(Report comment to the moderator)

His previous work seems to be simply provactive for political fame or reward, and pretty much biased towards race equality issues. Race equality campaigners are generally not sympathetic to LGBT as they favour ethnic conservatism.

I don't trust him, personally, to support LGBT rights for us.

(Report comment to the moderator)

Their address is : info@equalityhumanrights.com

Dear Equality and Human Rights Commission,

I read today that Trevor Phillips has acknowledged the anger felt by LGBT groups at the appointment of Evangelical leader and gay rights critic Joel Edwards to the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

While I am glad that Edwards has resigned from the viciously hateful and bigotted Evangelical Alliance I am not convinced that he is a suitable person to be on the EHRC.

Does Edwards still hold facist opinions about homosexuality and gay people? Has he apologised to the gay community for his support of a facist organisation like the Evangelical Alliance. And has he condemned homophobia (whether or not religion allows homophobia)?

While these very serious questions remain about Edwards and his very recent support for a facist organisation like the Evangelical Alliance I fail to see how the EHRC can inspire any trust in the gay community.

Edwards membership of the EHRC is no different to a former leader of the BNP being part of the EHRC. His presence in the EHRC delegitimises your organisation.

Yours sincerely

(Report comment to the moderator)

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

Where you using the term queer as a term of abuse,
or queer as a body of critical thought as in queer theory.

(Report comment to the moderator)

I have never said I am a materialist
I have never said anything about whether or not I have spiritual or religious beliefs.
You have made two assumptions about me . . . ?

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
David skinner wrote
“I doubt very much that you live your life consistently as a materialist but are constantly searching for that which is not yet. A materialist is content with life as it is: “ Here I am sitting, eating this food and that is all there is to existence.” But human nature shows it to be constantly restless, constantly trying to satisfy a spiritual hunger."

I agree with you to some extent . . .

"spiritual hunger" as you put it, which I would prefer to call the bigger picture. . . I would say can be satisfied in many ways and not necessarily through organised religion or spiritual systems.

Although I agree that some organised religious and spiritual systems seem to work for some people.

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

David is also severely limited in his view of reality, no way is the world binary. If he met me he would see a woman who is married to a man and think I'm like him – heterosexual/ heterophilic. But in reality I'm a homophilic pansexual genderqueer person with a straight but tolerant and nonhomophobic male partner. How does that fit your paradigm David?

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

Judging Others

(37) "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."

1 Corinthians 13

Love

(1) If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. (2) If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. (3) If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

(4) Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. (5) It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. (6) Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. (7) It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

You David Skinner are a man without love however much you shout and try and earn your salvation by being a zealot. You fall down at the most fundamental point of Christianity LOVE. The more you judge us according to the bible the more judgement you bring on your own head.

You are dressing up your own bigotry as religion Skinner get a life.

(Report comment to the moderator)

The zeigeist will surely decide for them . Like swallows swarming we will simply follow the consensus of opinion. We will all be wired up to a central computer and whatever at any second is the consensus, it this that will rule. Or rather it is those at the central committee who will control the computer, the elitists, the party bosses, like the Eagle twins, Maria and Angela and Trevor who as I have shown above will change his tune according to the consensus of opinion.

Our society is paralysed and to optimistically think that somehow people will make choices is pie in the sky. Already in the current political crisis people are talking of relinquishing their choices by not voting in the next general election. As you say they will simply say “Qu’est sera sera. It is no co-incidence that people have a death wish; suicide is on the increase and government is debating legalising euthanasia that will inevitably lead to compulsory euthanasia. Mass abortion as one end, mass suicide at the other end and the walking dead in the middle.

You speak of the “Spirit of the Age” but how can you, a materialist, talk of a spiritual dimension operating in the universe? I doubt very much that you live your life consistently as a materialist but are constantly searching for that which is not yet. A materialist is content with life as it is: “ Here I am sitting, eating this food and that is all there is to existence.” But human nature shows it to be constantly restless, constantly trying to satisfy a spiritual hunger.

(Report comment to the moderator)

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

This is where I agree with you . . . helplessness, paralysis of thought and fatalism, very destructive to growth and development. . . . and perhaps being more aware of these processes might help people to recognise what is happing to them. . . and hopefully allow them to recognise they have choices.

Must go to bed
Goodnight
JohnK

(Report comment to the moderator)

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - –

Hegelian Philosophy is larger a comment on process, it is not a process in its self.

"The spirit of the age"(In the Hegelian sense) . . . this is not something any one person, group or society can have control of or over.

In other words it is the . . . The Zeitgeist
Or more simply . . . What will be will be.

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

You have not differentiated the nature of the hate

—————————————————————–
David Skinner wrote
"The homophile denies antithesis which obliterates the distinction between man and woman. There is no room in the mind of the homophile for the existence of heterophilia; homophilia and heterophilia are mutually antipathetic."

You do not differentiate any onto-epistemological position from which you base your theory of the homophiles denial of antithesis

——————————————————————
David Skinner wrote
"The heterophiles back in the 60s naively thought that in the name of tolerance they would accept homophilia, little realising that within decades the homophile, using the laws of equivalence would gain ascendancy and dominate the heterophile."

You do not differentiate how the homophile is dominating the heterphile

——————————————————————
David Skinner wrote
"This might explain why many who at present are heterosexual but who think in terms Hegelian synthesis may well also become homosexual. Hegelian grooming of children will most certainly result in an increase in the LGBT population."

Synthesis from a Hegelian perspective is a process, not a body of thought or practice; neither is it some form of contemporary pedagogy.

You fail to understand Hegelian philosophy.
There is no logic or reason to your theories . . . and because of this it is reasonable for me to assume that they are simply based on paranoia

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)

The homophile denies antithesis which obliterates the distinction between man and woman. There is no room in the mind of the homophile for the existence of heterophilia; homophilia and heterophilia are mutually antipathetic. You either believe in difference or you don’t. For the homophile, all antithesis and all the order of God’s creatiion is to be fought against – including male- female distinctions.

The heterophiles back in the 60s naively thought that in the name of tolerance they would accept homophilia, little realising that within decades the homophile, using the laws of equivalence would gain ascendancy and dominate the heterophile. The homophile is now intolerant and discriminatory towards the heterophile. He or she has to be for both cannot co-exist. This might explain why many who at present are heterosexual but who think in terms Hegelian synthesis may well also become homosexual. Hegelian grooming of children will most certainly result in an increase in the LGBT population, not through nature but through nurture, through the pressure to conform. This is also why to be consistent with his Marxist world view he will not be able tolerate Joel Edwards as a commissioner of Equivalence and Homophile Rights. He must go.

(Report comment to the moderator)

As for equality and rights, that is a joke. Who says my rights are more important than anyone elses? That a religious status is below a race or sexuality? That some people really shouldn't even have rights: (Like the burglar that cuts his hands on your window as he broke in). Yet more bureaucratic time-wasting piffle that costs the taxpayer a fortune.

(Report comment to the moderator)

– - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

Mr Skinner only has one binary logic, . . . . classical antithesis, he should be so lucky. I agree, he negates away but he is incapable of allowing any form of differentiation to emerge from the antithetical positions he postulates.
Synthesis . . . we should be so lucky

(Report comment to the moderator)

(Report comment to the moderator)