A guest post by GraemeThompson who posts as ‘hippiepooter’
The bigots who call people bigots.
Anyone with 5 minutes exposure to the BBC knows that most people at the BBC would have shared Gordon Brown’s sentiment thatMrs Duffy of Rochdale was a “bigot” forexpressing concerns about the level of immigration. It is the favoured tactic of the anti-democraticleft who prevail at the BBC toshut down debate.
We see the same tactic used in the ‘Gay debate’.
David Cameron’s Conservative Party has become such a victimof the Marxist mind control of Political Correctness as exercised by the BBC that this week we saw Philip Lardner suspendedas Conservative Candidate for North Ayrshire and Arran for his views on homosexuality. The BBC reported he was sacked for ‘describing gaypeople on his website as “notnormal”’. What he actually said wasthat “homosexuality is not normal behaviour”. The DailyTelegraph managed to report the story accurately, why did the BBC have such trouble? Perhaps they confused news management withnews reporting? Part of what Mr Lardnerwrote (the fulltext can be seen here) was in defence of Clause 28:
“Thepromotion of homosexuality by public bodies (as per ‘clause 28/section 2a in Scotland
David Cameron, who let us remember voted in 2003 to retainClause 28, boasted he took “decisive action within minutes of finding outabout this”. In announcing Mr Lardner’ssuspension Scottish Conservatives Chairman Mr Andrew Fulton said Mr Lardner’scomments were “deeply offensive and unacceptable”.
When the Conservative Party – the Conservative Party – acts so hysterically to avoid having the BBC turn its propaganda guns on them, Britishdemocracy is in serious trouble. We sawthe same BBC led hysteria when Chris Graylingadvocated an enlightened form of social liberalism that accommodates theChristian conscience instead of the bigoted form of social liberalism thatseeks to persecute Christians for their faith.
We are rightly outraged by the cover up and perpetuation ofchild sex abuse by key figures in the Catholic hierarchy but the abolition ofClause 28 to permit homosexuals access to little boys in schools to teach themthat homosexuality is normal is something we’re supposed to celebrate.
Let us just remember how Clause 28 came about. In the 80’s schools in the Islington Boroughof London
While no-one is in a hurry to talk about the relationshipbetween Political Correctness and child sex abuse, the BBC is at the forefront of those in a hurry to talk about the relationship betweenpriesthood celibacy and child sex abuse. Recently, His Holiness the Pope’s No 2 Cardinal Tarsicio Bertone caused alava flow of outrage for suggesting that the problem of abuser priests wasn’tcaused by celibacy but by homosexuality. He implied that homosexuals infiltrated thepriesthood as a cover to carry out their paedophile proclivities and that recentresearch supports this. The BBC of course led the pack in ‘news management’ toensure that the public knew what to think about such a ‘bigoted’ suggestion. Such was the furore whipped up that even PopeBenedict II and his key media supporter in the UK
According to Vaticanfigures 60% of children abused by paedophile priests are boys. How this pans out in lay society I don’tknow. The impression I get from reportsis that there is a disproportionately high amount of child sex abuse that ishomosexual. As we now have homosexualadoption, in the interests of child protection one would have thought itimperative that wider research was conducted. Don’t expect the BBC tomount a clamour for this. Don’t anyoneeven suggest the idea. That would be‘bigoted’.
Mr Philip Lardner is still on the ballot in North Ayrshireand Arran . The Tories had suspended him but only after he had already beenregistered. He is now campaigning as the‘Independent Common Sense’ Candidate and will not take the Tory whip if elected.
The General Election is 6th May.
Beat you by near a week on this, but I agree it is shameful what the Tories have done; I am genuinely toying with the idea of tearing uop my membership and sending it to them in an envelope with a note stating they should shove it up their arses, as that would apparently be normal behaviour.
I do not think homosexuals should be criminals or criminalised, but neither do I think it is normal, natural or wholesome in any way, just as I wouldn’t think paedophilia, necrophilia, coprophilia or any other just on the basis that is inherent in a persons make-up and a desire they cannot control.
The BBC’s darling of darlings is George Michaels. A week before his appearance on desert island discs he was charged over driving under the influence of drugs and also for, basically, sucking middle aged strangers cocks in a public toilet. This would appear to be normal and wholesome behaviour for the BBC and the Tories, and homo nazis like Iaian Dale. If he had been heterosexual and having knee tremblers with strange women in public toilets, and arrested for it, or a woman giving blow jobs to strangers in a public toilet, they would have been castigated and made a pariah, and I would say just as rightly so as for homos.
The homo nazi agenda has gone too far and needs stopping, whether that be by the BBC or the Tories, or Labour as it seems compulsory now to suck on dick, if you are a man, to be accepted as a good and wholesome person.
Anybody else having a problem posting? I tried to put a short message in (300 characters) and got a message telling me I was limited to under 3000 characters
The posting has been intermittently weird since yesterday!
Yes it’s all gone much too far. Soon, it’ll be compulsory to be of a homosexual orientation to get a job, mortgage or insurance. If we have to co-exist with those who have unnatural desires, why can’t they at leat be encouraged to keep those desires to themselves (or the like minded), instead of flaunting it in the faces of those who don’t particularly like or approve of the practice. Sexuality is a private thing, and acceptance for any facet of life shouldn’t depend on ones sexual orientation (or perversity). Where they collect, there is invariably a tendency towards corruption and manipulation of others – most unhealthy. If folks want to be homosexual, that’s up to them – I don’t want to know about it, or be forbidden to voice my views. This nasty, socialist agenda ridden society is getting out of hand.
And you will have to bend over backwards to prove it!
OK I wll try again. Recently I saw a programme on C4 that featured a B&B owner who would not admit any women or any hetrosexual men.
Not a peep of complaint from any of the MSM including the BBC.
Homosexuality is a political ideology just as Islam is. The left love these forms of extremist ideas. I’ve often wondered why the homosexual ‘community’ is so pro Islam when every Muslim alive would have homosexual men wiped from the planet.
Instead we see the gay Mafia turn on those nasty Christians who might not like them indulging in buggery in their home. Oh how terrible of those nasty people.
The BBC of course is vastly over represented with homosexuals, when you think probably 1 in 1000 of the general male population is a homosexual, something like 80% of the male BBC population seems gay and left wing.
It’s crazy. Most people don’t care, they just want someone out there to get the state off their back, stop robbing them via taxation and let them make their own decisions in life.
The Liebour party can’t understand WHY the Tory policy on inheritance tax is so popular.
It’s called ASPIRATION you socialist twats. Unlike lefties who think the state should own all the wealth, millions of people dream of owning their own wealth (through work) and perhaps in old age leaving something to their children or grand children.
The socialists hate the idea that people who work hard somehow manage to still put money aside that they the leftie scum can’t get hold of, so we get new taxes to tax money that we’ve already been taxed on.That money is then used to fund the scum on council estates who have never worked a day in their lives, have no intention to do so and just want to breed more kids.
I wish people would turn their anger on this vermin rather than eastern Europeans who come here to fulfil the very same dream most of us who are not chav scum have, to work hard and better themselves.
Can there be any doubt about the fascist road that the Correctnick agenda is taking us on?:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1270364/Christian-preacher-hooligan-charge-saying-believes-homosexuality-sin.html
Graeme,
As hippiepooter you’ve made several comments in the past scolding people here for saying things that you feel would discredit this site. And now here you’ve done just that. A diatribe against homosexuality such as you’ve written is the perfect way to discredit this site. I’m very disappointed.
Perhaps you’d like to explain what is unreasonable about the points I’ve made? I have to assume by your comment that you support Mr Cameron’s decision to sack Mr Lardner as Conservative candidate for North Ayrshire and Arran?
Homosexuality is not the cause of paedophelia. More females than males are victims of child sex abuse, so homosexuality itself cannot be a cause. You say it’s your “impression” that homosexual males commit a “disproportionally high” percentage of child sex abuse crimes, yet figures from your own government suggest otherwise. What proportion would you believe to be correct, anyway? It’s just emotional hyperbole, I think.
Now, if it’s your contention that homosexuality is the cause of paedophilia in the Church, then you are half way to a point. Obviously a culture of active homosexuality is going to make it difficult to stop priests from messing with teenage boys, but that’s not going to explain the molestation of younger children. You may just as well say heterosexuality causes paedophelia, as there is plenty of evidence for male sexual abuse of little girls. You will not find any figures showing that girls are less likely to be victims of sex abuse than boys, so your logic needs reexamining.
You speak out against the “normalization” of homosexuality, and the teaching of it in schools. There’s a difference between promoting tolerance and promoting a lifestyle. Which are you claiming was done in Islington, or anywhere else? The term “normalization” can be defined in different ways, I suspect.
Lardner’s comments were mostly reasonable – it’s incontrovertible that homosexuality is not the default setting for our species, so I have no issue with that part – but he went to complain that the so-called “normalization” of homosexuality goes beyond tolerance and begins to encourage homosexual activity among heterosexual children. This goes beyond disliking homosexuality and into paranoid demonization. It’s also why I call into question the definition of “normalization”.
If you can provide real evidence that an educational program in a state school actively encourages homosexaul experimentation, I’d like to see it. Your anecdote about male teachers engaging in homosexual acts with teenage boys is not the same thing as an actual state-directed educational program. Again, you can find more evidence of male teachers having it off with female students. Your claims are the same kind of demonization as what Lardner said.
Lardner did say that he felt that homosexuals should have whatever legal rights anyone else does, which I agree should be the limit of tolerance expected from anyone, even an MP. He should not be sacked for saying that homosexuality isn’t “normal”, but he went beyond that. He demonized homosexuality, as you have done.
Thanks for that David. You purport that I said homosexuality is the cause of paedophilia but I said nothing of the sort. Maybe this is your attempt to demonise anyone who opposes the normalisation of homosexuality, which takes us back to what I actually did put in my post about where intolerance and hatred really lies in the homosexual debate. I would particularly suggest you re-read what I put about Chris Grayling and the two forms of ‘social liberalism’ that there are. On the basis of your comments here, you seem to be in favour of the latter, which is somewhat inconsistent with the other stances you take here.
If I said that child sexual abuse in men is disproportionately higher than it is in women, would that mean I am demonising men, or just stating a fact that in the interests of child protection – which should be paramount – needs to be considered? Now if the number of men who work in child care is as proportionately low as the number of men who commit child sex offences is proportionately high then the statistical risk to children from male carers is at the least diminished, but if the proportion of the amount of men who work in childcare is disproportionately homosexual, then for anyone who genuinely cares about the protection of children that cries out for statistical research into the incidence of homosexual paedophilia. However, because people like yourself, in common with the correctnicks at the BBC who on any other issue you condemn, demonise people like me as bigots for calling for this research, children are at risk in Britain as they were in the London Borough of Islington, and that risk is prolific.
The statistical information you referred me to is not from my Government but yours and I couldn’t find the figures you referred me to. Perhaps you could tell me where they are?
As I mentioned below, as a Christian and on the basis of the fanaticism and intolerance I see in the homosexual lobby today, I am convined that normalisation of homosexuality will open up the floodgates for all manner of perversion and we’ll end up like Sodom & Gomorrah.
Where to start, but probably the best place is to defend free speech, wouldn’t you think? Or maybe not given your further views.
I fail to see how you divine that anyone claimed homsexuality was the core cause of paedophilia. That being said the first homosexuals to be allowed to foster children are now languishing in jail for fiddling with the boys they fostered, so maybe not the core cause, but certainly an issue. Also, why would you defend homosexual paedophiles just because there seems to be a large amount of heterosexual paedophiles? I might add to that as a percentage of abuse cases homosexual abuse IS disproportionately higher, considering the percentage of homosexuals there are. So maybe you should re-examine your figures.
Teaching children in schools that it is wholesome and normal to put your penis in a someones shitter is most definbitely NOT merely teaching intolerance. Sex education is and always was primarily a tool for preventing preganancies and STD’s.
“normalization” of homosexuality goes beyond tolerance and begins to encourage homosexual activity among heterosexual children. This goes beyond disliking homosexuality and into paranoid demonization. It’s also why I call into question the definition of “normalization”.
No it doesn’t, just because you say so. If you teach a male child that sucking on a mans cock is normal and good, are you seriously suggesting that experimentation won’t take place? If you are, then you are a fool. Lardner was right and you are paranoid and demonising him.
If you can provide real evidence that an educational program in a state school actively encourages homosexaul experimentation, I’d like to see it.
Sex education and th eteaching that homosexual sex is good and wholesome and normal. Do you need a drawing? are y0u so seriously devoid of wit and IQ that you can’t see it?
but he went beyond that. He demonized homosexuality, as you have done.
No he didn’t, and even if he did, he should in a free and tolerant society [sic] have the right to say so without some homosexual paraoin delusional like yourself trying to demonise him.
It’s hardly a diatribe against homosexuality.
I myself was aghast at Lardners’ sacking, the conservatives should be railing against such perceived thought crimes. What he said was not offensive and is a matter of personal conviction.
“He demonized homosexuality, as you have done.” David Preiser
I have a lot of respect for you David here but must disagree with you strongly on this.
He made (Philip Lardner) perfectly reasonable comments on the promotion of homosexuality and defended the previous position of its outlaw vis-a-vis clause 28.
Hippie has taken this a step further making perfectly reasonable statements, that source of which are in the public domain (although I dont have the link), suggesting that the homosexuality has been recorded as having a higher rate of involvement in the abuse of children. Not just in the church.
Peter Tatchell has been campaigning for years for the lowering of the homosexual age of consent to be 14, FFS. Today that is called paedophilia. Whats the difference? Where has been the outrage about that? Why isnt the media putting his procilivities under the spotlight and casting aspersion on him?
And that is the essence of this post I think. That the agenda has been controlled for too long now and subverted too far by the homosexual lobby. It has corrupted the terms of debate.
As for your assertion of ‘demonizing homosexuality’?
Well if the post was about bestiality for instance would you be complaining about ‘demonizing bestiality’?? One is about a man inserting his penis into another mans rectum and the other is inserting his penis into an animals. Wheres the difference?
Why the faux outrage other than not to upset the liberal media orthodoxy.
It is the cultural marxist agenda of controlling the terms of the debate, that Gramsci would have been proud of. Divide an rule of the populace but resetting the agenda.
Apologies for the graphics.
Your comparison of homosexuality to bestiality speaks for itself. There’s no need for me to say anything else.
David, you seem as blindsided on this debate as Iain Dale.
Comparing homosexuality with bestiality is comparing degrees of perversion. As a Christian, and on the level of gut instinct, I believe that the normalisation of homosexuality in society will lead to Sodom and Gomorrah. One of the things that convinces me of this is the intolerance and hatred of the homosexual lobby.
There’s a difference between a consensual act between adults and the non-consensual rape of an animal, and I’m shocked that you don’t understand that. As for your view of homosexuality as a perversion, you’re entitled to pick and choose certain rules for Jews out of the Old Testament and run your life by them and state that they are correct.
However, I disagree with the idea that religious belief alone – clearly not based on fact as you have none to back up your claims about child molestation and homosexuality – should dictate laws in society.
I say again that the problem here is your definition of “normalization”. If you define allowing people to be open about their homosexuality in public as the “normalization” which must be stopped, then I would say that’s intolerant, and the kind of religious intrustion into law to which I object. If you define “normalization” as the active encouraging of people to engage in homosexual acts, and the deliberate teaching of heterosexual children that they should engage in homosexual activity (not asking them to tolerate it, but telling them to do it themselves), then I would agree with you that it’s a problem and should be stopped, although you don’t seem to have any evidence for that being done in schools, either. Although, I’m well aware of the kind of homosexual who thinks that everyone is really gay and that straights are behind the times. I share your objection to that faction of the homosexual lobby.
Which is it?
If you define allowing people to be open about their homosexuality in public as the “normalization” which must be stopped,
I think your own homo nazi stance has just been revealed.
You are completely intolerant here. Totally. No-one says homosexuals can’t be open and free in public, but why should anyone be called intolerant because you don’t want to tolerate their views?
Before you say, BTW, I believe that you are either totally homosexual or in the closet.
You want to legally make tolerance of homosexuality compulsory…so what is tolerant or normal about that? So we can kill and eat an animal, but we can derive sexual pleasure from it eh? Very tolerant of you.
What makes a perversion like homosexuality normal for you then? You define it for us then brainbox? I define any sexual activity that is specificaly done for pleasure and not for procreation to be a perversion, what about you?
Homo’s, sado’s, maso’s, bestiality, coprophilia, necrophilia etc. etc. etc. excepting heterosexuality is pleasure based, so a perversion. How do you define it? I will assume you won’t, and can’t, and will refuse while beating your breast over how bigoted we are, but you will in the end be without rational argument.
Why does ALL homosexual activity simulate heterosexual activity if it is normal?
You aren’t talking sense. You’re another one talking up a different definition of “tolerance” and “normal”. You don’t have to accept or even like homosexuality. It can disgust you for all I care, and you can shout your disgust from the rooftops all you like. It’s irrelevant to my point. All I’m talking about is that they should be allowed to live their lives in peace, not have to hide underground, and not live as second-class citizens without the same legal protections as the rest of us. Live and let live.
It’s typical of people who base their opinions on emotion rather than reason to confuse this position with a command to love and approve of homosexuality. Perhaps you might one day understand the difference.
Also, if you think I’m a homosexual based only what I’ve written here, you’re an absolute moron. How many homosexuals do you know who use the language I do? They all use terms like “gay” or “queer” or the ludicrous “LGBT”. You’re clearly one of those homosexual activists who believe that everyone is secretly gay, if given the proper encouragement.
You aren’t talking sense.
You are delusional aren’t you? Everyone here is talking nonsense except you, is that it? Now we know exactly where you are coming from.
You’re another one talking up a different definition of “tolerance” and “normal”.
No I am not, as well you know as you wallow around trying to justify your own stupidity. Me and ALL others here have said homosexuals can do what they want and should be free to do so. That is tolerance. I don’t want them criminalised or discriminated against in any way. That all doesn’t mean to say I agree with what they do or think it is normal, or should be taught as normal and wholesome to children at aschool. These are things you are deliberately avoiding addressing.
You don’t have to accept or even like homosexuality.
Yes I do, or I can be arrested and disbarred from joining the Tory party. Still don’t get it do you?
It can disgust you for all I care, and you can shout your disgust from the rooftops all you like.
Not if I don’t want to be arrested and criminalsed I can’t. You further still don’t get it do you?
It’s irrelevant to my point.
It may be to yours in your arrogance, but not to the point of the original post and what everyone else has been saying.
All I’m talking about is that they should be allowed to live their lives in peace, not have to hide underground, and not live as second-class citizens without the same legal protections as the rest of us. Live and let live.
And where, precisely, has anyone said any differently?
It’s typical of people who base their opinions on emotion rather than reason to confuse this position with a command to love and approve of homosexuality. Perhaps you might one day understand the difference.
So if I object to being told I can be arrested and criminalsed if I do not accept homosexuality as normal and wholesome, that, in your tiny mind, makes me an emotional wreck who cannot make rational judgements?
The problem with this argument is that it is YOU who does not understand.
They all use the terms gay or queer or the ludicrous LGBT? No they don’t, and you are a closet queen. Trying to shit the emphasis on me being a closet bender won’t wash son. Where in the USA are you? SF by any chance?
David, all you really need to do is go back and look at what I’ve already written. I see you still appear to want to continue to suggest that I’ve said ‘homosexuality is the cause of paedophilia’. It also appears you dont wish balance your very lop-sided dislike of my piece with what I wrote about the two kinds of ‘social liberalism’.
Normalisation of homosexuality is when schoolchilren are indoctrinated by classroom propaganda to accept it as normal and subject to victimisation for ‘homophobia’ if they dont. The issue of homosexuality is a hugely contentious one and the Government should not be abusing the vulnerability of children to impose the view of one side or the other. This desire of indoctrination of schoolchildren, apart from the way it leaves them vulnerable to sexual predators, is literally the hallmark of a fascist stete.
I’ve already given a very good example in a link above of how the homosexual agenda is taking us down that road road of new age fascism. Am I to take it, that as well as supporting the suspension of Philip Lardner as Tory candidate, you are also in favour of people being arrested and charged if they say homosexuality is a sin?
I’ve already given a very good example in a link above of how the homosexual agenda is taking us down that road road of new age fascism.
No, you’ve shown that you disapprove of schools teaching tolerance of homosexuality. You have not shown any proof of anything else as far as I can tell. Again, we’re having trouble getting past the idea of tolerance versus promotion and the encouraging of homosexual acts in favor of heterosexual ones.
Am I to take it, that as well as supporting the suspension of Philip Lardner as Tory candidate, you are also in favour of people being arrested and charged if they say homosexuality is a sin?
Don’t be ridiculous. That comment is the kind of reductio ad absurdum we had to constantly deal with from the likes of Hillhunt and other defenders of the indefensible unable to argue rationally. That comment is offensive, and is beneath you.
Errm, David, this is the link I was referring to above:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1270364/Christian-preacher-hooligan-charge-saying-believes-homosexuality-sin.html
Now this is a Christian arrested and charged for saying homosexuality is a sin. So I ask again, do you support this as well as supporting the deselection of Philip Lardner as a Tory candidate?
No, you’ve shown that you disapprove of schools teaching tolerance of homosexuality.
When you resort to deliberate lies you have already lost. No-one here has said they onject to tolerance being taught.
Don’t be ridiculous. That comment is the kind of reductio ad absurdum we had to constantly deal with from the likes of Hillhunt and other defenders of the indefensible unable to argue rationally. That comment is offensive, and is beneath you.
This is the rather usual get-out of jail free card, saying nothing response of the scoundrels making a mockery of debates.
You should be a socialist.
Calling me a socialist is even more of an insult than hippiepooter stating that I would have him arrested for speaking his mind.
What is it with you people?
Only seeing what you want to see again cretin.
I said you should be a socialist, not that you are a socialist.
What is it with you LGBT people?
David, have you just contracted dyslexia or something?
<b>Toleration and understanding is one thing, but state-promotion of homosexuality is quite another.” </b>
Homosexual behaviour does occur in nature but serves no purpose to nature, except in the negative way – in the long term, it eliminates a ‘waste of space’ group of a species. Therefore Catholic agencies that refuse to countenance gay adoption, are in fact supporting natural evolution, while the BBC is opposed. The BBC being nature lovers, Gaia and all that, it is astonishing that they support homosexuality. This is even stranger, as they are a taxpayer-funded institution.
In all this, all one can say, is that something has gone terribly wrong in a society that encourages homosexuality. It is yet another piece of evidence that suggests that the UK has become a suicidal nation. Importing millions of Muslims whose religion compels them to annihilate any society that is not Islamic, and then giving them a free pas in all they do, is yet more evidence that the UK, or atleast its elite, have a death wish.
You are right; in nature there is homosexual activity, but never for sexual pleasure and never between adults. It is always between pre-pubescents and as a training prior to taking a mate.
People like Dale, and Preisser, forget the term MATE and what it signifies. I have said many times I will accept homosexuality as normal and wholesome the first time a man becomes pregant after sex with another man, and I don’t mean a woman masquerading as a man, full of testosterone and a legal dockit they are.
I’ve already stated categorically that homosexuality is not the default setting for our species. However, I believe in allowing people born a different way to live their lives without scorn or as second-class citizens, and without having to live in fear or in secret.
There’s a huge difference between that and saying homosexuality is wholesome. Are you not able to grasp this simple concept?
No David, you dont just believe that. You believe that a man who supported a law that outlawed teachers indoctrinating schoolchildren to accept homosexuality was normal should have being de-selected as a Tory candidate. Its very clear that you’re not calling for the enlightened form of social liberalism that Chris Grayling was calling for the the bigoted form of social liberalism that seeks to criminalise anyone who expresses opinions on homosexuality homosexuals dont like. You’re quite simply projecting your own intolerance onto others.
There was a homosexual I used to work with that used to get picked on by a female manager (nothing to do with his homosexuality, she just didn’t like him). He shared his woes with me, I asked him if he’d like me to have a discreet word with her and after I did so she stopped picking on him.
Some time after the subject of homosexuality came up. He asked me my views. I told him its against nature. He called me a “bigot”. All par for the course in the insecure, hypocritical world of homosexuality.
On the other hand I had a homosexual Eng Lit professor at uni who in his considered opinion did not think that certain questionable sonnets of Shakespeare meant Shakie had taken a walk on the wild side. I was deeply impressed by his detachment an objectivity as to me the evidence of his texts did suggest so.
I take people as they come and I’ll oppose any form of hatred or bigotry. The worst form of hatred and bigotry we see at the moment is the kulturkampf of the homosexual lobby and it leading the way down the Correctnick road to fascism.
hippiepooter,
You believe that a man who supported a law that outlawed teachers indoctrinating schoolchildren to accept homosexuality was normal should have being de-selected as a Tory candidate.
Incorrect. As far as I can tell, he was going further than that, as were you, which is why I objected to your post in the first place. My concern is with saying that homosexuality is a direct cause of greater problems, such as child molestation and the direct encouraging of heterosexuals to engage in homosexual acts.
That’s what you claimed is true about homosexuals, and that’s what Landner seemed to be doing. That’s demonization of homosexuality, which is beyond disliking it. You seem stuck on this “normalization” meme, which you still refuse to define for me. You also are unable to provide one single fact to back up your emotional contention that this is about an educational program which encouraged heterosexual children to engage in homosexual acts.
Diatribes of opinion without any facts to back it up are the kind of thing you yourself have scolded people for here, claiming that it detracts from the credibility of this blog. Yet, that’s what you have done here, and you’re dancing all over the place trying to deny it.
You don’t oppose any form of bigotry, as you are clearly bigoted against homosexuals. We’re obviously not even talking about the same thing here. I’m talking about legal rights, and you’re talking about a homosexual lobby which will make us all as gay as the bloody Pashtuns. When you’re ready to discuss the same issue I am, please let me know.
David, you’ve constantly lied on this thread about what I’ve said and refused to address the points I’ve actually made. I’m afraid on the issue of homosexuality you’re as bigoted as the most extreme correctnick at the BBC and I will just have to leave you to your ignorance and lack of self-respect.
I’ve already stated categorically that homosexuality is not the default setting for our species.
So you agree that homosexuality is not normal? This is a simple question that would clear up any misunderstandings, or are you not able to grasp this simple concept?
However, I believe in allowing people born a different way to live their lives without scorn or as second-class citizens, and without having to live in fear or in secret.
Quite how you divine that we here are avowing that stance is quite beyond me and shows you for the cretin I now think you are. There is a world of difference between not believing something is normal and wanting to make the people involved second class citizens.
You sonny are the problem, however much you might beat your closeted breast on how bigoted we are.
Quite how you divine that we here are avowing that stance is quite beyond me and shows you for the cretin I now think you are. There is a world of difference between not believing something is normal and wanting to make the people involved second class citizens.
Excellent. This is progress. You’ve made it clear that you believe in the same kind of tolerance that I do.
My original complaint about hippiepooter’s post was that it went beyond this, stating that homosexuality is a direct cause of child molestation, and that – contrary to facts – homosexuals commit more acts of child sexual abuse than heterosexuals. He also objected to the sacking of a Tory MP candidate for stating an opinion with which he agreed: that there is a program in schools with which a homosexual lobby is actively encouraging heterosexual children. No evidence was provided for that, either. Hippiepooter himself has made several comments here in the past objecting to main posts which are opinion-based with no facts provided, stating that this detracts from the credibility of this blog.
Your sexuality taunts are very, very silly, and can be considered proof that you are emotionally bigoted and unable to argue rationally. It’s also the kind of thing which BBC employees have told us makes them ignore this blog, thus harming its effectiveness.
Excellent. This is progress. You’ve made it clear that you believe in the same kind of tolerance that I do.
Still avoiding the questions and issues put to you.
My original complaint about hippiepooter’s post was that it went beyond this, stating that homosexuality is a direct cause of child molestation,
You said that the post stated that, none of us did, and in fact we disagreed.
and that – contrary to facts – homosexuals commit more acts of child sexual abuse than heterosexuals.
Which is quite true. As a percentage of the population, taken to a percentage of chold molestations, homosexuals do commit more. What was your gripe again?
He also objected to the sacking of a Tory MP candidate for stating an opinion with which he agreed: that there is a program in schools with which a homosexual lobby is actively encouraging heterosexual children.
This is again you seeing what you want to see and at best is disingenuous. Maybe you should look again at what was said.
No evidence was provided for that, either.
Yes there was but you ignored it. Just because you consider YOUR opinion to be always right, doesn’t make it so.
Hippiepooter himself has made several comments here in the past objecting to main posts which are opinion-based with no facts provided, stating that this detracts from the credibility of this blog.
Quite right.
Your sexuality taunts are very, very silly, and can be considered proof that you are emotionally bigoted and unable to argue rationally.
Priceless.
It’s also the kind of thing which BBC employees have told us makes them ignore this blog, thus harming its effectiveness.
Those disproportionately homosexual employees that you know so many of? I have obviously touched a nerve.
You have ignored what you don’t want to see. You have seen only what you want to see. You have translated operfectly rational argument into something you feel you can argue against. You are alone in your stupidity. Doesn’t this tell you something?
I repeat, you should be a socialist.
Please explain how hippiepooter provided proof of a school program that encouraged heterosexual children to engage in homosexual acts. I want to see proof of that before you have any credibility at all worth responding to in future. All I’ve seen is an opinoin that teaching tolerance is equal to trying to make us all homosexuals. Come on, let’s see your proof before you condemn my statement as mere opinion. Where’s your proof? Where are your facts? Show me what I’ve ignored. Spell it out. Let’s see proof of that school program.
<Wipes the foam flecks out of his eye>
David, this is the moment to accept you’ve acted like a compleite idiot rather than acting like more of an idiot than you have already. For someone who’s normally very level-headed and well reasoned it really is a sorry sight to see you embarrassing yourself like this.
Please explain how hippiepooter provided proof of a school program that encouraged heterosexual children to engage in homosexual acts.
So you can tell the difference, can you, between heterosexual children? It seems this is the crux of your own intolerance.
If you teach that homosexuality is just as valid and normal as heterosexuality, and further, teach graphic sex education to back this up, you normalise homosexuality and promote it, wouldn’t you think? That is a world of difference from teaching tolerance. We have, BTW, recently arrested children as young as 5 for homo hate crimes…5 years old, who do not even know what a homosexual is, at least not until age 7 when they even know what a homosexual sexual encounter would entail.
Those are facts.
And my credibility my dear is not in question by anyone but you, so no loss. Hippiepooter has said all that needs saying now and you’re boring me.
Play nicely, boys.
<b>Religious Beliefs No Defence – For A Christian</b>
Yesterday, an Appeal Judge in a British court of law decided that a practising Christian did not have the right to refuse sex therapy to a homosexual couple. If that conscientious decision cost Gary McFarlane his job, so be it.
The Law Lord – and we will come to him in a moment – ruled that Mr McFarlane’s relying on his religious beliefs was “irrational” and “capricious”.
The judge ruled that, while everyone had the right to hold religious beliefs, those beliefs had no standing under the law. There is, apparently in his opinion, no statutory connection between Christian beliefs and the law.
It seems to have escaped his Lordship’s notice that the protestant Christian religion is not only the bedrock of British society, but the Church of England and its beliefs are the established church of this country. That is the law! Unfortunately, even if he were wrong yesterday, no government currently in prospect is likely to face up to the consequences of his Lordship’s ruling, as we shall see in a moment.
http://www.ashleymote.co.uk/?p=3078
The judge ruled that, while everyone had the right to hold religious beliefs, those beliefs had no standing under the law.
Very interesting. I wonder how it squares with this:
Secular society upset by Judge Cherie decision
A senior judge could be called on to investigate a complaint that Cherie Blair handed down a more lenient sentence to a man who had been convicted of fracturing a person’s jaw because he was religious.
Mrs Blair, a devout Roman Catholic who sits as a part time judge under the title Cherie Booth QC, spared Shamso Miah from jail last month after he was convicted of assaulting a person at a bank queue in east London.
The 25-year-old from Redbridge, north-east London, was given a two-year suspended sentence instead of a six-month jail term because, Mrs Blair said, he was a “religious person” who had not been in trouble before.
Read it all…
“The Orwellian logic that’s turning the faith Britain was built on into a crime”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-1270880/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-The-Orwellian-logic-thats-turning-faith-Britain-built-crime.html#ixzz0mqaLRkTs
The strange thing is that ‘Relate’, from which this kerfuffle began, was founded by a Christian minister. So it has come to this, that the organisation that was founded by a devout Christian is to be forced to abandon its Christian principles.
The same holds when the Royal College of Nursing condemns a Christian nurse for praying for a terminally ill patient.
I suppose, if Florence Nightingale was alive today, she would be drummed out of the Royal College of Nursing, as well as the nursing profession, for unprofessional conduct.