Comments on: Comment: Gay rights, gay wrongs?

By: Linda Giovanna Zambaninin

Linda Giovanna Zambaninin — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:01:51 +0000

WTF?! How did this homophobic leaning article end up on PINK? Are you just getting a newsfeed about anything with "gay" in it? This guy is not on our side!

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: AdrianT

AdrianT — Tue, 26 May 2009 23:05:44 +0000

Yes but Nonvexatious, I see no reason why religious opinion should deserve any special protection in the public sphere.

For instance. If I am a Conservative and you a Marxist, and I ridicule you for your ridiculous ideas about a state-run economy, well, that would be too bad if your feelings are hurt.

If someone believes that the earth is only 6,000 years old because the Bible tells her so, and let's face it, we get lots of them on PinkNews, it is a necessity to mock such people for their ignorance – being out by a factor of 700,000.

Every belief or opinion should have equal chance of being probed, questioned, tested and evaluated, if we think that truth and honesty are important.

There is no law against hurt feelings, and rightly so. Otherwise it ends with Jehova's Witness parents being allowed to refuse blood transfusions to dying children.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Nonvexatious

Nonvexatious — Mon, 11 May 2009 15:54:07 +0000

As a gay man and atheist I feel troubled by some of the comments attacking the religious made in response to this article. In my opinion it’s fine to argue against religious beliefs but not to attack people who hold those beliefs. Yes, it is a choice to hold certain religious beliefs, but it’s also a choice to be atheist or agnostic, and the religion or belief legislation also protects those who have no belief, or who have beliefs similar to religious beliefs, such as humanists. There are also people whose religion is part of their cultural identity, for example Jewish people. These protections are important in a just, secular, democratic society. Anti-religious discrimination has had and is still having terrible consequences in the world. There is also a difference in my view between people holding or expressing homophobic views as a result of their religious beliefs, and people discriminating against LGBT people by manifesting those beliefs. I work in discrimination law and I believe that it is necessary to strike a balance between competing rights. I believe that we should prepare to be offended by others’ views, and engage with them by reasoned argument. Under harassment law, there is a remedy where objectionable views cross over a line. For example, say I heard a christian colleague expressing disapproval of my sexual orientation. If he did not intend to create an environment that violated my dignity, but it had that effect, a court or tribunal would look at the nature and offensiveness of his comments, and decide whether it was reasonable for me to feel that my dignity was being violated. It would depend, with a one-off comment not deliberately intended to violate my dignity at work, whether it was serious enough to constitute harassment. For example, if he said he thought all gay people should be put to death, yes. If he said he thought marriage was between a man and a woman, probably not. However, if I approached him and said, reasonably, that I found his expression of his views to be offensive, and he then repeated them, that would show that he was making them with the purpose of offending me, and that would simply be harassment, however apparently ‘mild’ his comments were. It’s surely better for LGB people to engage with those religious beliefs in that way, and show a willingness to assert their rights in the first instance, before shouting discrimination. It shows assertiveness, maturity and tolerance. On the other hand, if a colleague was undermining my work, or making negative decisions about me on the grounds of my sexual orientation, I would have no difficulty in taking immediate action against him.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: stephen kay

stephen kay — Sat, 09 May 2009 02:56:59 +0000

What planet is this guy living on.Mad gay people do exsist and they can do us more damage than even the homophobes could do.Seriously this is a damaged gay man!!

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: AdrianT

AdrianT — Sat, 02 May 2009 09:13:21 +0000

Hank – my sincere apologies, the comment was not actually intended for you, but the author of the article. I am of course well aware of the reasoning for your beliefs. Now never mind about arguing about the origins of the cosmos and so on – go and appreciate some fruits of the cosmos instead. And this beats Guinness, any day, srsly: trappistwestmalle.be/en/page/dubbel.aspx

(I don't think the editorial department of this website was amused with my comment!)

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Brian Burton

Brian Burton — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:17:59 +0000

Hank, thank you for your kind words. With respect 'converted?' No! no! you do not find God my friend. God finds you!
Hank, speaking of Durham, I was born there and lived there untill I decided to leave. Where I lived was a mining community and my Father was a coal miner all of his life. We had a big family, there was so many kids in our family the mice used to set traps for us! Well I was glad to leave home and try to discover exactly where my sexuality was going to lead me. I had many adventures and was (for a short spell) a dresser to a Fabulous Drag Queen in London. Then the Government caught up with me and I was called up into the Army for two years national service. I was too young to object and accepted it. If only they had asked me:"Could you Kill a Man?" I would have replyed,"Eventually." Adios Amigo.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Hank

Hank — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 15:13:01 +0000

Hey Brian — nice comment. Do you recall when you were
converted? When your heart turned away from living a
worldly life and you did everything you can to understand
and follow God's will? That's more important than being
confirmed in a church. A true Christian has an intimate
relationship with Jesus Christ and not really necessary
with a particular Church membership, which can be filled
with many unbelieving people. The distinction between
"Christianity" and a relationship with Jesus Christ makes
all the difference as to whether a person goes to hell or
to heaven.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Brian Burton

Brian Burton — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 10:19:41 +0000

Well, what wonderful comments everyone is making. All informative and interesting. I'm a Christian, I was confirmed into the Church when I was fouteen. Durham Cathrdral was the venue, that tall Norman ediface. I was looking for a closer walk with God as I Knelt in front of the high alter to recieve the Blessing from the Bishop. Dr. Micheal Ramsey was Bishop of Durham then. To me God do'se not have to be proven, it's pure faith that sustains me, faith in God means I can be whoever I want to be. I have no hang-ups, I do'nt care what other peoples beliefs are, they are welcome to them as long as they respect mine. Now I am older and have suvived cancer and have a loving Partner. I think of the man who took a walk with God along the sands of time. The man said to God, "I have walked with you and seen our two sets of foot prints in the sand. But there were times when I could only see one set of foot prints. Did you desert me?" God replyed. " The reason you saw only one set of foot prints sometimes was because I was carrying you. Have a nice day y'all now!

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Hank

Hank — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 01:00:14 +0000

Hey Adrian, I just came across this book and I'm going to see
if my library has it before I buy it. Sounds like something
you might give a look at.

Biology of Belief: Unleashing the Power of Consciousness, Matter, and Miracles by Bruce H. Lipton
With more than 100,000 copies sold of his self-published book, The Biology of Belief, Bruce Lipton teams up with Hay House to bring his message to an even wider audience. This book is a groundbreaking work in the field of new biology, and it will forever change how you think about thinking. Through the research of Dr. Lipton and other leading-edge scientists, stunning new discoveries have been made about the interaction between your mind and body and the processes by which cells receive information. It shows that genes and DNA do not control our biology, that instead DNA is controlled by signals from outside the cell, including the energetic messages emanating from our thoughts. Using simple language, illustrations, humor, and everyday examples, he demonstrates how the new science of Epigenetics is revolutionizing our understanding of the link between mind and matter and the profound effects it has on our personal lives and the collective life of our species.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Hank

Hank — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 00:25:04 +0000

Yo Adrian, you said,

(My pleasure Hank; enjoy.) By the way, the Christian Institute just love your article – it's on their website. Congratulations on being a total sucker and swallowing their propaganda, hook line and sinker."

Adrian, sure I read and quote many Christian sites, and when I'm not too sure of their references I try to find my own evidence for
my belief system.

The trouble with you Adrian, is you ABSOLUTELY CANNOT LOOK AT
THE HOLY BIBLE AND SCRIPTURES as having any authenticity because
your mind is totally closed — don't know what caused you to
do this to yourself. (I do have the answer, but you have to
figure out your own answer)

I tried to get specific methodology to some of the workings of
organizations who work with homosexuals to have them give up
their homosexuality (in actuality and reality, not only for behavior change with the underlying homosexual desires continuing).

And best as I can come up with second-hand research is that they try to use psychology,psychiatry, and other man-created methods to
make these changes come about. Their problem will not work
because of a basic flawed principle that apparently they aren’t aware that they depending on.

They don't know the true meaning and necessity of conversion
of the "heart of man.” to make a total change. For example,:

"Conversion is the heart of the Christian experience. Conversion is best described in the New Testament in the Letters of St. Paul, and with good reason – no one experienced a more dramatic conversion than St. Paul on the road to Damascus!

"As recorded in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus himself called for conversion when he announced "the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe in the gospel" (Mark 1:15).
1. The Bible is filled with figures who sinned, became repentant, and underwent conversion, such as Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene. St. Peter denied three times that he was an Apostle of Christ during the Lord's Passion; when the cock crowed, he went out and "wept bitterly" (Matthew 26:75). Following the Ascension, Jesus told him to "feed my lambs" (John 21:15). Saul, the persecutor of the Church, became Paul, the great missionary to the Gentiles, following his conversion. Mary Magdalene was a woman of ill repute before Jesus drove out seven devils from her (Luke 8:2); she became an ardent follower, and was the first to see Jesus following his resurrection (John 20:11-18)

And in all this, is Jesus' proclamation in John 1. I am the vine, you are the branches: he who is in me at all times as I am in him, gives much fruit, because without me you are able to do nothing.

So until a person believes in, and accepts conversion, he cannot change himself. So that’s
my view on the failure of changing one’s sexual makup.

Unfortunately too many "Christians" have never gone through
conversion and are living as counterfeit Christians.

With my faith, I'm able to look at both sides of all issues and
see what new findings come about, but as yet nothing has come
up that will take away my faith about mankind is and about
who God is. It's not a delusion, but a reality that most of
mankind doesn't and can't imagine.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: AdrianT

AdrianT — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:06:56 +0000

OK, PK, but Stephen Green is not a good comparison. He apparently has all the answers – what happened at the beginning of time, who was responsible, and so on. I claim no such certainty.

I accept, my attack was harsh – 'vacuous' was unfair.

I respect the fact he took his time to write a piece in such a hostile environment as this. (What's so great about consensus?) I hope people continue to write things I don't agree with too. I make no attack on his person, or his other thoughtful articles (this should go without saying). But on this occasion I disagree with Mr Hywel; I think religious opinion must be ignored in the public sphere, and I give my reasons for doing so. You're welcome to debate me on those reasons, and if you can give me a better reason to persuade me otherwise, all well and good.

This is a very polarising, heated topic, and sparks will fly.
x
A.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Andy & Steve

Andy & Steve — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:23:51 +0000

Religion is a choice. Sexuality is not a choice. End of argument.

A human can chose to be either a christian, a jew, a muslim, a hindu or any other doctrinal follower (except of course if you're born a muslim, in which case its death if you convert) or, if he or she are intelligent and open minded non theistic….. a gay person can only be a gay person.

As soon as people realise that organised religion is a man made delusion designed to wrest power from the individual and make them bend to the will of their religious leaders who base that leadership on myth, half truth and bare faced lies the better off we'll all be.

Just think of all that wasted time talking to yourself in your head and the billions of pounds spent on buildings to hold diminishing numbers of people talking to themselves in their heads and what better use that time and money could be put to. If we dropped religion enmasse tomorrow nothing would change. No angry god or mohammed or whoever/whatever would descend from the clouds and smite us…. but we would be free of doctrinally inspired "them and us" mentalities and wouldn't have any crutch to support our otherwise unsupportable bigotries and hatreds.

By the by, we don't need religion to get along with each other either see http://www.secularism.org.uk

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: PK

PK — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:06:37 +0000

Oh grow up Adrian T. Just because your articles haven't received half as many comments or provoked as much debate as this guy's doesn't give you the right to behave so childishly.

Hywel's article isn't going to win any prizes for journalism but it simply states that the right of a religious person cannot go completely ignored. You sound like the Gay rights version of Stephen Green in your comments.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: AdrianT

AdrianT — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:36:04 +0000

(My pleasure Hank; enjoy.)

By the way, the Christian Institute just love your article – it's on their website. Congratulations on being a total sucker and swallowing their propaganda, hook line and sinker

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Merseymike

Merseymike — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:13:48 +0000

I think its a matter of context. An organisation providing services should be primarily concerned as to whether its staff are orepared to behave professionally and ensure that any religious prejudices are left at home. As Rob Fox has explained, this is very hard for many evangelicals ( and I was once one too!) to do because they believe they 'know the truth'. hence, they find it difficult to see the importance of distinguishing between their personal beliefs and what is appropriate in a service providing organisation.

I do think that there is no right to be prejudiced and express those prejudices in a service providing organisation. That is why there is legislation to ensure goods and services are provided without discrimination.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Hank

Hank — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:41:15 +0000

Hi Adrian.
Thanks for giving me the name of Dinesh D'Souza. I checked
him out and will soon read some of his writings.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: AdrianT

AdrianT — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 12:39:01 +0000

Yep, Todd Friel made the fatal mistake of playing the joker. Hitch's best challenger was Dinesh D'Souza, whose arguments were quite thoughtful. They're on youtube somewhere…

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Hank

Hank — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 01:36:16 +0000

Third attempt to add this.

I checked out Christopher Hitchens andevangelist Todd Friel, on the 'Wretched Podcast' I wasn't impressed wiith Friel's
knowledge of the Christian message.

I'd like to hear Hitchens argue with Ravi Zacharias

He's one of the more prolific Christian apologists, with many years on record. He is currently the president of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, an apologetic evangelistic ministry that reaches out mainly to intellectuals and university students. His method is mildly presuppositional, his style conversational.

Zacharias discusses a variety of philosophical questions and
would give Hitchens on an even level, not at all like Friel.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Hank

Hank — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 01:34:57 +0000

I checked out Christopher Hitchens andevangelist Todd Friel, on the 'Wretched Podcast' I wasn't impressed wiith Friel's
knowledge of the Christian message.

I'd like to hear Hitchens argue with Ravi Zacharias

Zacharias discusses a variety of philosophical questions and
would give Hitchens on an even level, not at all like Friel.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Hank

Hank — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 00:05:28 +0000

Yo Adrian, I listened to the Todd Friel, Christopher Hitchens
interview, and was disappointed in Friel's approach, questions,
answers, etc. I don't have much faith in his christian strengths.
I would love to hear Hitchens debate Ravi Zacharias: He is one of the more prolific Christian apologists, with many years on record. He is currently the president of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, an apologetic evangelistic ministry that reaches out mainly to intellectuals and university students. His method is mildly presuppositional, his style conversational.
You'd enjoy hearing some of his arguments on many subjects,
not just Christianity. Hitchens wouldn't get away with many of
his comments with Zacharias as he did with Friel.

(Report comment to the moderator)