, I strongly suspect he calls disabled people “cripples”. I can not see any evidence of anything warm, anything human or any sense of responsibility eminating from any comment he had ever made on PN that I have seen.

        He is a nasty piece of work.

        Not sure I would support your last comments, but Keith is evil personified (in my book)

        1. You cannot see a difference between racism , disability and homosexuality.???
          FGS!!!
          Racism is unscriptural and immoral (Acts 10:34-34 says god is not partial)
          Disability is not a moral issue. Disability simply is. To mock the diabled would be unscriptural and hateful.
          Homosexuality acts on the other hand are something a person choose to do, like consensual male incest. They are a condemned in the bible and like all other immoral practices, such acts are to be hated.
          Paslms 97:10 says to hate what is bad.
          Please do not lump the gay brigade in with the disabled as it is disingenious and incompatible since there is no moral mandate to hate disability nor is there a moral mandate to hate or consider inferior another race.
          opefully, this will educate you in this matter since you repeat the same old misunderstandings regularly.

          1. Spanner1960 31 Oct 2011, 5:25pm

            You still retain this bizarre notion that being gay is a choice. Do you seriously think people would choose a way of life just to have to suffer the rabid rants of people such as yourself, and much worse?

          2. Keith

            If you are so unaware that you can not see the inaccuracy and bigotry in your own comments, then to be frank you wouldnt know disingenuity if it came and slapped you in the face with a dildo and shouted “Hi I’m Mr disingenuity!”.

            The fact is that people just are homosexual, it is not a choice, it is a factor they were born with.

            When did you choose your sexuality?

            So on the point of disability and racism, yes they are also strands of diversity – as is sexual orientation, and all are afforded protection under the law of England & Wales and Scotland. So , like it or lump matey it is both a legal and moral issue.

            There are no misunderstandings, only speaking facts (which many of us on PN do) or bigotry (which is your forte).

            The Bible is irrelevant in how most people live their lives, and constant chuntering on about it makes it even more irrelevant.

            God (if he/she exists) would be impartial I would hope, and that would include on sexual orientation. Bad Keith!

      2. I am all for having a pop at the church. never have I said otherwise. Bring on the religiophobia I say.
        The Church is a snare and a racket and is far removed from any biblical teachings.

        1. So you follow the Bible, hate homosexuals, are obsessed with faeces, think you should spend lots of quality time (as a non-homosexual) on gay news sites, don’t like church, and encourage religiophobia and homophobia …
          Sounds like the make up of another David Copeland … perhaps you should see a doctor …

      3. I may get cancer, many do, you may. I will not be getting HIV any time soon though. Want to know the secret?

        1. Spanner1960 31 Oct 2011, 5:24pm

          We already know; nobody would want to have sex with an arsewipe like you.

        2. Never thought of it this way …

          By alienating most people (gays, church members etc etc) you won’t catch HIV by sexual means – because no one will touch you with a barge pole, let alone an intimate part of their anatomy …

          Strange manner of adopting safe sex – but if it works for you …

    2. Homosexuality is not harmful or immoral, only bigoted and obsessed people would see life in that way.

      1. Neither are guns harmful. However when guns are employed they are harmful. When homosexuality is employed (buggering) it is harmful since it spreads HIV.

        1. Spanner1960 31 Oct 2011, 5:26pm

          All you can see about homosexuality is the sex. I havent had sex in years, but I am still gay.

        2. Your honour,

          I present this thread along with other threads as demonstration of the obsession that Keith has with homosexuality, HIV and faeces as evidence into this mental health tribunal

          I rest my case.

          Judge: Send Keith down!

        3. Homosexual sex can spread HIV – but only if one or both of the partners have HIV

          If they are not carriers of the virus they can not pass it on …

          Thus, homosexual sex does not equate to HIV transmission – despite your best efforts to suggest this is the case – your argument is bigoted, wrong, and deranged.

      2. By your standards then , Consensual adult male incest is not harmful. is this a true and correct statement?

        1. Strawman

          I’m not about to get involved in a ridiculous argument like the one you propose – only obsessed people would adopt such a risible argument

          1. Coward. You have consistently avoided this question, the answer to which will expose the failure of your subjective moral code.

          2. No, I have avoided a strawman comment – it is irrelevant to this thread

            Happily debate it with you in an appropriate forum, where your debased comments do not detract from the reasonable theme of the thread

        2. Spanner1960 1 Nov 2011, 1:52pm

          You reply to an argument by offering an alternative argument in its place. (Straw Man)
          You answer the proper question, and stop trying to deflect it with another question.

    3. Daniel In Israel 11 Nov 2011, 8:25pm

      Is this guy for real!?

  3. He will tell you who is behind the anti gay chants, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaB1I3K82eE&feature=related

  4. The worlds religious dictator behind the anti gay movement, http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=izGbePmYYcA

  5. i go to football and enjoy the chanting..The homophobic chanting is aimed at Brighton not at idividuals.Should the 50% of Brighton fans who stand up cause they hate Crystal Palace be banned.Some of the chanting at the referee or Linesman which is aimed at them individually is much worse.

    1. Spanner1960 1 Nov 2011, 1:56pm

      Why do you “hate” any team? They are just a bunch of blokes kicking a ball about.
      This has damn all to do with sport and everything to do with tribalism. It’s balcks vs whites, gays vs straights, cats vs dogs.
      You really need to grow up.

  6. the chanting is aimed at brighton not individuals.Opposing teams fans make up some very amusing chants about each other and I for one am happy to smile about them.should the fans who stand up because they hate Crystal Palace be banned.The abuse hurled at the ref and linesman(individuals doing their job)is much worse.

    1. Racist chanting has been targetted to entire groups of fans before …

      Doesnt make it any more acceptable whether it targets an individual or a group

      Likewise for homophobic chanting

      1. homophobic chanting is no different than anti incest chanting or anti abortion chanting. Some people are disgusted by immorality and badness.

        1. Well if you go to football grounds and engage in anti incest chanting, then you will be the first – Imagine in many clubs you would also be putting your personal safety at risk too.

          Get real, you infatuation with pushing obsessed bigoted and polarised views about homosexuality that are false and untrue would be hilarious, if it were not for the likellihood that it were caused by mental health problems. You have my deepest sympathy.

          Now, go and see the doctor – your comments are not relevant of these threads

          1. May people disagree with racism on moral grounds, even though racism is leag al a mental inclination. If they chanted anti racism slogans at football grounds few would condemn it.
            Many people disagree with homosexuality on moral grounds. If they chant anti homosexuality slogans at football grounds they are no different than those that chant anti racism slogans.
            On which authority do you claim that these ‘chanters’ are immoral? Where is this writtenand why should you compel people to observe your own individual set of values when you have previously stated that you do not impose your values on others?

          2. @Keith

            Firstly, racism is illegal in English law, as is homophobia (if they are directed in a particular manner).

            Having been a police officer at premiership football matches, I can tell you that your proposition that few would complain about racist chanting is incorrect. Every racist chanting arrest I was aware of at the games I was involved in policing, either resulted from a complaint within the crowd, or was backed up with non-police statements.

            Some people do indeed disagree with homosexuality on moral grounds (I believe their morality is the one which should be held in question – but they are entitled to their private views).

            Given that numerous arrests are made for racist chanting, and that the FA have publically condemned both racist and homophobic chanting – they fact that some people have strange moral views regarding homosexuality does not make their beliefs ones that should be supported in law. Homophobic chanting should be dealt with robustly by law enforcement.

          3. As for authoirty …

            In terms of racist and homophobic chanting, I would rely on a mix of English law, policies of the Football Association and natural justice. I don’t need to be blinkered by some mystical supreme being in order to be able to determine right and wrong.

            I am subject to English law when in England and thus I expect others to adhere to it.

            I am subject to FA regulations if I attend a football match in England, and I expect others to adhere to them.

            I (as a human being) am able to determine natural justice, and I expect other humans to have a sense of perspective, honesty and transparency. Unfortunately, I am often disappointed in the manner some people are unethical, immoral (despite, like you, constantly claiming to live to a higher standard – those people disappoint the most).

          4. Wow. With logic like that, Keith, I can see why you have to spend your time trolling on gay websites to get attention.

          5. Spanner1960 1 Nov 2011, 1:59pm

            Keith “If they chanted anti racism slogans at football grounds few would condemn it.”
            That is utter CRAP! People have been sent to prison for precisely that. It is totally antisocial and unacceptable to shout insults at other people. I thought that was a lesson most of us learned in infant school.

  7. @Stu.
    racism is perfectly legal ya numpty. So is homophobia. there is no such offence as racism as it is a mindset and the thought police are not empowered yet thankfully!
    . Racism is defined as a belief in inherent racial superiority. Go into any police station and tell them you believe in inherent racial superiority and they not be able to arrest you.
    To amuse me further, please state the act that makes racism a criminal offence, not incitement to race hate as that is incitement which is criminal. Merely racism alone is what I wish you to show as a criminal offence.

    1. Racism and homophobia in themselves are legal.

      Racial chanting and homophobic chanting are not.

      I suggest you explore the following legislation:
      Football (offences) Act 1991
      (specific references to racist and indecent chanting as offences)
      Football offences and disorder Act 1999
      Crime and Disorder Act 1998
      Part III Public Order Act 1986
      Protection from Harassment Act 1997
      Criminal Justice Act 2003

      Indeed the Ministry of Justice issue this comment on crowd behaviour and other football offences in their prosecution policy:
      “We recognise, as do the overwhelming majority of decent fans, that there is a place for humour in football but where the line between humour and offensive behaviour is crossed then positive action will be taken. We will also take firm action against those guilty of ticket touting which will include an application for a FBO.”

      1. Furthermore, it is not just England & Wales that have hate crime legislation to protect society. This is common legislation throughout the entire UK, throughout the EU and beyond.

        The following countries have legislation that protects on some or all matters relating to racism, homophobia and other forms of discrimation:

        All EU countries
        Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Georgia, Iceland, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Canada, USA, Brazil

        Admittedly there are varying elements that are covered, but your initial disingenuous suggestion that racism and homophobia are legal is brought into question when you consider that acting on those prejudices and bigoted thoughts can lead to prosecution in many countries (and not just those I have listed).

      2. I ask again that you name th e act that makes racism a crime, Not incitement to race hate. You said ‘racism’ is a crime and you are wrong. Neither is homophobia a criime.
        name one person that has been convicted of racism or homophobia?
        Both are thoughts and beliefs and you cannot criminalize thought….yet

        1. Read my reply to you above is clearly states “Racism and homophobia are in themselves legal”

          Suggest you learn to read before chuntering on …

          Plenty of people have been convicted of putting racism and homophobia into action

          1. Also read my post before that which pointed out racism and homophobia are illegal (if they are directed in a particular way)

            You might like to think you can twist my words to suit your idiotic and depraved mind, but if you do – I shall happily clarify,and to be fair – most people of PN know you are a sanctimonious, bigoted idiot

  8. @ Spanner
    I said few would condemn the chanting of ‘ANTI racist slogans’ not racist slogans. You are saying that people have been to prison for chanting anti racist slogans.. Name one person.. Most people agreee with anti racist sentiment since racism should be condemned. You are obviously a racist apologist.

  9. @Stu
    I (as a human being) am able to determine natural justice, and I expect other humans to have a sense of perspective, honesty and transparency. Unfortunately, I am often disappointed in the manner some people are unethical, immoral (despite, like you, constantly claiming to live to a higher standard – those people disappoint the most).
    Since I dont’t subscribe to your moral views and they are rooted merely in human laws which change with the wind. I will dismiss your criticism, especially since you claim you don’t impose your (changeable) values on anyone else! If you live d in Malawi would you still subscribe to th morality of law. Probably not since it doesn’t suit you. As I said…changeable!
    Since your morals are rooted in law, would it be correct to say in Malawi , treatment of homosexuals is moral.
    Also, where do you stand on consensual male incest, moral or immoral?

    1. In what possible way is this babble relevant to the article under discussion?

    2. As Rehan rightly says – babble …

      If you are in England, you are required to comply with English law … that includes you Keith, whether you like it or not …

      If I lived in Malawi, I would endeavour to comply with Malawian law, and campaign to change anything I felt was unfair, immoral and unequal.

      I served as a police officer and enforced laws I do not agree with – that is what I was paid to do. I wrote to my MP and others to protest at the unfairness of some of the laws I disputed as being appropriate and also was part of groups that sought to pressurize government to change – sometimes successfully.

      So I see no problem, in carrying my values and implicit sense of natural justice to another jurisdiction (accepting that the law of the land may differ). My values only change and adapt if I learn of new issues etc. Ultimately the right and wrong deep sense within me does not change. I abide by laws but seek their change if they are wrong.

      1. “I would endeavour to comply with Malawian law, and campaign to change anything I felt was unfair, immoral and unequal.”

        But you have said your morals are rooted in the law. however, if you would endeavour to change laws you did not like, this means either your morals are changeable or they are not rooted in the law. Either way, itv exposes the weakness and unworkability of your changeable, subjective moraity. A sor of morality a’la carte!

        1. @Keith

          No, I didnt say that, those are what you twisted out of what I said.

          I have always thought murder was wrong, and can see no reason to change my view on that. I have many other moral views that are absolute – so please do not presume what I believe or think, or twist it.

          morality in many areas are evolving (even in Christian circles) …

      2. “I served as a police officer and enforced laws I do not agree with”

        If you think racism and homophia are criminal offences, I see why they dismissed you!

        1. @Keith

          a) I was not dismissed, I changed careers.

          Your comment there was based on information you have no knowledge of. Speculation and inaccurate (like most other things you say)

          b) Read my comments above. I have clearly said that racism and homophobia are not crimes in themselves but turning either of them into hate filled diatribes or actions are criminal offences and many have received penalties from courts due to such criminal offences.

    3. OK, Keith, you have a (limited) point. I’ll bite. I for one fail to see why any consensual sexual relationship among adults over the age of discretion which avoids avoidable medical harm is immoral, including incestuous ones. Terror of sex between genetically related individuals is irrational fear, not morality. If they are straight, they have an ethical responsibility for not conceiving children because genetic proximity produces damaged offspring. Absolute end of. Your ‘incest’ scare tactic is frankly silly and tedious.
      For the rest, I am sure we are all tired of the question-begging nonsense about ‘changeable human laws’ (ours) and ‘eternal divine laws’ (yours), when you cannot demonstrate either the existence of the divine source of your taboos or that said taboos are any less the product of human culture than any other set of values. You are a profoundly bigoted and stupid individual. Please just go away.

      1. Hurrah and thrice hurrah for Riondo.

        Very fair and sensible commentary …

  10. @Riondo
    You said
    “I for one fail to see why any consensual sexual relationship among adults over the age of discretion which avoids avoidable medical harm is immoral, including incestuous ones.”

    Such a view is damning in itself since it implies that manything consensual is moral. That being the case, there are no grounds for telling anyone that they should not engage in scat, consensual incest , self harm or all manner of disgusting harmful things.In short, you are saying these things are not wrong, but they clearly are. That is why your woolly subjective morals fail.and why such people should NEVER be in charge of the upbringing of children, if you cannot tell them that self harm or eating another persons faeces is wrong.

    1. Keith, you repeat your annoying habit of not reading people’s posts before attacking them. There are things in your hate-list which it is plain from my post I would consider wrong and your very first sentence is not borne out by your quotation of me. Read it again instead of just indulging in vague emotive rants as per usual.

    2. There are good physical health, public health and mental health reasons for opposing many of the things you suggest in your posts …

      Or you could just always avoid deranged people like Keith …

      1. there are also good physical heakth reasons for opposing homosexuality and fornication which are far more deadly. You have just seriously undermined your own argument with no help from me. Here is why…
        If as you imply in your previous posts, morality is linked to healthy sexualpractices and you rightly cite the things I suggest as harmful to health. How much more so, especially statistically , are fornication and homosexual practices harmful to health, therfore immoral by YOUR criteria?

        1. Rubbish. I didn’t imply that everything you cited is harmful, as you damn well know. Healthy sex has nothing to do with whether you are married or go to bed with the same or the opposite sex. It is a question of avoiding penetration or doing so with strong condoms, or being sure of your HIV status. Simples. And it is obvious to any fool that consuming faeces is a dangerous thing to do.
          But I suspect that you are perfectly aware of all of this. You just like getting off on ranting on about sexual activities you pretend to deplore. Sad sick person.

          1. Absolutely, Riondo

            As Keith said in a post recently guns in themselves are not harmful – in fact they can be useful in sport, in farming, to the police and armed services etc etc

            So homosexuality is not harmful …

            In the same way homosexuality can be harmful in spreading illness, so can heterosexuality …

            Its about being sensible and exercising proper caution … something Keith would not understand

          2. lesbians suffer higher rate of oral cancer due to non penetrative lesbian sex. That is one of those inconvenient truths that continue to show that the moral /biblical code of abstinence until heterosexual mutually monogamous marriage is the only risk free course in
            relationships. You however will continue in your deluded state.

  11. @Stu
    I abide by laws but seek their change if they are wrong.

    What an arrogant answer. You set yourself up as one who knows what is right and wrong above those that are more qualified. Don’t you mean you seek to change laws you do not like?
    If we both lived in Uganda,you would oppose the law yet I would approve of it. Who would be right, you or me?
    If you, on what basis would you deeem the law arong?

    1. Yeah I seek to change laws I do not like because they are immoral.

      Believe it or not, I am not obsessed by homosexual sex – and a very small proportion of the laws I have sought to change have related to sexuality in any way.

      That is not arrogance, thats democracy

      More qualified in what and than whom?

      What qualifications that I have (which you clearly know) make me inferior?

      I wouldnt be living in Uganda if you were there Keith, so the hypothetical would never happen …

      1. “Yeah I seek to change laws I do not like because they are immoral.”
        just because you don’t like a law or it does not suit you does not make it immoral. You have to explain why it is immoral. The Uganda laws are under written on bible morality and authority which is accepted by billions to be the word of God. Which authority underwrites your moral views?
        “I wouldnt be living in Uganda if you were there Keith, so the hypothetical would never happen”
        And that is how you avoid a difficult question! The whole premise of hypothetical assumes that you mentally project yourself into the situation and thus comment, on the understanding that it may never happen. You would save much time by admitting there are questions you simply cannot answer or are afraid to for fear of your values being exposed as prejudicial toward your personal desires.

  12. @Riondo
    “I for one fail to see why any consensual sexual relationship among adults over the age of discretion which avoids avoidable medical harm is immoral, including incestuous ones”

    Don’t you see, that is the problem in itself. the fact that we don’t deem it immoral.
    So let’s bring up our children (or other peoples in the case of gays)the learn that any sex act is fine where there is consent, inclusing a father an son having consensual anal sex, group family a consensual orgy with a bit of scat thrown in for good measure….all moral behaviour a nd in good conscience.

    1. Where does the incest suggestion come from?

      Keith

      So perhaps Keith is the one who is the problem …

  13. Stu and Spanner you are responsible for that rat returning if you ignore him he will fak off. I was looking forward to reading some interesting comments instead i get all this crap. Will you idiots please STOP IT NOW

    1. I shall say again what I said the other day – Its impossible to do right for doing wrong on this site.

      I get criticised if I challenge bigotry, I get criticised if I dont challenge bigotry. I get criticised if I use the report function. I get criticised if I do use the report function.

      So, the rule I am tending to follow now, is if I am seriously concerned about the content of a posting I will report it. If I feel I want to make a reply, I will. Unless anyone gives me some new information which makes me see things in a different light then I shall continue to challenge where I feel its needed, report where I think it is needed and not comment when I have no concerns.

      1. The first few times I can understand but that Keith going on about fecal matter and scat the man is sick I don’t want it around here. He’s been posting the same stuff for months.

        66 posts going round in circles surely you should know whne to stop?

        1. I shall try and be more measured in my responses in future – I just hate leaving vitriol like his uncorrected …

          1. That;s right correcting my true assertion that racism and homophobia are not criminal offence with a false claim (which the ignorant masses on this site will accept) that they ARE criminal offences. Then citing irrelevant incitement laws, incitement being the criminal element. As an ex plod I am incredulous regarding your understanding of the law.

          2. @Keith

            My final comment to you on this thread …

            You misrepresent what I have said. It is not only incitement to racism etc etc that are offences ANY offence against a person or property can be aggravated by homophobia, racism etc etc according to section 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
            I clearly stated that racism or homophobia affecting ones behaviour could be a criminal offence, you chose to ignore some of my sentence to suit your own ignorance and twist and manipulate what I said to try and make me look foolish. Fortunately, it is you who look foolish as you are the one trying to put words in my mouth that I did not say.
            You are an irrelevance and is your non existant God. Good night.

        2. Spanner1960 2 Nov 2011, 4:57pm

          The man can’t help it if he talks complete sh|t.

  14. @Stu. I do accept that you finally posted the correct information after being corrected but you initially said …”your initial disingenuous suggestion that racism and homophobia are legal is brought into question when you consider that acting on those prejudices and bigoted thoughts can lead to prosecution in many countries”.
    But now you say that my suggestion is correct and not actually disingenious. You were shown to be in error in your view then corrected yourself . Now we are both in agreement that homophobia and racism are not criminal offences. T

    1. the important words there are acting on ….

      I clarified, because you seemed not to see my words, acted on, so I tried to spell it out in more clear language in case you didnt understand

  15. “In the same way homosexuality can be harmful in spreading illness, so can heterosexuality”

    What a great example to set for the next generation. A bit like saying drugs can be harmless.
    Homosexual acts are inherently risky and potentially lethal as is fornication. The clue is in the fact that you must always wear protection, even with a mutually monogamous partner where anal sex or oral sex is concerned, due to the risk of HPV which can be contracted from fecal matter on the end of a penis which has just been up a rectum, a place it should never be. There is no 100 safe form of homosexual sex, unlike mutually monogamous heterosexual sex. That is how I know I am correct, by the facts!

    1. Nothing is 100% safe, Keith, especially distorting fact to suit supposed Revelation. I once fell off the bed while making love, but I seriously doubt if the experience would have been less hazardous if my partner had been a woman I was married to. Oh, and by the way, Mr Biblical literalist, what about Psalm 137? Is the killing of Babylonian babies OK or not? This is the third time of asking. Do you approve of butchering children or do you dissent from your Holy Book? Do tell. You are so vociferous on what people do below the belt and so coy on Biblical savagery. Still silent?

      1. Abstinence until mutually monogamous marriage ensures that you are 100 safe from STD’s..FACT!

        If you had phrase you irrelevant question correctly the first couple of times instead oif using the word murder where it should be executed or killed, I may have answered. I do not know Paslm 137 but to save you agonizing over my views I can make it easy for you. Whatever God commands and whatever however he has acted in the past, I believe it is in full harmony with the perfect standard of justice that he has set. I would not be so arrogant as to say I approve, setting myself up as a wiser being than God.

        1. Abstinence until any sexually exclusive one-to-one relationship ensures that you are 100% safe from STDs. Fact. Glad to put that right for you.
          And you are virtually 100% safe from them if you avoid penetration or use condoms, monogam/androus or not.
          Nothing is immoral just because it is not 100% safe. Otherwise you would have to condemn riding motorbikes, playing rugby, being a Policeman, and much else of human life. Things can have value without being totally safe – like making love with someone.
          Admitting that you are unfamiliar with parts of a book whose infallible authority you claim is wonderfully amusing, though entirely compatible with the belief that assertion without evidence is the measure of truth. And it is simply slippery to avoid saying whether you approve of something supposedly done by a morally infallible being. Would such things done today in like manner ‘in the name of God’ be ‘perfectly just’ or not? What difference does a lapse of time make?
          Not to mention the little issue of appearing to concede the justice of killing people in the name of an invisible spirit whose very existence is moot.

          1. Please don’t edit my words to suit your perversions. I said “Abstinence until mutually monogamous marriage “. marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman.and is 100 safe from STDs when mutally monogamous.
            Homosexual acts , even monogamous ones always carry risk of STDs. due to fecal matter being in contact with the mouth, anus etc.. Sodomy is a major cause of infection for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. A mutually monogamous heterosexual married couple must not practice sex that involves contact with fecal matter. The scat commmunity are the highest risk group followed by the homosexual brigade.

  16. colinseagull 12 Jan 2012, 10:57am

    Please Please remember Justin Fashinu,Surely the F.A cant have foregotten,Please F.A Open YOUR EYES! & ACT ! before another young Life is Needlessly taken!

  17. colinseagull 12 Jan 2012, 11:05am

    Keith ,the legal bearing appart, Their is a Moral issue,racism over colour or sexuallity are both wrong !!!!!

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all