Some so people who claim to be Christians (Bush & Blair) are bad people, and for some illogical reason you suggest all Christians are they same.

However, some gays sexually abuse children, therefore using your reasoning all homosexuals must equally be regarded as paedophiles?

By calling Christians nutters you also give legitimacy to those that say homosexuality is a mental illness. Although, just because you are mad or just plain stupid, I have the rational sense to realise that not all gays are like you. I hope for your sake other gays do not think like you.

I’m going to do whatever I want to do because I don’t give a flying fuck what other people may think.

In fact, if anyone has the audacity to disapprove of what I do, I going to deliberately do it in front of them just to annoy them even more.

After all who the fuck do they think they are to disapprove of what I do.

Having said that, if other people should even attempt to do something I disapprove of I am going to go fucking ballistic because the world revolves around me, not them!!!!!!

#, you appear to be responding to your own misconstruction of the language used by the article writer.

The term "Christian lunatics" refers to people who are both Christian AND lunatics.

If the writer intended to convey the sentiment that all Christians were lunatics, s/he would have simply used the word "Christians".

Hope this helps.

"By calling Christians nutters you also give legitimacy to those that say homosexuality is a mental illness."

I think you're missing the point. Homosexuals have no belief in an unproven theory regarding the creation of the universe, the nature of mankind, the 'correct' ethical system, the laws governing the universe, the supernatural (miracles, etc), the afterlife, and so on and so forth. Therefore it WOULD be perfectly valid to hold the belief that Christians are insane without giving any legitimacy to the view you mentioned. However, I'm not saying I do think all Christians are nutters, or that anyone else should, simply that you're not right in that statement.

"However, some gays sexually abuse children, therefore using your reasoning all homosexuals must equally be regarded as paedophiles?"

If someone sexually abuses a child they are a paedophile not a gay. Unless of course you wish to describe Ian Huntley as a heterosexual?

I can't recall seeing any documentarys about gays protecting paedophiles and sheltering them from the law. I've seen three about the church (usually catholic) doing just that.

... is a bunch of god botherers telling others how to lead their lives.

yes there are gay people who are insufferable - but not because they are gay, merely because they are insufferable.

there are also christians who believe in the message of love behind the teachings attributed to christ (but are actually much older) and have no problem loving their gay brothers and sisters.

what we have here though, is a bunch of christain lunatics who would have us burning gays, whitches, heritics and the 'wrong' kind of christians before you can say inqusition

secular thinking has made enormous progress over the past 100 years or so ... those of us who believe in justice and peace should not allow these nutters to claw back our liberties.

To claim every Gay person is a nonce is as crass as claiming every Christian is a paedo as the posts above have suggested.

Just ask yourself who put a better fight up against Thatcher the churches or the Gay community?

Its not the god bothers you have to worry about, they have not been preparing the ideological argument for war against Iran like Tatchell and Outrage have been, especially when more Gay men and teenagers violently die in the US prison system than they do in Islamic Iran.

Engage your brains you thick bastards - this legislation means the state can now determine what constitutes sexuality and also what ‘legitimate’ religious belief is.

Your fools - that is what the BNP want the state to do.

This is not progress it is a fucking disaster and will come back to haunt all of us. It’s alright for Tatchell he can fuck off back to Oz when the shit hits the fan and play the martyr there.

Now start chanting "Four feet good, two feet bad!" - cos you lot clearly have not the brains to think through the implications of what is happening.

Duh said:

>The term "Christian lunatics" refers to people who are both Christian AND lunaticsHomosexuals have no belief in an unproven theory regarding the creation of the universe...If someone sexually abuses a child they are a paedophile not a gay.what we have here though, is a bunch of christain lunatics who would have us burning gays, whitches, heritics and the 'wrong' kind of christians before you can say inqusition<

No, I think what we have hear is (poorly spelt) paranoid nonsense. Forget Christians, I know atheists who would refuse a gay couple to stay in any guesthouse they may own. I know people who change the channel every time a gay reference is made on TV. But they don’t want to burn gays or anything like it. They simply choose a lifestyle or subculture where homosexuality, and other things such as adultery, are seen as negative influences and thus discouraged as being thought of as normal, just as some religions see other faith as having negative influences and also discouraged. Surely they have the right to choose what they believe is best for them and their kin, just as you do?


Deliberately “infuriating” these people, as the article indeed boasts, is akin to the zero tolerance of Bush and his ‘your either with us or your with the enemy’ rationalisation. A ‘bring em on’ type arrogance that patently wins neither heart nor mind.

What do you suggest we do with those that adamantly refuse to embrace homosexuality (and/or adultery) into their subculture? Perhaps you can tell me what would you do with these people - what would be your ‘final solution’ to the homophobic (sic) question..?

Duh said:

“The term "Christian lunatics" refers to people who are both Christian AND lunatics”

Yeah right. Try getting away with that when calling someone who is a bastard AND black, mean AND Jewish or dirty AND queer…


Rouge said:

“Homosexuals have no belief in an unproven theory regarding the creation of the universe...”

Some do, but if you are generalising them it’s you who has missed the point. Generally speaking Christians have no belief in homosexuality…! The point I was making for example is that any Welsh prejudice against the English justifies any English prejudice against the Welsh. Likewise with other comparisons such as blondes and brunettes even. Prejudice begets prejudice.


Judas said:

“If someone sexually abuses a child they are a paedophile not a gay.”

But some men who have sex with other men have raped young boys as well. Therefore they are both gay and paedophiles. Although paedophiles are an abomination and homosexuality is just a perversion/deviation/alternative from the norm, therefore they would obviously be referred to as paedophiles, as paedophilia is of far greater importance to us. Nevertheless they are in fact both gay and paedophiles. The point I was making was you cannot therefore stereotype all gays as paedophiles. Just as you cannot stereotype all Christians as nutters…!?!



jackslucid said:

“what we have here though, is a bunch of christain lunatics who would have us burning gays, whitches, heritics and the 'wrong' kind of christians before you can say inqusition”

No, I think what we have hear is (poorly spelt) paranoid nonsense. Forget Christians, I know atheists who would refuse a gay couple to stay in any guesthouse they may own. I know people who change the channel every time a gay reference is made on TV. But they don’t want to burn gays or anything like it. They simply choose a lifestyle or subculture where homosexuality, and other things such as adultery, are seen as negative influences and thus discouraged as being thought of as normal, just as some religions see other faith as having negative influences and also discouraged. Surely they have the right to choose what they believe is best for them and their kin, just as you do?


Deliberately “infuriating” these people, as the article indeed boasts, is akin to the zero tolerance of Bush and his ‘your either with us or your with the enemy’ rationalisation. A ‘bring em on’ type arrogance that patently wins neither heart nor mind.

What do you suggest we do with those that adamantly refuse to embrace homosexuality (and/or adultery) into their subculture? Perhaps you can tell me what would you do with these people - what would be your ‘final solution’ to the homophobic (sic) question..?

You are all mad and stereotyping hypocrites, end off.

Everyone happy and you can all go to bed.

...'there are also christians who believe in the message of love behind the teachings attributed to christ (but are actually much older) and have no problem loving their gay brothers and sisters'

and it doesn't matter how I spell any of it

the point being that the mentality of those who took part and encouraged the inquistion is still alive and we must guard against it gaining any foothold in our society - especially at the cost of that which Bill states

peace

... of your statement:

'No, I think what we have hear is (poorly spelt) paranoid nonsense'

... itself containing a spelling mistake! (I'll let you find it!)

the simple truth is that christianity has a long and bloody history of killing human beings

you may think those days are all in the past

I've not seen that much change in either the rhetoric or the human nature of 'fanatics' myself, so will not risk it

Do you eccept that delibarateley “infuriating” thees peopel is a misstake?

And whot do you sugesst we do with thoes that addamutley reffuze to embrase homosexuallitey into their lifestille or subcullcha? What wood be your ‘final solution’ to the homophobic (sic) question..?

BTW, homophobia is illegal. Therefore, if these people were being homophobic, as claimed, they would have been arrested. I’ve not heard any gays saying they should have been arrested, so why use the term homophobia? ‘Prejudice’ and ‘dogmatic’ maybe, but ‘homophobia’ is like calling Blair a ‘fascist’. It is hyperbole.

As said in a letter in today’s Independent; ‘The issue is glaringly well summed up by Lord Smith: “People have the right to believe that homosexuality is somehow wrong…but I do not believe they have the right to put their beliefs into action.” The new regulations are not a law about gay rights at all, but the suppression of non-gay’s rights to lawfully express their beliefs.’

... to tolerate it as far as it doesn't incite violence, heavily libel or encourage a diminishing of anothers humans rights ...

... beyond that I will attempt to engage in debate, non violently resist and finally resist without violence to the person.

If one needs to be violent against lifeforms then more times than not it is a lose lose situation. That depressess me.

It's a complex issue really ... no doubt I have some of it back to front, but then I am an idiot.

Peace to all.

"The new regulations are not a law about gay rights at all, but the suppression of non-gay’s rights to lawfully express their beliefs"

This is giving gay people the same rights not to be discriminated against as other marginal groups. Someone's sexual orientation (unless its unlawful in and of itself e.g. Paedophilia) should be no barrier to obtaining a room in a B&B or getting a job

I'm pretty sure the Christian right would also like it if people who weren't married couldn't get a room together or people with more than one sexual partner get a job in a Christian run business etc. etc.

Christians can say all they want that they think its wrong to be homosexual but they shouldn't be able to treat a homosexual in a discrimanatory manner in the ways proscribed by this law.

Pete said: “This is giving people the same rights not to be discriminated against as other marginal groups”


Why would gays want to work for a homophobic (sic) boss forced by law to employ them, or stay in a guesthouse run by a landlord that simply didn’t want them there?

Surely this new legislation was not needed?

Besides, how does this new legislation effect employers with neo-Nazi members applying for a job? Or a landlord of a guest house with neo-Nazis applying to stay?

Can the BNP demand access to gay pubs and clubs now? Will you be arrested for opposing neo-Nazis teaching kids in schools? If not, why not?

Surely this legislation gives all people the same rights not to be discriminated against as other marginal groups…?

As far as I'm aware one is not allowed to discriminate against people on religious grounds ie. I couldn't refuse goods/services to a Muslim simply because I don't approve of their lifestyle choice. Although I'm not sure I want more and more repressive laws, I do think that the law needs to be expanded to protect gay people - after all at least they're born that way and don't choose their lifestyle. Whether people approve of homosexuality is irrelevant - I find religion repugnant but I wouldn't dream of stopping any people of faith from having the same rights as anyone else.