Faith rally over gay rights bill

Religious groups are to protest outside Parliament in an attempt to halt legislation banning discrimination against lesbians and gay men.

Organisers say the Sexual Orientation Regulations would limit their right to live according to religious beliefs.

In the House of Lords, peers are to debate a motion calling for the regulations, already in force in Northern Ireland, to be annulled.

Outside, Christians, Jews and Muslims will gather for a torch-lit protest.

The rally is to be held in Old Palace Yard opposite the St Stephen's entrance to the House of Lords, Westminster from 1730 GMT to 2000 GMT. It is due to start when the Lords debate the motion.

Several thousand people are expected to take part.

The legislation would ban discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on the basis of sexuality.

Hotels could be prosecuted for refusing to provide rooms for gay couples and parishes obliged to rent out halls for gay wedding receptions.

Equally, gay bars would not be able to ban straight couples.

Thomas Cordrey, barrister and public policy analyst with the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship, said: "The debate in the Lords is a signal to the government of the need to acknowledge these regulations do not currently strike the correct balance between two competing rights.

"Christians have no desire to discriminate unjustly on the grounds of sexual orientation, but they cannot and must not be forced to actively condone and promote sexual practices which the Bible teaches are wrong.

"It is a fundamental matter of freedom of conscience," Mr Cordrey said.

Rally organiser Ade Omooba said: "Senior lawyers have expressed the view that unless these regulations are amended, they will outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, only to replace it with discrimination on the grounds of religion."

Under the new regulations, protestors say the right to religious belief could be discriminated against in the following examples:

* A Christian, Jewish or Muslim printer could be legally forced to print a flyer for a gay night club or gay pride march and would be denied the right to refuse carry out the work as a matter of religious conscience.

* A Christian, Jewish or Muslim teacher could be breaking the law if they seek to promote heterosexual marriage instead of homosexual civil partnership - even if homosexuality is at odds with the teacher's faith

* A Christian, Jewish or Muslim IT consultant could be forced to build a website promoting gay rights.

But gay rights group OutRage! accused religious leaders of "scaremongering, lies and hypocrisy".

Peter Tatchell told BBC News "These regulations do not legalise, or illegalise, people's beliefs.

"They do not impinge on what people believe, on opinions they express, on attitudes or values.

"People are still free to hold their beliefs, to live their lives according to their own morality and... their own religious beliefs. The law proposed does not change that one iota.

"All it does is extend to lesbian and gay people the same protection against discrimination as is already existing to protect women, black people and Christians, Jews, Muslims and other people of faith." BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6243323.stm)
Isn't it just heart warming to see the assorted branches of the Abrahamic faiths setting aside their differences for once and united in demanding their right to continue to discriminate against a minority they've enthusiastically persecuted for millenia.

I listened to someone in Northern Ireland (so I presume Christian) being interviewed on Radio 4 this morning & was completely stumped by his logic that it was unfair legislation as he would unable to prosecute a B&B owner who refused him a room and it gave gay people more rights than him.

I wonder if anyone will actually point out to him (sadly the interviewer didn't) that being refused a room because you're gay is no different to being refused a room because you have a skin colour someone doesn't like. Or should I say a skin colour that you consider to be morally wrong - cos after all you choose your sexuality just like you choose your skin colour :rolleyes:

In the words of Homer Simpson

"if the Bible has taught us anything - and it hasn't"

Ah now I'd argue it's not the Bible that's the problem - it's the way it gets interpreted a lot of the time that's the problem. There's nothing like a spot of discrimination just as long as it's done with Christian loving kindness :D

Plekhanov, by putting all British Christians, Jews and Muslims in this category you're showing the same degree of bigotry as those you rightly decry.

Perhaps bigotry affects secular people as well as people of faith?

Ah now I'd argue it's not the Bible that's the problem - it's the way it gets interpreted a lot of the time that's the problem. There's nothing like a spot of discrimination just as long as it's done with Christian loving kindness :D

Indeed. Discriminating against homosexuals is a profoundly un-Christian thing to do.

I don't think it is fair to call what they are doing "hatred". It isn't necessarily about hate if they simply don't want to have to use church premises for gay weddings. They can quite easily not hate homosexuals but can believe that they shouldn't be married in churches or be able to use premises of a religion where homosexuallity is clearly outlawed by that religion. When it comes to hotel rooms then this is a bit different, but there might be some catholic guesthouse where this would clearly be innappropriate and offensive to them.

Indeed. Discriminating against homosexuals is a profoundly un-Christian thing to do.

Are you sure?

"Christians" have been persecuting gays forever.

storm in a teacup. this bill will get put through. the pink pound is very strong.

Are you sure?

"Christians" have been persecuting gays forever.

Yes, I'm sure. You're right in that people that call themselves that have indeed been persecuting gay people. They're not doing it in Jesus' name though - the Jesus we learn of in the Bible was the kind of guy who would hang out with tax collectors and prostitutes. Were he physically present today, I'm sure he'd be a friend to crackheads, asylum seekers, gypsies and thieves and I'm damned sure he wouldn't have any truck with discriminating against people on the grounds of their sexuality.

Ah now I'd argue it's not the Bible that's the problem - it's the way it gets interpreted a lot of the time that's the problem. There's nothing like a spot of discrimination just as long as it's done with Christian loving kindness :D

Absolutely agree.

It never fails to amaze me how individuals can interpret Holy texts in such a vastly different way, often to suit their own personal machinations.

....When it comes to hotel rooms then this is a bit different, but there might be some catholic guesthouse where this would clearly be innappropriate and offensive to them.

This reminds me of an occasion in Cornwall when my partner tried to book a room for the two of us and was refused on the grounds that we weren't married. Although it took us completely by surprise, we never questioned the right of the proprietor to refuse us entry on whatever grounds he chose.

Would this legislation mean that the proprietor would be forced to accept gay couples but still be able to refuse unmarried couples?

I have a feeling Halibut had his tongue (do fish have tongues?) very firmly in his cheek.

Church premises I take your point KenH although I can't see too many people wanting to get married in any place that was so unwelcoming. It doesn't mean that the minister/priest/vicar would be forced to conduct the service so I'm not convinced

When it comes to B&Bs & hotels etc surely that would mean that a straight couple would have to produce their marriage certificate in order for religious sensibilities not to be offended. Plus it also makes the assumption that anything other than sleeping would be going on in the room.

Maybe we should have separate areas on public transport for gays too - just incase anyone gets offended...

(took so long to post that some of this has already been said sorry!)

This reminds me of an occasion in Cornwall when my partner tried to book a room for the two of us and was refused on the grounds that we weren't married. Although it took us completely by surprise, we never questioned the right of the proprietor to refuse us entry on whatever grounds he chose.

Would this legislation mean that the proprietor would be forced to accept gay couples but still be able to refuse unmarried couples?

If a hotelier is faced with a group of blokes who don't as for one room each then shouldn't he be allowed to turn them away because they might be up to no good? If I own a bed and breakfast can't I just say I am full if I don't liek the look of the person asking for a room. This kind of legislation will just allow everyoen who doesn't get anything they want to sue.

I have a feeling Halibut had his tongue (do fish have tongues?) very firmly in his cheek.

I didn't at all Sian! I meant every word. Fish do have tongues though - Cod's tongues and cheeks is apparently a rather lovely dish. (Can't say it appeals much to me though.)

Plekhanov, by putting all British Christians, Jews and Muslims in this category you're showing the same degree of bigotry as those you rightly decry.


I don't think he is, actually, from his comment. I think it merely highlights the hypocrisy of the three named religions who despite claiming to preach 'love, tolerance and understanding' everywhere else are doing just the opposite towards gay people, as they always have done.

I'm not for a minute claiming that all followers of each religion are the same (I come from a religous family myself), but homosexuality does seem to be the one area where all 3 religions seems to think "Nah, it's ok to hate, mistreat and discriminate against this lot like everyone else does" whereas in all other situations these religions would make it a virtue to help others being so treated.

If a hotelier is faced with a group of blokes who don't as for one room each then shouldn't he be allowed to turn them away because they might be up to no good? If I own a bed and breakfast can't I just say I am full if I don't liek the look of the person asking for a room. This kind of legislation will just allow everyoen who doesn't get anything they want to sue.

I don't think so - after all being refused a room on the grounds of skin colour isn't an allegation that can be plucked out of thin air - you may suspect it but proof would be needed for someone to be prosecuted. I doubt this would work any differently

Some people have prejuduces wether their religous or not, you could esily get other different groups of people to unite with hatred for which ever cause or prejudice they have.

Does this thread need a title change to: "Some self procalimed representatives of some faiths (but probably in name alone) unite in hatred of homosexuals?

Faiths promote tolerance don't they? Perhaps these pseudo followers misread their chosen book, and wouldn't it be just like the media to jump on that little sharrabang of a band wagon.

I don't think so - after all being refused a room on the grounds of skin colour isn't an allegation that can be plucked out of thin air - you may suspect it but proof would be needed for someone to be prosecuted. I doubt this would work any differently

The proof idea is interesting. On many campsites, the owners refuse to accept groups of lads. Could they get round this by saying that they were gay? If so, how could they reasonably be asked to prove it?

I'm afraid I'm a bit confused by all this. Don't we already have gay vicars...and even gay bishops in the Anglican church ?

On many campsites, the owners refuse to accept groups of lads.

as opposed to Butchsites where they are welcome.

Does this thread need a title change to: "Some self procalimed representatives of some faiths (but probably in name alone) unite in hatred of homosexuals?

.

No, it needs to change to a title that doesn't include the word "hate". Not wanting to do something isn't the same as having hatred. How about:-


"Some self procalimed representatives of some faiths (but probably in name alone) unite against proposed legislation that they believe in incompatable with their faith"

No, it needs to change to a title that doesn't include the word "hate". Not wanting to do something isn't the same as having hatred. How about:-


"Some self procalimed representatives of some faiths (but probably in name alone) unite against proposed legislation that they believe in incompatable with their faith"

Oh yes, that's much better, and much more accurate.

"Some self procalimed representatives of some faiths (but probably in name alone) unite against proposed legislation that they believe in incompatable with their faith"

or "Religion - no changes in the near future"

Does this thread need a title change to: "Some self procalimed representatives of some faiths (but probably in name alone) unite in hatred of homosexuals?

Faiths promote tolerance don't they? Perhaps these pseudo followers misread their chosen book, and wouldn't it be just like the media to jump on that little sharrabang of a band wagon.

Precisely the point I was making Titian. It saddens me when I hear alegedly Christian people expressing views that are so far removed from Christ's teachings.

The proof idea is interesting. On many campsites, the owners refuse to accept groups of lads. Could they get round this by saying that they were gay? If so, how could they reasonably be asked to prove it?

2 men or 2 women (I don't think anyone is going to prosecute a campsite/ B&B/hotel owner for not allowing some sort of orgy - gay or straight) being refused a room / tent space would still need to prove that the owner of the place was discriminating on the grounds of their sexuality. I don't think anyone's going to pay any attention to a couple who are drunk/ aggressive etc (for instance) complaining that they've been discriminated against due to their sexuality. Suspicion that someone is discriminating against you on the grounds of sexuality, race or anything else isn't enough for a prosecution.

In the words of Homer Simpson

"if the Bible has taught us anything - and it hasn't"


What about the Torah and the Koran. I think that is religious discrimination. Be careful you will have them protesting outside your door.

"Some self procalimed representatives of some faiths (but probably in name alone) unite against proposed legislation that they believe in incompatable with their faith"


and by uniting against it display intense animosity or hostility (the man I heard interviewed on the radio this morning chosen as a representative of people with objections to this legislation was quite open in his hostility - he wasn't just expressing concerns/ beliefs) which is a definition of hatred.

It's true that many many Christians, Jews and Muslims do not share the views of the people protesting but then they would be liberals. It's the fundamentalist factions from these religions who feels so strongly about this.

I think hotel owners should be able to refuse people a room for any reason they wish. It is their business, not a public service.

The only problem with that is that a gay couple booking a hotel room would have to disclose that information when making a prior booking to make sure that they won't be turned away when they check-in.

This could make them feel uncomfortable.

By the same token, the gay community could then ask their friends and supporters to boycott the hotels refusing their services to them.

There are plenty of people who would partake I think.

EDIT: I'd just like to add, I would think even homophobic hotel owners would just roll their eyes to themselves at gay couples, I don't think most would be that bothered.

Just as a matter of interest, are there any homosexuals on here who have been turned away from hotels or any other services/premises?

If a hotel/campsite or whatever wants to turn away the portion of the public with the biggest disposable income, thats fine, someone else will welcome them, and their money, with open arms.

Honk!

Religion claiming the role of the nations moral compass always results in stuff like this.

Despite what any wing of religion says, fundamentalist, revisionist, liberal, they are all hamstrung by their fixed moral viewpoint. I'm not saying that they have an *unchanging* position - eg witch burning seems out of favour in most places now. BUT They do have the problem in that they think there is a wrong or right answer to every moral dilema - and that their answer comes from (selective) interpretation of their holy texts.

(As I have previously posted on many occasions) this results in "Infantile Morality" - eg the jewish, xian and islamic view on homesexulaity to be "wrong" is not based in any rational thought process - apart from "the book says it is wrong"

What other possible reason is there for having a problem with homosexuality?

Honk!

the man I heard interviewed on the radio this morning chosen as a representative of people

I question that he was chosen on the basis of being a representative of the people. ( meaning public opinion )

More, that he was the most outspoken and critical. ( That makes more interesting reporting )

The proof idea is interesting. On many campsites, the owners refuse to accept groups of lads. Could they get round this by saying that they were gay? If so, how could they reasonably be asked to prove it?

A mate and myself were turned away from 4 campsites in cornwall as they didn't accept "same sex groups". At the 5th attempt we decided to "camp it up" a little (pardon the pun - irresistible) and perhaps give them the impression we might be a couple. Despite the sign on the booking office door stating "no same sex groups" we got a pitch for the tent and ever such courteous service throughout our stay, albeit through slightly wary eyes.

This appeared to be because they thought we were a gay couple rather than a couple of northern likely lads on a tour of violent, drunken, debauchery (which we were most definitely not! just normal blokes on holiday).

It seems to me that discrimination happens to anyone who is not "normal" in the eyes of whoever is making the judgement.

Honk!
They do have the problem in that they think there is a wrong or right answer to every moral dilema - Honk!

There is a right or wrong answer to every moral dilema. The question is if you have a moral spine and religious education certainly helps in this decision making process.

I hope that gay rights groups make lists of all the businesses that discriminate against gays so that fair-minded people can boycott them. It'd be a great example of karma if their homophobia led to their businesses going under due to bad word of mouth.

There is a right or wrong answer to every moral dilema. The question is if you have a moral spine and religious education certainly helps in this decision making process.


This post explains why the religions get stuck in the "we are right, you are wrong" mind set. This then leads to the intra and inter religious conflicts which have f**ked the world up for 600 years.

Decisions on moral dilemas, laws and society need to be based on agreement after a debate based on FACTS. Not on "religious eduction" or indoctrination.

If "having moral spine" is what gave the proddies and catholics the will to persecute each other for 100's of years, I dont want any, thanks.

I hope that gay rights groups make lists of all the businesses that discriminate against gays so that fair-minded people can boycott them. It'd be a great example of karma if their homophobia led to their businesses going under due to bad word of mouth.

Completely agree. This is the point I was trying to get at. Hopefully these people will find that their prejudice will be their own un-doing.

I question that he was chosen on the basis of being a representative of the people. ( meaning public opinion )

More, that he was the most outspoken and critical. ( That makes more interesting reporting )

The whole group protesting is being outspoken and critical - that's the point of the protest. He was chosen as a representative of this group not of public opinion

I hope that gay rights groups make lists of all the businesses that discriminate against gays so that fair-minded people can boycott them. It'd be a great example of karma if their homophobia led to their businesses going under due to bad word of mouth.

This does tend to happen on a micro scale, rather than macro, by using word of mouth rather than written lists.

And about time too...its good that something pulls us all together....picking on smokers the whole time is getting me down....now we can pick on another vile practise.

now we can pick on another vile practise.

like trolling ?

I hope that gay rights groups make lists of all the businesses that discriminate against gays so that fair-minded people can boycott them. It'd be a great example of karma if their homophobia led to their businesses going under due to bad word of mouth.


I can't say I'm looking forward to the day when my holiday destination requires the Peter Tatchel seal of approval.

I can't say I'm looking forward to the day when my holiday destination requires the Peter Tatchel seal of approval.

If I ran a hotel I'd turn Peter Tatchel away.

[QUOTE=Mr Goose]If "having moral spine" is what gave the proddies and catholics the will to persecute each other for 100's of years, I dont want any, thanks.[/QUOTE


I uderstand this problem to have been based on occupation b4 religion.

Plekhanov, by putting all British Christians, Jews and Muslims in this category you're showing the same degree of bigotry as those you rightly decry.

Perhaps bigotry affects secular people as well as people of faith?

if anything it's the good old "can't do anything wrong" bbc who created this group definition in their original article. Not specifically British I know but this protest is in Britain aimed at a change in British legislation

Just as a matter of interest, are there any homosexuals on here who have been turned away from hotels or any other services/premises?

OMG :o :o :o there are "gays" on ere.

I hvae never been turned away from anything, but thats probably because I am so butch they simply cannot tell. :thumbsup:

OMG :o :o :o there are "gays" on ere.

I hvae never been turned away from anything, but thats probably because I am so butch they simply cannot tell. :thumbsup:

If you and your partner were booking a hotel, would you ask if gay couples were welcome before you booked in case you turned up and they turned you away though?

Sorry state of affairs that you'd even have to think about it really.

If you and your partner were booking a hotel, would you ask if gay couples were welcome before you booked in case you turned up and they turned you away though?

Sorry state of affairs that you'd even have to think about it really.


Firsty I need to find a partner, but if I had one, then yes I would ask the hotel first, no choice really as it would be a waste of journey otherwise.

i fully support the rights of everyone ........ including the rights of the "owner" "proprietor" to follow their own beliefs. why should they be forced to follow someone elses code of ethics.
all that will happen is that they will
a) overprice work for same sex couples if they don't want it; photographers etc.
b) they''ll refuse and make up any old excuse.

Firsty I need to find a partner

Ok. Good luck with that!

Firsty I need to find a partner, but if I had one, then yes I would ask the hotel first, no choice really as it would be a waste of journey otherwise.


You know Pete this never really occurred to me before I heard this on the news today - imagine having to check when booking a hotel room if heterosexuals were welcome first to avoid a wasted trip :|

You know Pete this never really occurred to me before I heard this on the news today - imagine having to check when booking a hotel room if heterosexuals were welcome first to avoid a wasted trip :|

Client: I'd like to book a double room please?

Hotel: Of course sir..name, address...

Client: can I pay by card?

Hotel: naturally sir but just one thing.... can you tell me the ingredients of a quiche?

Client: naturally sir.......can you tell me what soft furnishings you have?

Hotel: yes we have an abundance of the latest textiles hand selected and imported by our manager.

Client: Is your manager gay?

Hotel: No sir he isn't

Client: then I expect they will be badly made and not up to standard, can you cancel my booking please. Good day to you.

In hotels that are run primarily for the Gay/Lesbian community what book do you find in the draw next to the bed?

i fully support the rights of everyone ........ including the rights of the "owner" "proprietor" to follow their own beliefs. why should they be forced to follow someone elses code of ethics..

Same arguement as saying "I support the right of the Mill owner to sack the injured babbies who got caught in t'looms"

:mad:

In hotels that are run primarily for the Gay/Lesbian community what book do you find in the draw next to the bed?

This months Vogue ?

In hotels that are run primarily for the Gay/Lesbian community what book do you find in the draw next to the bed?

I don't know. What book do you find in the draw next to the bed?

Same arguement as saying "I support the right of the Mill owner to sack the injured babbies who got caught in t'looms"

:mad:

I believe he's talking about selecting customers/clients, not workers rights.

I don't know. What book do you find in the draw next to the bed?

At the moment " Terror and Liberalism " by Paul Berman but that is irrelavent as the topic was "Gay/Lesbians being catered for and too in all Hotels/BB/Camp sites.

Same arguement as saying "I support the right of the Mill owner to sack the injured babbies who got caught in t'looms"

:mad:


quite likely.

playing devils advocate now - why should people be TOLD who they must serve.making it political makes it too much of a power issue - before you know it it'll be a standard remark "what do you mean i can't have it, 'cos i can i'm gay".. "but i'm sorry sir we've sold out".

i'm all for equal rights but this is dictating who you must deal with - not fair.

Same arguement as saying "I support the right of the Mill owner to sack the injured babbies who got caught in t'looms"

:mad:

You can't really equate employment rights/protection with a village church not wanting a gay wedding in their church hall.

I assume all the hotels that won't be allowing gay people to stay will also not be doing anything else that the Bible forbids, like opening on Sunday, or allowing guests to eat certain foods ?

You can't really equate employment rights/protection with a village church not wanting a gay wedding in their church hall.
Here here Ken.

My two penneth;
The government are just trying to make us go against our moral values and conscience, well 'it aint gonna happen'.

When our gay friends visit us (which they do) from London they know they are more than welcome to our house. As for us letting them stay in the same room together overnight, they are not welcome to do that. They know where we stand on issues and respect our beliefs.
We love them, we don't love all their practices.
Pertaining to business practices; My husband won't promote something that goes against our beliefs. Simple as. I don't see why we should be criminilised for that.

And please, just as an aside, our Black Christian friends are more than ticked off that in debates like this being black or being Gay are portrayed as synonymous.

Here here Ken.

My two penneth;
The government are just trying to make us go against our moral values and conscience, well 'it aint gonna happen'.

When our gay friends visit us (which they do) from London they know they are more than welcome to our house. As for us letting them stay in the same room together overnight, they are not welcome to do that. They know where we stand on issues and respect our beliefs.
We love them, we don't love all their practices.
Pertaining to business practices; My husband won't promote something that goes against our beliefs. Simple as. I don't see why we should be criminilised for that.

And please, just as an aside, our Black Christian friends are more than ticked off that in debates like this being black or being Gay are portrayed as synonymous.
Would you allow an overnight visitor - an adolescent bloke for example, to stay at your home if you thought there was a reasonable chance that he might masturbate whilst there? I'm not trying to be facetious, it's a serious question. I'm curious also as to the apparent distinction you seem to make between being gay (loving a member of the samer sex) and expressing that love physically ( indulging in homosexual acts). Why so and where do you find these beliefs reflected in Christ's teaching? (I'm guessing you're Christian and apologise if I'm wrong)

Edit: grammar and spelling

Would you allow an overnight visitor - an adolescent bloke for example to stay at your home if you thought there was a reasonable chance that he might masturbate whilst there? I'm not trying to be facetous, it's a serious question. I'm cirious also as to the apparent distinction you seem to make between being gay (loving a member of the samer sex) and expressing that love physically ( indulging in homosexual acts). Why so and where do you find these beliefs reflected in Christ's teaching? (I'm guessing you're Christian and apologise if I'm wrong)

To be honest, I consider myself quite broad-minded and I wouldn't like to think my mate was masturbating in my house. Never mind what Jesus thinks, I don't want it!

And please, just as an aside, our Black Christian friends are more than ticked off that in debates like this being black or being Gay are portrayed as synonymous.

I'm guessing those same friends believe that we choose our sexuality then and are not born with it (like we are our skin colour) that's a whole different debate

To be honest, I consider myself quite broad-minded and I wouldn't like to think my mate was masturbating in my house. Never mind what Jesus thinks, I don't want it!

Well it's not an entirely agreeable idea I agree NEKRO, but then it wouldn't really enter one's head to think about it would it? - I find it curious that others are so concerned about what goes on between consenting adults (or individuals) that they would want to deny them hospitality becuase of it.

Well it's not an entirely agreeable idea I agree NEKRO, but then it wouldn't really enter one's head to think about it would it?

It might do now. Thanks for putting that in my head. I'll have to make all my guests wear anti-masturbation mitts now.

It might do now. Thanks for putting that in my head. I'll have to make all my guests wear anti-masturbation mitts now.

They don't work. You just get friction burns.:rolleyes:

Would you allow an overnight visitor - an adolescent bloke for example, to stay at your home if you thought there was a reasonable chance that he might masturbate whilst there? I'm not trying to be facetious, it's a serious question.
Thats more of a vague possiblity, whereas our real life predicament with our gay friends is a little more solid, just for the record, we wouldn't let an unmarried hetro couple sleep together in our house either.
I'm curious also as to the apparent distinction you seem to make between being gay (loving a member of the samer sex) and expressing that love physically ( indulging in homosexual acts). Why so and where do you find these beliefs reflected in Christ's teaching? (I'm guessing you're Christian and apologise if I'm wrong)
I don't feel I make a distinction between "being gay" and "gay acts" more of a distinction between "being a human being" (I love our gay friends as people) and "gay acts". (If you get what I mean!)

Is it really too much to ask, that people respect the views of their hosts, whilst staying under their roof?
I think even the most rampant sex maniac could go without for a couple of nights.
Regarding the hotel business, if they dont makes a song and dance about their sexual orientation, who will know that they are homosexual?
Anyway I doubt very much that any reputable hotel would turn paying customers away, except for unacceptable behaviour.
Surely the kind of accomodation where you are checked out, vetted, and given house rules no longer exists? And if it did exist, who would want to stay there anyway.

When our gay friends visit us (which they do) from London they know they are more than welcome to our house. As for us letting them stay in the same room together overnight, they are not welcome to do that.

Not even in two single beds, believe it or not we able to go one night without sex, it's not essential that we have a shag every night. TBH I'd have trouble being your friend, knowing that you love me, but are repulsed by the thought of me doing something (that hurts no-one) would be very difficult.

Here here Ken.

My two penneth;
The government are just trying to make us go against our moral values and conscience, well 'it aint gonna happen'.
When our gay friends visit us (which they do) from London they know they are more than welcome to our house. As for us letting them stay in the same room together overnight, they are not welcome to do that. They know where we stand on issues and respect our beliefs.
We love them, we don't love all their practices.
Pertaining to business practices; My husband won't promote something that goes against our beliefs. Simple as. I don't see why we should be criminilised for that.
.

I'll keep asking the same question - what is wrong about homosexuality, apart from "the bible says it is evil" ?

when my gay friends come to visit ............ as if

I'll keep asking the same question - what is wrong about homosexuality, apart from "the bible says it is evil" ?


its about personal choice, not right or wrong IMHO.
what next being forced to serve drunks , after all it's allegedly in their genetic makeup to be a drunk.

I wonder if gay people outnumber the religious in this country.

I wonder if gay people outnumber the religious in this country.

The "realy religious" (ie. go to church, believe in God) or the "religious when it suits their cause" ?

I have to ask Kay_cee, would you be my friend if I said you couldn't discuss God, pray, or read a bible while you were in my house, because I personally, don't approve of Christianity ?

When our gay friends visit us (which they do) from London they know they are more than welcome to our house. As for us letting them stay in the same room together overnight, they are not welcome to do that. They know where we stand on issues and respect our beliefs.
We love them, we don't love all their practices.

I'm frankly astonished that you have gay friends with this point of view, and even more astonished that they would come any stay with you under your conditions.

It seems that they are far more tolerant of your beliefs than you are of theirs.

The "realy religious" (ie. go to church, believe in God) or the "religious when it suits their cause" ?
The Really religious.
The rest are merely hypocrites.

If you really are that picky about who stays in your hotel then why open a hotel in the first place? :rolleyes:

I'll keep asking the same question - what is wrong about homosexuality, apart from "the bible says it is evil" ?

whats right with it, if it comes to that.

whats right with it, if it comes to that.

Don't knock it 'til you've tried it pkO!:hihi:

The Really religious.
The rest are merely hypocrites.


at least some have faith then, 99% of people on here are hypocrites, including me probably.

I know several things that are very right with it pk - but you've probably repressed any thoughts along those lines from your psyche...

whats right with it, if it comes to that.

Nothing realy, it's just different, like apples and oranges.

(except that apples don't think oranges should be burnt at the stake)

I wonder what Bartfarst would make of all this. We can only speculate.

at least some have faith then, 99% of people on here are hypocrites, including me probably.
Me too in many ways.

I wonder what Bartfarst would make of all this. We can only speculate.

The words 'shotgun', 'trigger' and 'pull' spring to mind again.....

Nothing realy, it's just different, like apples and oranges.

(except that apples don't think oranges should be burnt at the stake)


but oranges don't force apples to pretend to like oranges - so does that tell you something.

but oranges don't force apples to pretend to like oranges - so does that tell you something.

The fruit world is very different to the human world, and in some ways better.

Don't knock it 'til you've tried it pkO!:hihi:

just nipped out & tried it not for me :o

just nipped out & tried it not for me :o

Good on ya! You might need to practice a bit though - doesn't always work first time!

Here here Ken.

My two penneth;
The government are just trying to make us go against our moral values and conscience, well 'it aint gonna happen'.
No it isn't, you are free to not be gay and not perform homosexual acts as much as you like the only thing this legislation does is stop you discriminating against others.

When our gay friends visit us (which they do) from London they know they are more than welcome to our house. As for us letting them stay in the same room together overnight, they are not welcome to do that. They know where we stand on issues and respect our beliefs.
We love them, we don't love all their practices.
Pertaining to business practices; My husband won't promote something that goes against our beliefs. Simple as. I don't see why we should be criminilised for that.

And please, just as an aside, our Black Christian friends are more than ticked off that in debates like this being black or being Gay are portrayed as synonymous.
So you've got homophobic black Xian friends what of it? Non-whites and homosexuals are both minority groups that experience discrimination in the UK. Are your friend really so hypersensitive that they expect the treatment of other minority groups not be raised in debates like this one just because they don't like being mentioned in the same sentence as homosexuals?

Non-whites and homosexuals are both minority groups that experience discrimination in the UK.
?


you cant stop being a non white...........

you cant stop being a non white...........


Nor can you stop being attracted to members of the same sex.

you cant stop being a non white...........

Don't start that argument, again, it's so tedious.

Nor can you stop being attracted to members of the same sex.


perhaps not but you can stop being homosexual - i'm not saying that you should have too.

but it's not really comparable with colour discrimination.
it's more like being a smoker or an alcoholic - alleged genetic predisposition.

perhaps not but you can stop being homosexual - i'm not saying that you should have too.
Do you also think that you can stop being heterosexual and switch to only being sexually attracted to members of the same sex?

Here we go again.

Do you remember when you chose to be heterosexual willman?

yep.
the first time i realised men couldn't expel milk upon demand.

Do you also think that you can stop being heterosexual and switch to only being sexually attracted to members of the same sex?

if i wanted to yes, i have actually found a number of men to be attractive over the years. i've never really felt a deep down urge to snog them as such, nor have i had fantasies about their pec's etc.

as i said genetic predisposition which puts it in a category with alcoholic and drug addicts.
or lifestyle choice, and anyone that denies this happens is definitely misleading themselves.

You still breast feed?

That's slightly worrying but could explain a lot...

You still breast feed?

That's slightly worrying but could explain a lot...


not quite, dead mothers boobs don't expel much milk.....

I will have to take your word for that.

...as i said genetic predisposition which puts it in a category with alcoholic and drug addicts. or lifestyle choice, and anyone that denies this happens is definitely misleading themselves.
A genetic predisposition does not equate to a lifestyle choice.

if i wanted to yes, i have actually found a number of men to be attractive over the years. i've never really felt a deep down urge to snog them as such, nor have i had fantasies about their pec's etc.

as i said genetic predisposition which puts it in a category with alcoholic and drug addicts.
or lifestyle choice,
Evidence that this is the case please.

and anyone that denies this happens is definitely misleading themselves.
So homosexuals throughout history and in the present day in countries where being gay will get you persecuted, imprisoned and even killed all 'choose' their sexuality do they :loopy:

willman, your apparent antipathy towards homosexuals seems somewhat at odds with your avatar of a naked man - is there something you aren't telling us?

A genetic predisposition does not equate to a lifestyle choice.


never said it did.
they were seperated by starting a new line as though i was making two seperate points.
not all homosexual men & women are predisposed too it, some choose it.
similary i'm sure some "hetero" people choose to be hetero instead of following their feelings.

willman, your apparent antipathy towards homosexuals seems somewhat at odds with your avatar of a naked man - is there something you aren't telling us?


yep i'm scared to come of the closet.

yep.
the first time i realised men couldn't expel milk upon demand.

Ha! I can expel milk on demand. At least that's what I think it is.









Sorry.

similary i'm sure some "hetero" people choose to be hetero instead of following their feelings.

I think a lot pretend to be hetro, rather than face the truth (and all the grief that might come with it), definately.

I knew a couple who were married with kids, left their wives and set up together. Theyre happily together now and relieved that they no longer have to live a lie.

yep i'm scared to come of the closet.

The reason for:

i'm sure some "hetero" people choose to be hetero instead of following their feelings.

Mainly due to the shocking prejudice and ignorance knocking around...

Evidence that this is the case please.


So homosexuals throughout history and in the present day in countries where being gay will get you persecuted, imprisoned and even killed all 'choose' their sexuality do they :loopy:


evidence of what?
your genes tell you what you are - male.female.
your genetic makeup then tells you what your preferences are.
according to many posters and scientists - some peoples genes make them more predisposed to being addicted to booze or drugs.
exactly the same.

similary, brightpsark i never said EVERYONE chose it. i said some people choose it. just as some people choose to be straight. - is that clearer now.

Ha! I can expel milk on demand. At least that's what I think it is.









Sorry.


it looks like its gone off.

I think a lot pretend to be hetro, rather than face the truth (and all the grief that might come with it), definately.


i agree their are probably a few who have done it. i have known people who admitted friends went back to being straight because of eprsecution.

I wonder whether or not there is some scope for mutual tolerance here, at least at the margins. Many men probably still find the whole idea of homosexuality abhorrent. This is not of course something to be either encouraged or condoned, but to criminalise, or otherwise penalise, their beliefs may not be the best way forward. Perhaps the B&B owner in Scotland should be able to refuse to take in gay guests in his own home. Similarly, in Glasgow (I think) recently, a group of fireman were threatened with dismissal or demotion for refusing to having anything to do with a gay parade. There is always scope for an exception or two in legislation. As I understand it, this is what the representatives of the Christian churches are asking for here.

i agree their are probably a few who have done it. i have known people who admitted friends went back to being straight because of eprsecution.
Or rather they went back to telling people they were straight, in order to avoid the persecution.

Nor can you stop being attracted to members of the same sex.
Actually that is not true. Anything associated with will power can be overcome.
Because someone has homosexual tendencies does not mean he has to become a practicing homosexual.
As a human being it is up to oneself to keep within accepted standards of behaviour.
Guests in my house can do pretty much as they please, but I draw the line at overt sexual activity.
That kind of thing should be kept behind closed doors for the participants only.
There is nothing more vile than seeing two people pawing at each other, and this is made disgusting when the two people happen to be men.
By all means do your own thing, but do not expect to be welcome with the red carpet where ever you may go.

Actually that is not true. Anything associated with will power can be overcome.
Because someone has homosexual tendencies does not mean he has to become a practicing homosexual.
Which is not the same thing as stopping finding members of the same sex attractive.
As a human being it is up to oneself to keep within accepted standards of behaviour.
Guests in my house can do pretty much as they please, but I draw the line at overt sexual activity.
That kind of thing should be kept behind closed doors for the participants only.
There is nothing more vile than seeing two people pawing at each other, and this is made disgusting when the two people happen to be men.
It's unlikely that you'd be invited to watch, artisan.

I don't understand where people get this idea that gay men have no self control and have to be constantly snogging/pawing/shagging each other.

perhaps not but you can stop being homosexual

Well this thread started so well, and here is me thinking we wont get onto the usual subject.

But as Nick2 said "here we go again" **sigh** same old same old on here, but different people.

So then Willman, tell me how I can stop being a homosexual, as I need to know so I can turn Hetrosexual..... blah blah blah etc etc etc (a blue peter badge for you if you can do it, which is 100% unlikely)

But I feel we also been down this avenue, :loopy: :loopy: blah blah etc etc

On the contrary, the pressures from society mean gay men and women are much less predisposed to public displays of affection for fear of persecution.

evidence of what?
Evidence that homosexuality is as you claim 'a lifestyle choice'.

your genes tell you what you are - male.female.
your genetic makeup then tells you what your preferences are.
according to many posters and scientists - some peoples genes make them more predisposed to being addicted to booze or drugs.
exactly the same.
In what way is being biologically more prone to addiction than others 'exactly the same' as finding people of the same sex sexually attractive?

similary, brightpsark i never said EVERYONE chose it. i said some people choose it. just as some people choose to be straight. - is that clearer now.
Actually you did when you said 'it's [homophobia] not really comparable with colour discrimination' the whole foundation of your argument in this thread has been that you can't equate racism to homophobia because homosexuality is a choice. As you have now concede that homosexuality isn't a choice you have conceded that your entire line of argument in this based upon a faulty premise and is therefore invalid.

If people think homosexuality is a perversion, why must they have to put up with it, just like paedophiles, why cant we object

I don't understand where people get this idea that gay men have no self control and have to be constantly snogging/pawing/shagging each other.

These people are probaly homophobic.

Evidence that homosexuality is as you claim 'a lifestyle choice'.


In what way is being biologically more prone to addiction than others 'exactly the same' as finding people of the same sex sexually attractive?


Actually you did when you said 'it's [homophobia] not really comparable with colour discrimination' the whole foundation of your argument in this thread has been that you can't equate racism to homophobia because homosexuality is a choice. As you have now concede that homosexuality isn't a choice you have conceded that your entire line of argument in this based upon a faulty premise and is therefore invalid.


homosexuality is a genetic predisposition to being GAY. this can be surpressed - if desired.
as can a genetic predisposition to having an addictive personality i.e smoker or alco.
a coloured person is always coloured.
the coloured person has no choice - a gay person has. it's always been my argument and has never faltered.
i'm not saying gay people are bad people- far from it. but SOME of it is lifestyle choice.

If people think homosexuality is a perversion, why must they have to put up with it, just like paedophiles, why cant we object

I can't believe people still come up with this crap.

Paedophilia is an act of abuse, where one party doesn't have the maturity or ability to deal with what is being done to them. Homosexuality is a manifestation of mutual attraction.

Worlds apart.

I wonder whether or not there is some scope for mutual tolerance here, at least at the margins. Many men probably still find the whole idea of homosexuality abhorrent. This is not of course something to be either encouraged or condoned, but to criminalise, or otherwise penalise, their beliefs may not be the best way forward. Perhaps the B&B owner in Scotland should be able to refuse to take in gay guests in his own home. Similarly, in Glasgow (I think) recently, a group of fireman were threatened with dismissal or demotion for refusing to having anything to do with a gay parade. There is always scope for an exception or two in legislation. As I understand it, this is what the representatives of the Christian churches are asking for here.
How can you tolerate intolerance? It's not beliefs that are being penalised but discriminatory acts, you are free to be as racist and homophobic as you like what you aren't free to do is actively discriminate against people on the grounds of those prejudices.

As for the fireman, fire prevention is an essential part of the fire services job and is a service which all portions of the community (who after all pay for the fire service) have a right to receive. By refusing to hand out leaflets on smoke alarms and so forth to people taking part in and watching a gay parade those firemen were failing to perform an essential part of their duties and it is entirely appropriate that they should be disciplined for doing so.

Well this thread started so well, and here is me thinking we wont get onto the usual subject.

But as Nick2 said "here we go again" **sigh** same old same old on here, but different people.

So then Willman, tell me how I can stop being a homosexual, as I need to know so I can turn Hetrosexual..... blah blah blah etc etc etc (a blue peter badge for you if you can do it, which is 100% unlikely)

But I feel we also been down this avenue, :loopy: :loopy: blah blah etc etc


you don't need to turn hetero - if you don't want. i never suggested you had too. but in a world of freedom if a person chooses not to serve you 'cos your gay , he should have that right.
which is where i started this conversation.

it's always been my argument and has never faltered.

That may be so, but your argument is riddled with flaws, ignorance and gaps.

:mad:

I don't understand where people get this idea that gay men have no self control and have to be constantly snogging/pawing/shagging each other.

You forgot the drinking bit as well :hihi: :hihi:

And the ketamine...

I don't understand where people get this idea that gay men have no self control and have to be constantly snogging/pawing/shagging each other.


they're probably jealous.
assuming the complainants are hetero males who aren't getting any.

That may be so, but your argument is riddled with flaws, ignorance and gaps.

:mad:


i didn't say i knew everything.

just that homosexuality is a genetic predisposition.thats not ignorance.
lifestyle choices arent ignorance.as yet no one has proved me wrong.. just decided to get their own bigotted soap boxes and tried to lecture me.

the fact that not everyone chooses isn't ignorance it's knowledge,which is why i haven't claimed it.

.

How can you tolerate intolerance?


so jumping down everyones throat is being tolerant is it??
forcing people to serve you is being tolerant & understanding is it?

homosexuality is a genetic predisposition to being GAY. this can be surpressed - if desired.
as can a genetic predisposition to having an addictive personality i.e smoker or alco.
DO you really not see the rather significant difference between having one of your most powerful biological drives directed in a particular direction and a predisposition to become dependent upon certain substance should you ever take it?

a coloured person is always coloured.
the coloured person has no choice - a gay person has. it's always been my argument and has never faltered.
Yes it has when you conceded that not all gay people choose to be gay:

similary, brightpsark i never said EVERYONE chose it. i said some people choose it. just as some people choose to be straight. - is that clearer now.
If not all gay people choose it then homophobia is exactly the same as racism as it is discrimination against what people are.

i'm not saying gay people are bad people- far from it. but SOME of it is lifestyle choice.
So you now concede that some don't and that the whole basis of your argument is without merit?

you don't need to turn hetero - if you don't want. i never suggested you had too. but in a world of freedom if a person chooses not to serve you 'cos your gay , he should have that right.
which is where i started this conversation.

perhaps not but you can stop being homosexual <--- you still not said how I can stop being a homosexual.

How would this person know I was gay ?, I dont go to Tesco`s and do my shopping and say "oh by the way I am gay, will you serve me", :loopy: :loopy:, where I work everyone knows I am gay, and they dont say to me "sorry cannot help you because you`re gay", they just accept me for who I am, a human being, just like you.

So if I dont need to turn hetro - what would you suggest I turn then ?, although i dont wish to turn anything, as I was born gay and proud of it.

Is it me, or do straight men seem to have a "problem" with gay men, you hardly see straight women kick a fuss up, or is it that straight men feel insucure because we might "shaft them one" while they not looking, which I can assure you doesnt happen, or maybe they simple dont understand us, or choose not to (homophobic).

Anyway back to the washing the pots (yes gay men do wash pots) before I set off on one and the thread gets closed as usual.

If people think homosexuality is a perversion, why must they have to put up with it, just like paedophiles, why cant we object
You can object to homosexuality you just can't discriminate against homosexuals. Who after all simply indulge in consensual sexual acts with other adults this is something most people are clear headed enough to differentiate from raping children why can't you?

How can you tolerate intolerance?
so jumping down everyones throat is being tolerant is it??
What are you talking about?

forcing people to serve you is being tolerant & understanding is it?
Giving homosexuals equal protection under the law is tolerant and understanding.

perhaps not but you can stop being homosexual <--- you still not said how I can stop being a homosexual.

How would this person know I was gay ?, I dont go to Tesco`s and do my shopping and say "oh by the way I am gay, will you serve me", :loopy: :loopy:, where I work everyone knows I am gay, and they dont say to me "sorry cannot help you because you`re gay", they just accept me for who I am, a human being, just like you.

So if I dont need to turn hetro - what would you suggest I turn then ?, although i dont wish to turn anything, as I was born gay and proud of it.

Is it me, or do straight men seem to have a "problem" with gay men, you hardly see straight women kick a fuss up, or is it that straight men feel insucure because we might "shaft them one" while they not looking, which I can assure you doesnt happen, or maybe they simple dont understand us, or choose not to (homophobic).

Anyway back to the washing the pots (yes gay men do wash pots) before I set off on one and the thread gets closed as usual.


how do you know you were born gay?
pehaps you were brought up in a more feminine approach.

you all make broad statments about straight guys whch are just as wicked and discriminatory.
i dont think a gay man would want to shaft me , although i have been propositioned a few times.i wash pots, i shop for curtains and household items.

staright men don't kick up a fuss about lesbians - lots of women do..so you can figure that one out surely. insecurity -the straight person doesn't to want to become a target of a gay person.thats the straight persons problem not the gay's.

DO you really not see the rather significant difference between having one of your most powerful biological drives directed in a particular direction and a predisposition to become dependent upon certain substance should you ever take it?


Yes it has when you conceded that not all gay people choose to be gay:


If not all gay people choose it then homophobia is exactly the same as racism as it is discrimination against what people are.


So you now concede that some don't and that the whole basis of your argument is without merit?


i never said all people were anything.
the math is simple.
your genes decide you are boy or girl - no exclusion.
the rest of the makeup of the genes decide if you're gonna get fat, need glasses' have an addictive personality, have gay tendencies.
now not everyone with gay tendencies chooses to be gay.so you have a choice.

...now not everyone with gay tendencies chooses to be gay.so you have a choice.
Isn't it more a case of not everyone with gay tendencies is able to come out as such - or even admit it to themselves - due to societal pressure, upbringing, fear of homophobic persecution etc?

You can object to homosexuality you just can't discriminate against homosexuals. Who after all simply indulge in consensual sexual acts with other adults this is something most people are clear headed enough to differentiate from raping children why can't you?


So why cant i..Because i dont think perverts ever think what they are doing is wrong. and if you are saying we can only object unless is illega, well so was homosexual behavior at onetime, and as for sex with children that varies vastly over the world.. sex at 13 fine, in some states 18 its rape, only what someone says goes, goes

now not everyone with gay tendencies chooses to be gay.so you have a choice.

yes they stay in the closet, or are bisexual, have both world, but prefer to stay married (which is what they choose) than admit that they are actually gay,

I have yet to meet anyone who was gay and turned hetrosexual, has anyone else ? are they in denial ?

I have washed the pots now. :thumbsup:

How can you tolerate intolerance? It's not beliefs that are being penalised but discriminatory acts, you are free to be as racist and homophobic as you like what you aren't free to do is actively discriminate against people on the grounds of those prejudices.

As for the fireman, fire prevention is an essential part of the fire services job and is a service which all portions of the community (who after all pay for the fire service) have a right to receive. By refusing to hand out leaflets on smoke alarms and so forth to people taking part in and watching a gay parade those firemen were failing to perform an essential part of their duties and it is entirely appropriate that they should be disciplined for doing so.

The pursuit of 'toleration' in all circumstances and with no exceptions can itself become a nasty form of intolerance. Indeed, it has a habit of morphing into rigid zealotry and is likely to be counter productive. I think the case of the Scots B&B owner is a good example of this. His feelings, and the fact that it is his own house we are talking about, should not be so blatantly disregarded. Moreover, the prospective gay patrons are unlikely to have been disadvantaged in any serious way. As for the fireman, it is a moot point whether or not handing out leaflets and smoke alarms should be regarded as an essential part of a fireman's duties. Others surely could be found to do this. I will wager that the fireman in question would be as willing to save gay people in thrall as they would anyone else. At least no one has suggested otherwise.

perhaps not but you can stop being homosexual - i'm not saying that you should have too.

Willman,

Go down to the yellow brick road. You'll find someone there called Dorothy. There will also be a man who is made of tin. They'll be there with a big wooly lion. Join them and follow the yellow brick road until you come to a big castle. Inside the castle there will be a big scary man behind a huge monitor. Ask him for a brain!

I make no apologies for my bluntness. If you believe this ability to 'choose' your sexuality claptrap, then I'm Queen Elizabeth the first!

Gay people can no more choose their homosexuality than you can choose your heterosexuality. The idea that they can is outdated, uninformed and just plain silly.

How about a little more understanding of the facts before you post such twaddle?

Research must have been done over the years to find out why some people are homosexual, does anyone know if any definite conclusions have been reached?
It seems to be a waste of natures efforts, the function of an animal is to reproduce itself, this is not possible in single sex relationships.
Because of this, you would think that homosexuality would die out very quickly, this is obviously not the case.
It seems to me therefore that it may be learned behaviour.
I am not saying that it occurs in every case, but in a lot of cases the boy has been brought up in a female section of a family, where the male influences have been scorned.
Look at the Kray Twins, probably the hardest men in the country at the time, but one Homosexual, the other it is difficult to quantify.
Both brought up by tough mother and aunties, while the men of the families where in hiding frightened of being sent to war.

Sex in a human is all to do with the brain, the things we learn and see as babies and infants makes us what we are.
To say that we are born one thing or the other is wrong IMO, we are conditioned by our early life to be what we are as adults.

Reasearch has been done with men who gay bash or are virulently anti gay. When shown gay porn they tend to become more aroused than men who don't mind gay men.
So the old theory about those who are vociferously anti-gay actually being in fact repressed homosexuals actually has some basis in truth.

This thread is changing into yet another discussion about whether you are born gay or not. Anyone that disagrees with current thinking on this must then suffer 20 pages of posts about anyone who doesn't believe this must be homophobic.

This thread is actually about whether there should be some limited circumstances in which people might not offer their goods or services to people who choose a particular lifestyle when that lifestyle offends their religious beliefs. All that will result in forcing issues such as this is that the rest of us will lose out when a service is withdrawn completely so that they don't offer it to groups that they cannot morally accomodate.

i never said all people were anything.
the math is simple.
your genes decide you are boy or girl - no exclusion.
the rest of the makeup of the genes decide if you're gonna get fat, need glasses' have an addictive personality, have gay tendencies.
now not everyone with gay tendencies chooses to be gay.so you have a choice.
Today, I've decided to choose to be turned on by morbidly obese women.




































Nope that really doesn't work.
























At all! :gag:

Reasearch has been done with men who gay bash or are virulently anti gay. When shown gay porn they tend to become more aroused than men who don't mind gay men.
So the old theory about those who are vociferously anti-gay actually being in fact repressed homosexuals actually has some basis in truth.


aka 'The wheel that squeaks needs oiling'

:)

Why can't people just concentrate on their own lives instead of interfering/condemning/judging the lives of others?

Speaking personally, I would hate to be in a place where my presence was despised - perhaps there should be some sort of voluntary register of homophobes (sorry, those whose religious or moral beliefs conflict with same-sex relationships) so that we don't tread on any toes.

I wonder what Bartfarst would make of all this. We can only speculate.
Yes indeed LordC.
Where is Bart these days? I haven't been around much myself - have I missed him acquiring a lifelong ban??

Btw LordC, who is that on your Avatar??

This thread is changing into yet another discussion about whether you are born gay or not. Anyone that disagrees with current thinking on this must then suffer 20 pages of posts about anyone who doesn't believe this must be homophobic.

This thread is actually about whether there should be some limited circumstances in which people might not offer their goods or services to people who choose a particular lifestyle when that lifestyle offends their religious beliefs. All that will result in forcing issues such as this is that the rest of us will lose out when a service is withdrawn completely so that they don't offer it to groups that they cannot morally accomodate.
But if it was the case you were not born gay and you did choose to be gay, just like deciding to be a beer rather than a lager drinker then you would have actually a point.
Or would you also complain about businesses/services than would go under as they refused to cater to Jews, Blacks or women.

Yes indeed LordC.
Where is Bart these days? I haven't been around much myself - have I missed him acquiring a lifelong ban??

Btw LordC, who is that on your Avatar??

He probaly did get a ban but I reckon he uses - Norbert Colon as his new ID/AlterEgo!!

Why can't people just concentrate on their own lives instead of interfering/condemning/judging the lives of others?
Because they are deeply stupid, nasty bigots. Possibly?

He probaly did get a ban but I reckon he uses - Norbert Colon as his new ID/AlterEgo!!

You're behing the times King Rat - he was rumbled under the Colon guise and the one he tried after that and will be seen no more......

He probaly did get a ban but I reckon he uses - Norbert Colon as his new ID/AlterEgo!!
Someone indicated Colon was also no more. Shame really as his posts were delightfully ignorant and bigoted. I will miss He who talked out of his name.

You're behing the times King Rat - he was rumbled under the Colon guise and the one he tried after that and will be seen no more......

Well I havent been around for a while so yes I probaly are behind with things, anymore gossip ?

Someone indicated Colon was also no more. Shame really as his posts were delightfully ignorant and bigoted. I will miss He who talked out of his name.
Yes it is a shame he is no more, the only people who objected to him were those who could not answer his truths.
I was on the recieving end of some his worst violence, but always tried to give as good as I got, rather than running to nanny :thumbsup:

Someone indicated Colon was also no more. Shame really as his posts were delightfully ignorant and bigoted. I will miss He who talked out of his name.

Apart from one subject I never agreed with him but it is a shame because forums need totally different view points, it's absurd controversial opinions which make forums more interesting & enteertaining.

Because they are deeply stupid, nasty bigots. Possibly?

Or perhaps because their own lives are unfulfilled and they have nothing better to do?

:idea:

you cant stop being a non white...........

Michael Jackson says your wrong......

This thread is actually about whether there should be some limited circumstances in which people might not offer their goods or services to people who choose a particular lifestyle when that lifestyle offends their religious beliefs.

But, as has been pointed out before, being gay is not a 'lifestyle choice';
it is part of who a person is but should not be the defining aspect of who that person is.

All that will result in forcing issues such as this is that the rest of us will lose out when a service is withdrawn completely so that they don't offer it to groups that they cannot morally accomodate.

No, this won't happen. The people who are objecting so vociferously are a small minority of even the religious population, never mind the overall population. If the lack of business from gay people makes the difference between the viability of the service or not, it was on fairly weak ground anyway. These people would find excuses to get round the legislation in an way that they could.
The vast majority of people and businesses will simply carry on offering the same goods and services to those willing to pay. For hotels and B+Bs, for example, it should simply mean that gay couples will not have to check before booking that same sex couples are 'acceptable', as I and many others have had to do before now.

Yes it is a shame he is no more, the only people who objected to him were those who could not answer his truths.
I was on the recieving end of some his worst violence, but always tried to give as good as I got, rather than running to nanny :thumbsup:
Truths - well he never let truth or facts get in the way of what ever ignorant viewpoint he was propounding, if that's what you mean. He was truthful about how racist he was though.
I had plenty of run ins with him. He was a complete snob looking down on everyone. Not that bright either, which explains the bigotry I guess..

Or perhaps because their own lives are unfulfilled and they have nothing better to do?

:idea: Which is why they turn to religion, they are unfulfilled failures, desperate to seek an answer for their existence. They are simply looking for someone to blame for their messed up lives, which is why they seek comfort by herding together like sheep! Baa-Baa!:hihi:

Which is why they turn to religion, they are unfulfilled failures, desperate to seek an answer for their existence. They are simply looking for someone to blame for their messed up lives, which is why they seek comfort by herding together like sheep! Baa-Baa!:hihi:
It's not nice to mock the afflicted!;)

No, this won't happen. The people who are objecting so vociferously are a small minority of even the religious population, never mind the overall population.

In my experience I would say the average person is a bit homophobic/racist, but not neccasarily admit or say their true honest opinion unless they feel comfortable with the company their in, I would like to think that the overall population is not narrow minded with the ism's but I very much doubt it.

But, as has been pointed out before, being gay is not a 'lifestyle choice';.

Yes it is, or at least the outward expression of "gayness" is a lifestyle choice. What we are talking about here is churches not wanting to be forced to use their halls for gay weddings. A gay man can be gay without chossing the lifestyle which includes having a gay wedding, he will therefore not come into conflict with churchgoers. Similarly a gay couple can book two rooms at a guesthouse where anything else might offend, such as one attached to a ctholic college whereas they can probably judge that nobody will be offended at the travelinn.

Which is why they turn to religion, they are unfulfilled failures, desperate to seek an answer for their existence. They are simply looking for someone to blame for their messed up lives, which is why they seek comfort by herding together like sheep! Baa-Baa!:hihi:

I actually don't think it's about religion to be honest. Although I'm not religous, some of my closest friends are practising Christians and they don't judge or condemn homosexuality. Most of them are too busy.

I think it's more superficial than that. I think it's about individual people.

Individual people with a complete lack of empathy and too much time on their hands!

A gay man can be gay without chossing the lifestyle which includes having a gay wedding, he will therefore not come into conflict with churchgoers. Similarly a gay couple can book two rooms at a guesthouse where anything else might offend, such as one attached to a ctholic college whereas they can probably judge that nobody will be offended at the travelinn.

Ken, if you had experience as a gay man, I suspect you might have a different outlook....

Try not to judge us matey - we're human you know, just like you.

Cut us and we bleed - just like you!

I've come to the conclusion that when a specific focus of bigotry is debated, such as this, the true nature of the problem is lost. Bigotry and intolerance make life unbarable for countless human beings throughout the word.
I doubt that many can honestly say that they have never been discriminated against, or that they have never discriminated against another. I've thought about my own life for a few minutes, and here's a list of the things I have been discriminated against for:

being a motorcyclist
having long hair
being Welsh
being English (incorrectly)
being white
being overweight

By discrimination, I mean refused service, theatened with physical violence or publicly insulted.

PS...

I've also been refused service in several public houses on the grounds of having no money!

but I guess that doesn't count.....

Cut us and we bleed - just like you!

or ooze gin in SpiderPetes case


(sorry, couldn't resist)

I actually don't think it's about religion to be honest. Although I'm not religous, some of my closest friends are practising Christians and they don't judge or condemn homosexuality. Most of them are too busy.

I think it's more superficial than that. I think it's about individual people.

Individual people with a complete lack of empathy and too much time on their hands! No they are not individuals but they are simpletons who believe every word written in their "Holy" books. Teachings which have been written by men to keep people in order and to ensure their own status. A homosexual doesn`t interfere with my life, they dont tell me what to think or believe in and, as a result, I respect them. Religion and their fanatical followers, however tell me what to think, they poo-poo me because I am an unbeliever, even tell me that the music I listen to is the work of the Devil! They are sad people who have lost the will to be an individual and the ability to think for themselves.

By discrimination, I mean refused service, theatened with physical violence or publicly insulted.
You can get all that without leaving Wales you know especially the violence. just go to Charlotte Street in Cardiff for some chips after a night out.
At least you can neatly sidestep being blamed for all the bad things the English do!

Ken, if you had experience as a gay man, I suspect you might have a different outlook....

You could offer him some. Can't see it going down too well though:hihi: .

You could offer him some. Can't see it going down too well though:hihi: .

Pffft. I think not. :hihi:

Now, back on topic naughty boy.

Ken, if you had experience as a gay man, I suspect you might have a different outlook....

Try not to judge us matey - we're human you know, just like you.

Cut us and we bleed - just like you!

That was lovely, very poignant. You didn't ask him to walk a mile in your shoes though.

Getting back to the original point, which is whether we need to have a new law that makes it illegal to refuse provision of goods, facilities and services on the basis of sexuality....

I remember a recent thread where you proposed that treating gays as 'special' cases was counterproductive and it would be easier to be accepted within society in the long run if there was no special treatment. Or have I misinterpreted what you said?

or ooze gin in SpiderPetes case
(sorry, couldn't resist)

:o :o I rarely drink Gin, thaks Meak`s department. :)

That was lovely, very poignant. You didn't ask him to walk a mile in your shoes though.

Getting back to the original point, which is whether we need to have a new law that makes it illegal to refuse provision of goods, facilities and services on the basis of sexuality....

I remember a recent thread where you proposed that treating gays as 'special' cases was counterproductive and it would be easier to be accepted within society in the long run if there was no special treatment. Or have I misinterpreted what you said?
As this law simply gives homosexuals the same protections under law as everybody else (including religious types) rather than any form of 'special treatment' what's your point?

As this law simply gives homosexuals the same protections under law as everybody else rather than any form of 'special treatment' what's your point?

My point is that your post is self-evidently utter garbage.

Under the new law, anyone would be able to withhold services from me on any grounds they choose. They would be liable to legal action if they did the same to someone who is gay. How does this equate to having the "same protection"?

My point is that your post is self-evidently utter garbage.

Under the new law, anyone would be able to withhold services from me on any grounds they choose. They would be liable to legal action if they did the same to someone who is gay. How does this equate to having the "same protection"?
Maybe you should check your facts before spouting off, under the current law people can not refuse to serve you on the grounds of your race or religion this proposed law simply extends that protection to homosexuals, how is this 'special treatment'?

Maybe you should check your facts before spouting off, under the current law people can not refuse to serve you on the grounds of your race or religion this proposed law simply extends that protection to homosexuals, how is this 'special treatment'?

Religious or racial grounds... what proportion of 'everybody' does that affect?

Introducing a law that applies to one and only one minority group makes it 'Special Treatment' by definition.

Under the new law, anyone would be able to withhold services from me on any grounds they choose.

What nonsense.

Maybe you should check your facts before spouting off, under the current law people can not refuse to serve you on the grounds of your race or religion this proposed law simply extends that protection to homosexuals, how is this 'special treatment'?

This is true. The new law is not just about LGBT people, its about sexuality in general - it covers being discriminated against because of your sexuality whether gay or straight.

I rarely drink Gin, thaks Meak`s department. :)

How very. Now pass me the Greenall's.

He probaly did get a ban but I reckon he uses - Norbert Colon as his new ID/AlterEgo!!
The delightful bartfarst/NorbertColon re-registered under the name AIDSfan a week or so ago, specifically to allow participation in another gay-themed thread. I don't think he stayed around very long, for some reason...

The delightful bartfarst/NorbertColon re-registered under the name AIDSfan a week or so ago, specifically to allow participation in another gay-themed thread. I don't think he stayed around very long, for some reason...

He has issues

What nonsense.


I described way back on page1 that I was refused entry to a hotel with my partner on the grounds that I wasn't married. Are you telling me this will be illegal in the future?

You can get all that without leaving Wales you know especially the violence. just go to Charlotte Street in Cardiff for some chips after a night out.
At least you can neatly sidestep being blamed for all the bad things the English do!

Do you mean "Caroline Street" the very delightful place 3 feet deep in used chip wrappings/kebab trays/unidentifiable detritus and lined with salmonella shacks????!!!!!! :gag:
Especially at 3 in the morning after England have played Wales at Millennium Stadium..........

Religious or racial grounds... what proportion of 'everybody' does that affect?

Introducing a law that applies to one and only one minority group makes it 'Special Treatment' by definition.
This law extends the protection from discrimination on the grounds of racial and religious identity (which undeniably has a much greater element of 'choice' in it than sexuality) to sexuality, as I understand it this law will also mean that gay clubs for example can't refuse entry to heterosexuals.

So what was that you were saying about 'special treatment'?

I described way back on page1 that I was refused entry to a hotel with my partner on the grounds that I wasn't married. Are you telling me this will be illegal in the future?

If they let 'unmarried' gay people stay, then of course they should let 'unmarried' straight people stay. Until there is a law outlawing discrimination against unmarried people then I suppose everyone would have to be treated the same under such circumstances.

Fortunately since it isn't 1911 anymore such attitudes towards unmarried couples have largely died out, so as you suggest its unlikely this will ever become illegal. Of course it was only in the last year that gay couples have been granted the same rights as straight couples regarding partnership rights.

Nothing realy, it's just different, like apples and oranges.

(except that apples don't think oranges should be burnt at the stake)


Great line!

The main point that the protesters seemed to be missing, to me, is that the new legislation does NOT force anybody to accept homosexuality is a good thing. You can continue to be reviled and disgusted by it as much as you ever were.

You're just not allowed to discriminate against people whose habits you find disgusting, or believe to be wrong. That is not a legitimate reason to refuse service.

In short, just because some guy is committing a terrible offence against God, is no reason he can't sleep in your hotel room. Offences against God are for God to deal with, not you.

Until there is a law outlawing discrimination against unmarried people then I suppose everyone would have to be treated the same under such circumstances.


Exactly. The point I'm trying to make is that there are 1001 reasons for discriminating against someone by withholding your service from them - marital status, accent, height, weight, chest size etc.

So far the law has made an exceptional case for ethnic minorities; now a special case for gays. The question once again is 'would it be preferable to be treated as a special case in the eyes of the law or would it hinder acceptance within our society?'

The main point that the protesters seemed to be missing, to me, is that the new legislation does NOT force anybody to accept homosexuality is a good thing. You can continue to be reviled and disgusted by it as much as you ever were.

You're just not allowed to discriminate against people whose habits you find disgusting, or believe to be wrong. That is not a legitimate reason to refuse service.

In short, just because some guy is committing a terrible offence against God, is no reason he can't sleep in your hotel room. Offences against God are for God to deal with, not you.
Shame you werent there to tell Mohammed Atta that before he demolished the WTC :(

Exactly. The point I'm trying to make is that there are 1001 reasons for discriminating against someone by withholding your service from them - marital status, accent, height, weight, chest size etc.

So far the law has made an exceptional case for ethnic minorities; now a special case for gays. The question once again is 'would it be preferable to be treated as a special case in the eyes of the law or would it hinder acceptance within our society?'
Not only are you flat out wrong but you are ignoring explanations of the laws posted on this very page, ethnic minorities aren't protected form discrimination everybody is including the white majority similarly a special case has not been made for gays but discrimination against heterosexuals is also prohibited, why do you keep on pretending this isn't the case?

The new rules have been upheld:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6243323.stm

Good old Norman Tebbit banging on about sodomy... :rolleyes: :hihi:

This appears to be a mountain made from a molehill.
Why on earth would anyone want to stay where they are not welcome.
I ame sure there must be plenty of places catering for all different types of people.
The scottish guy on TV this evening, I have great sympathy for.
He has a small boarding house, which is his home, and does not want certain types sharing a bed there.
He does not want it, so why should it be forced on him, and his livelyhood threatened by people who probably would have no interest in the place except for forcing this agenda.
Once again it is the vocal minority causing trouble, and being a pain in the arse (I would have thought)

This appears to be a mountain made from a molehill.

I think that sums it up quite well.

Once again it is the vocal minority causing trouble, and being a pain in the arse

Oooh, careful! :rolleyes:

I agree though, these enraged religious types do seem to enjoy making fools of themselves.

Quote: They require religious organisations to choose between obedience to God and obedience to the state."

Sounds like something straight out of the realms of Henry V111

Quote: They require religious organisations to choose between obedience to God and obedience to the state."

Sounds like something straight out of the realms of Henry V111
All religious observance should have been left behind in those days, instead it seems to be getting worse.
For a start we have the muslims, stuck in a time warp sometime in the dark ages, these in turn are firing up the christians, who see the world in a completely different manner to a lot of us.
The trouble is we seem to have gone from the days of Henry VIII, where no ones views were considered, to the present day, where everyones views are considered.
We are top hampered with legislation, and will capsize before long.
Things that are just common sense are being written down in law.
The danger is that if we have to many rules and regulations, we will just ignore them.
It is a sign that we are ruled by lawyers, as the police would not be interested in enforcing many of the current laws.
They are there for private prosecutions, and the loading of the lawyers pockets.

Quote: They require religious organisations to choose between obedience to God and obedience to the state."

Sounds like something straight out of the realms of Henry V111
Are you suggesting that religious organisations shouldn't be subject to the rule of law?

Do you mean "Caroline Street" the very delightful place 3 feet deep in used chip wrappings/kebab trays/unidentifiable detritus and lined with salmonella shacks????!!!!!! :gag:
Especially at 3 in the morning after England have played Wales at Millennium Stadium..........
Yup that's the one. I had a sneaky feeling the name was wrong. But I have an extra blind spot with names beginning with C for some reason!:confused:
It's very close to the National Ice rink which now doesn't exist. Lots of signs all around Cardiff to rink, but just a pile of rubble now. Not good when two little nieces have been promised some skating and it's weeeing down. Found a new half built [but open] one out past Torchwood!
Wandering somewhat OT a bit here!

This appears to be a mountain made from a molehill.
Why on earth would anyone want to stay where they are not welcome.
I ame sure there must be plenty of places catering for all different types of people.
The scottish guy on TV this evening, I have great sympathy for.
He has a small boarding house, which is his home, and does not want certain types sharing a bed there.
He does not want it, so why should it be forced on him, and his livelyhood threatened by people who probably would have no interest in the place except for forcing this agenda.
What an absurd accusation, which is the more likely:
1. a gay couple wanted somewhere to stay when they went on a walking holiday and were rather taken aback when a hotelier called them 'sexual deviants' and 'perverts' and refused to let them have a shared room.
2. They didn't want to go on holiday at all and were simply trawling through B&Bs trying to find a bigot to discriminate against them so they could kick up a fuss.

Once again it is the vocal minority causing trouble, and being a pain in the arse (I would have thought)
Quite right theistic bigots are a real pain in the arse.

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6243323.stm)
Isn't it just heart warming to see the assorted branches of the Abrahamic faiths setting aside their differences for once and united in demanding their right to continue to discriminate against a minority they've enthusiastically persecuted for millenia.

It is indeed. Long may they continue, and more power to their elbow. :thumbsup:

God bless them and all who feel the same. :thumbsup:

I have a question and it's quite a simple one. Why do we need this new law; what was it originally intended to do; will anyone gay who just wants to get on with their life ever use it? (OK so I chucked in a few extra ones for good measure, lol)

IMO I really can't see any benefit from it other than giving some people who just love fancy dress, gold trimmings and frocks, a chance to chuck on their "party" gear and demonstrate their objections. In reality, I'm not talking about the drag queens, just the religious sect, lol. As a gay man, I don't choose to be gay, I simply choose whether to hide it or announce it. If I had to choice then I would be straight, get married, have kids etc but unfortunately the brain won't tell the reproductive parts that a woman is designed to be sexually attractive to me. I wonder if the many years of contraceptives teachings has genetically created our "gayness" to stop over population? A further question springs to mind now. Will sperm banks be exempt from this new law? (i can feel a whole host of jokes jumping into my head at the last question)

A quite simple statement from me in this thread:
Homosexuals are not the one's causing all the unrest around the world on a day to day basis.. religion is the cause of that.

I for one - will side with the homosexual group thankyou :D

Originally Posted by plekhanov
BBC
Isn't it just heart warming to see the assorted branches of the Abrahamic faiths setting aside their differences for once and united in demanding their right to continue to discriminate against a minority they've enthusiastically persecuted for millenia.


plekhanov gets it spot on again.

Not only are you flat out wrong but you are ignoring explanations of the laws posted on this very page, ethnic minorities aren't protected form discrimination everybody is including the white majority similarly a special case has not been made for gays but discrimination against heterosexuals is also prohibited, why do you keep on pretending this isn't the case?

Your ability to nitpick is still unsurpassed. I will rewrite the question....

The point I'm trying to make is that there are 1001 reasons for discriminating against someone by withholding your service from them - marital status, accent, height, weight, chest size etc.

So far the law has made an exceptional case for doing so on the grounds of race/religion; now a special case for doing so on the grounds of sexual orientation. The question once again is 'would it be preferable to be treated as a special case in the eyes of the law or would it hinder acceptance within our society?'

Your ability to nitpick is still unsurpassed. I will rewrite the question....

The point I'm trying to make is that there are 1001 reasons for discriminating against someone by withholding your service from them - marital status, accent, height, weight, chest size etc.

So far the law has made an exceptional case for doing so on the grounds of race/religion; now a special case for doing so on the grounds of sexual orientation.
It's hardly nitpicking to point out that the premise of your entire argument is completely wrong, far from a 'special case' being made 'on the grounds of sexual orientation' this law simply protects people from being discriminated against on grounds of their sexuality in exactly the same way we are currently protected from amongst other things racial, religious, gender and age discrimination

The question once again is 'would it be preferable to be treated as a special case in the eyes of the law or would it hinder acceptance within our society?'
And once again the answer is that homosexuals are not being treated as a 'special case' they will receive exactly the same protections under this legislation as heterosexuals. You have been informed that this legislation in no way makes homosexuals a 'special case' numerous times so far in this thread, just how long are you going to pretend not to understand this?

so the next time my close friend is not allowed a church wedding 'cos he's a divorcee, will the legislation help him.?

probably not - so where's the equality.

so the next time my close friend is not allowed a church wedding 'cos he's a divorcee, will the legislation help him.?

probably not - so where's the equality.
The legislation will no more compel Churches to marry homosexuals than it will divorcees, there's your equality.

The legislation will no more compel Churches to marry homosexuals than it will divorcees, there's your equality.


thank you very much at least that clarifies one point.

this law simply protects people from being discriminated against on grounds of their sexuality in exactly the same way we are currently protected from amongst other things racial, religious, gender and age discrimination


Incorrect .

Incorrect .
So you deny that we have laws against 'gender and age' discrimination in this country?

Are you suggesting that religious organisations shouldn't be subject to the rule of law?




The same choice was given by Henry V111. When he first created the Church of England.

The same choice was given by Henry V111. When he first created the Church of England.
So do you agree what religious organisations should be subject to the rule of law or not?

Back to the guesthouse issue. If it were your guesthouse, and if you had to change the sheets the next day, would you want to do so in the knowledge that the marks on the sheets were caused by fingers, tongues and phalluses that had been up somebody’s backside?


Straight people do it too, no big deal.

Straight people do it too, no big deal.


you cant argue with that ....

So you deny that we have laws against 'gender and age' discrimination in this country?

I think you're getting confused with employment law which has nothing to do with this.

It seems to me that all these pro-anti gay posts are entirely missing the point. It doesn't matter if you think that being gay is entirely normal or that they are the devils spawn. All that matters is whether people should be allowed to not offere their facilities or services to people who choose a particular lifestyle. Many churches don't allow their church to be used to marry divorced people on the basis that getting married again when you are divorced is a lifestyle choice which is incompatable with their church. It seems entirely reasonable that those people should also restrict access to gay couples who want to use church premises for weddings (or equivalents) which are also clearly not allowed in their religious tracts. An individual gay person should, and does, have the same rights as anyone else as an individual but when acting as a couple in some lifestyle choice that offends others then these rights simply encroach on other peoples righst and lifestyles.

Yes it is, or at least the outward expression of "gayness" is a lifestyle choice. What we are talking about here is churches not wanting to be forced to use their halls for gay weddings. A gay man can be gay without chossing the lifestyle which includes having a gay wedding, he will therefore not come into conflict with churchgoers. Similarly a gay couple can book two rooms at a guesthouse where anything else might offend, such as one attached to a ctholic college whereas they can probably judge that nobody will be offended at the travelinn.

So in conjunction with the post above on page 12, what you're saying is that you don't mind people 'being' gay, as that is not a choice, but you DO mind gay people acting in any way that makes it visible to anyone else that they are gay; i.e., for having the sheer temerity to have a social life, to walk down the street hand in hand with their partner, to book a hotel room with their partner on a holiday, to go shopping without being called a ******ng p**f, to have a quick kiss in the pub without being beaten up.
No, KenH being gay is not a lifestyle choice. How we live our lives is quite frankly our business and no-one else's. The vast majority of gay people do not make a show of their sexuality, anymore than straight people do. The current difference is that straight people never have to currently hide their sexuality in order not to be discriminated against.
This legislation simply takes a step towards gay people not having to hide who they are.

There was a similar furuore when the employment legislation was brought in.
On the date it was brought in, I had recently changed jobs. No-one above my grade at my previous employers knew I was gay due to some effort on my part because I would have been fired if they did, simply for being gay. I waited until after the date where I currently am before telling anyone, just in case, but everyone within my dept now knows and no-one has any problems with it.

If people think homosexuality is a perversion, why must they have to put up with it, just like paedophiles, why cant we object

I'd like to propose a new equivalent of Godwin's Law, if I may be so bold.

The original Godwin's Law states that:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

I'd suggest that likewise, as an online discussion on homosexuality grows longer, the probability of someone equating homosexuality with paedophilia approaches one.

P.S. Has Bartfarst really gone for good?

...P.S. Has Bartfarst really gone for good?
Only until he thinks up another user ID for use on the next thread about gay issues...

[QUOTE=stackmonkeyNo, KenH being gay is not a lifestyle choice.[/QUOTE]


When “gay gene” researcher Dr. Dean Hamer was asked if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology, he replied:
“Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors.”
– “New Evidence of a ‘Gay Gene’,” by Anastasia Toufexis, Time, November 13, 1995, p. 95.

so he's trying to prove that gay's are born gay and can't find it but he allows that social factors influence it - like choice.

The national organization P-FLAG (“Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays”) offers a booklet prepared with the assistance of Dr. Clinton Anderson of the American Psychological Association. Titled, “Why Ask Why? Addressing the Research on Homosexuality and Biology,” the pamphlet says:
“To date, no researcher has claimed that genes can determine sexual orientation. At best, researchers believe that there may be a genetic component. No human behavior, let alone sexual behavior, has been connected to genetic markers to date ... sexuality, like every other behavior, is undoubtedly influenced by both biological and societal factors.”

and yet again a gay rights magazine admits that factors or influences make you gay.

No one has claimed that homosexuality is 100% genetically determined. The idea of a single 'gay gene' is ridiculous. However, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that genetics does play a role, as perhaps does the prenatal environment and a child's early socialization.

That factors other than genetics are involved does not imply that homosexuality is an active choice. It suggests that perhaps factors in the young child's life influenced his/her sexuality in some way. That's distinct from a conscious decision to be gay.

It also makes matters interesting when one finds pairs of identical twins where one is straight and the other is gay because it tends to work against both genetic AND environmental/social factors (same genes, same hormones in the womb, same upbringing in the same environment). Once that has been definitively worked out, we'll be sorted :)

Back on topic.....

Some people have studied twins. If homosexuality is solely genetic, you would expect to find a one-to-one correlation of sexual orientation for identical twins. In other words, every time one twin was homosexual, the other identical twin would be too because they share identical genes. Twin studies do not show this.
What some twin studies have shown is that when one twin is homosexual, the number of times the other twin is also homosexual occurs more often than the general rates of homosexuality in society. But these studies also looked at the rest of the family and they found that the rates of homosexuality among the rest of the family, including adopted brothers was 200-300% more frequent than the general rates in society. And so the data leads to the conclusion that something is causing homosexuality to occur more frequently in certain families but that it can not be genetics because the increase even occurs in adopted brothers who do not share any genes at all with the rest of the family.
so it could be lifestyle choices made by the family and the individual.

It also makes matters interesting when one finds pairs of identical twins where one is straight and the other is gay because it tends to work against both genetic AND environmental/social factors (same genes, same hormones in the womb, same upbringing in the same environment). Once that has been definitively worked out, we'll be sorted :)

Back on topic.....

This is easily explained... God does play dice. There are factors that alter the probability of homosexuality, but nothing that one could say led to it 100% of the time.

So in conjunction with the post above on page 12, what you're saying is that you don't mind people 'being' gay, as that is not a choice, but you DO mind gay people acting in any way that makes it visible to anyone else that they are gay; i.e., for having the sheer temerity to have a social life, to walk down the street hand in hand with their partner, to book a hotel room with their partner on a holiday, to go shopping without being called a ******ng p**f, to have a quick kiss in the pub without being beaten up.
No, KenH being gay is not a lifestyle choice. How we live our lives is quite frankly our business and no-one else's. The vast majority of gay people do not make a show of their sexuality, anymore than straight people do. The current difference is that straight people never have to currently hide their sexuality in order not to be discriminated against.
.

You are confusing me with a religious person who finds such things offensive. I am not saying you shouldn't do any of the things you mention, I am putting forward a case of why some third party (not me) might be offended by it. There are already laws permiting you to do any of the things you mention. For example, if someone attacks you for being gay then this is assualt and the penalties may even prove higher then if I was similarly attacked. This thread is about a very specific element of a gay lifestyle and whether that should be allowed to take priority over the lifestyle of other people. If someone believes that your behaviour is wrong them should they be forced to have it in their house, perhaps if they run a small B&B? If a church has facilities that they use for wedding parties then should they be forced to use these for gay weddings, I don't think they should.

tut tut tut................ marigolds

Ken,

Then much of that will be due to the particular situation and will be gradually sorted out through case law. I just don't think it will create as much case law as the objectors outside Parliament were trying to say it will.
For the record, if someone is running a B&b from within their own home i.e. staying within the same building as guests, then they should have the right to say who stays and who doesn't, for whatever the reason, in a similar vein to employment laws (I believe there are exemptions where the co. has less than 5 pple). If the B&b is separate, then the regs should apply.
Churches are realisticaly only going to allow civil partnership blessings for those couples who already attend that church. Those that are more overtly homophobic have probably already pushed away any remaining gay members of the congregation.
Church halls (or the committees that run them) may have a harder time turning away receptions as they tend to be more community halls where many functions have no religous background at all. On the plus side, I would guess that a gay wedding reception will have far less potential for trouble than a straight wedding (stereotype I know, but hey).

Look, why dont they just leave people alone ? Its protest this and protest that. People are going to do what they want to do whatever. :rant:

So what the result of this lords debate boils down to is that a Catholic working in a pharmacy can legally refuse to dispense the morning after pill as a matter of religious conscience, but can be prosecuted for withholding a tub of vaseline from someone they suspect would use it for 'perverted' practises... love it.

I think, like all situations, a compromise can be found here between the bigots and the homosexuals, and I think I have the perfect solution:

Hotel owners, I believe, should be able to refuse a room to gay couples if it infringes on their religious beliefs. However, I imagine it must be hugely embarrassing, if not humiliating, for a gay couple to be turned away when trying to book a room in a place like this. So to avoid this awkward situation, hotel owners wishing to limit their clientele should be forced to display clearly visible notices on the front of their property, as well as on all brochures, internet sites and any other promotional literature, stating NO QUEERS, or something like that. This has the added benefit of preventing the rest of us from unknowingly giving our custom to those establishments whose owners missed the bus out of the dark ages because they were too busy stoning witches, or protesting outside the premiere of Much Ado About Nothing.

:)

So do you agree what religious organisations should be subject to the rule of law or not?

You will have to expand a little. Your remark is too ambiguous.

That was lovely, very poignant. You didn't ask him to walk a mile in your shoes though.

I can't quite decide if you're paying a compliment here or being sarcastic. My response needs to be tailor made, so please enlighten me. :)

Getting back to the original point, which is whether we need to have a new law that makes it illegal to refuse provision of goods, facilities and services on the basis of sexuality....

I remember a recent thread where you proposed that treating gays as 'special' cases was counterproductive and it would be easier to be accepted within society in the long run if there was no special treatment. Or have I misinterpreted what you said?

I'm not aware that I suggested anything different on this thread? :confused:

When relating to the provision of goods and services I believe that discrimination on any level is unacceptable, regardless of an individual's minority status. It doesn't matter if the individual concerned is black, white or green. Straight, gay or bisexual. Jewish, Christian or Catholic.

What really matters in life is that we see the person, not the label.

For what it's worth, I don't think a specific law is appropriate. I think by singling particular groups out, a system is automatically by default excluding others. That is unfair and doesn't sit comfortably with my idea of an integrated society.

Some people have studied twins. If homosexuality is solely genetic, you would expect to find a one-to-one correlation of sexual orientation for identical twins. In other words, every time one twin was homosexual, the other identical twin would be too because they share identical genes. Twin studies do not show this.
What some twin studies have shown is that when one twin is homosexual, the number of times the other twin is also homosexual occurs more often than the general rates of homosexuality in society. But these studies also looked at the rest of the family and they found that the rates of homosexuality among the rest of the family, including adopted brothers was 200-300% more frequent than the general rates in society. And so the data leads to the conclusion that something is causing homosexuality to occur more frequently in certain families but that it can not be genetics because the increase even occurs in adopted brothers who do not share any genes at all with the rest of the family.
so it could be lifestyle choices made by the family and the individual.


To pose the question of what causes homosexuality is actually a judgment about homosexuals. If you ask for the causes of homosexuality you assume that this is a disorder and needs to be explained. It is better to find out what influences and processes determine sexual preferences, whether this is homosexuality, heterosexuality or something else. Physical causes for the development of a sexual preference could be certain brain structures or hormones and research is now being done on a certain homo gene. However, there hasn't been enough research to say anything reliable about this. Psychological causes for the development of a sexual preference could be certain thoughts or feelings that exist after a harmful event or in daily life. Finally, social factors could play a role, e.g education, nagging, and being unable to make contacts. However, not enough is known about these causes for sexual preferences

No, KenH being gay is not a lifestyle choice. How we live our lives is quite frankly our business and no-one else's. The vast majority of gay people do not make a show of their sexuality, anymore than straight people do. The current difference is that straight people never have to currently hide their sexuality in order not to be discriminated against.
This legislation simply takes a step towards gay people not having to hide who they are..

Stackmonkey:

1.Being Gay is a lifestyle choice as there is no credible proven research to prove otherwise.

2.You mention that the vast majority of gay men and women do not make a show of their sexuality.So we are only talking about the minority. I for one would prefer not to see people all over each other in public wether they are hetrosexual or homosexual. I believe the vast majority of people feel the same way.

3.The legislation does not take a step towards gay people not having to hide who they are. This step has already been taken, the acceptance of couples wanting to live a gay lifestyle has been well and truly rooted in our society for a decade or more.

4. The legislation makes it illegal for a gay couple to be turned away from a Horeca establishment on the bassis of being gay.

I can't quite decide if you're paying a compliment here or being sarcastic. My response needs to be tailor made, so please enlighten me. :)

Neither really, more an attempt to respond in kind, not meant to cause offense anyway.


For what it's worth, I don't think a specific law is appropriate. I think by singling particular groups out, a system is automatically by default excluding others. That is unfair and doesn't sit comfortably with my idea of an integrated society.

I agree with you.

All religious observance should have been left behind in those days, instead it seems to be getting worse.
For a start we have the muslims, stuck in a time warp sometime in the dark ages, these in turn are firing up the christians, who see the world in a completely different manner to a lot of us.
The trouble is we seem to have gone from the days of Henry VIII, where no ones views were considered, to the present day, where everyones views are considered.
We are top hampered with legislation, and will capsize before long.
Things that are just common sense are being written down in law.
The danger is that if we have to many rules and regulations, we will just ignore them.
It is a sign that we are ruled by lawyers, as the police would not be interested in enforcing many of the current laws.
They are there for private prosecutions, and the loading of the lawyers pockets.


I was speaking to a russian representave and asked what she viewed as the main difference between East and west. Her retort was" in the East the society is responsible to the state. In the West society is repsonsible to society."

I had to chuckle at reactionary Norman Tebbit's contribution to the debate in the House of Lords.....

QUOTE: 'Conservative Lord Tebbit said: "Black is about being. Sexual orientation is about being.

"And we would not wish to discriminate against people for being black nor on grounds of their sexual orientation.

"The concerns which are being expressed this evening are primarily about sodomy rather than about sexual orientation - that is doing, not being." '

It never ceases to amaze me when the bigots trot out this old line about sexual practices, i.e., sodomy, to justify their discrimination against gay men.

Sodomy isn't against the law, and a recent study showed that considerable numbers of heterosexual couples engage in sodomy. I suspect they probably do it on holiday. Whilst staying in B&B establishments. Even in Scotland. :rolleyes:

When our gay friends visit us (which they do) from London they know they are more than welcome to our house. As for us letting them stay in the same room together overnight, they are not welcome to do that. They know where we stand on issues and respect our beliefs. We love them, we don't love all their practices.


Something tells me that kay_cee hasn't woken up to the fact that straight couples may actually also "do that". Or does she also legislate to her straight friends they too are "not welcome to do that" whilst staying overnight in her guest's bedroom? :suspect: Somehow, I doubt it very much.

Edit: As a matter of courtesy, I have tried to PM kay_cee to inform her that I have quoted her in this post - but her PM box is full.

I had to chuckle at reactionary Norman Tebbit's contribution to the debate in the House of Lords.....

QUOTE: 'Conservative Lord Tebbit said: "Black is about being. Sexual orientation is about being.

"And we would not wish to discriminate against people for being black nor on grounds of their sexual orientation.

"The concerns which are being expressed this evening are primarily about sodomy rather than about sexual orientation - that is doing, not being." '

It never ceases to amaze me when the bigots trot out this old line about sexual practices, i.e., sodomy, to justify their discrimination against gay men.

Sodomy isn't against the law, and a recent study showed that considerable numbers of heterosexual couples engage in sodomy. I suspect they probably do it on holiday. Whilst staying in B&B establishments. Even in Scotland. :rolleyes:



Something tells me that kay_cee hasn't woken up to the fact that straight couples may actually also "do that". Or does she also legislate to her straight friends they too are "not welcome to do that" whilst staying overnight in her guest's bedroom? :suspect: Somehow, I doubt it very much.

Edit: As a matter of courtesy, I have tried to PM kay_cee to inform her that I have quoted her in this post - but her PM box is full.
You can say all you want, but its still not right is it?
I mean, two men having sex, it really makes the skin crawl doesnt it?
Somethings are just not right, and that is one of them, yuek

You can say all you want, but its still not right is it?
I mean, two men having sex, it really makes the skin crawl doesnt it?
Somethings are just not right, and that is one of them, yuek
Don't you ever get tired of trolling, artisan? :roll:

You can say all you want, but its still not right is it?
I mean, two men having sex, it really makes the skin crawl doesnt it?
Somethings are just not right, and that is one of them, yuek

Not right for who? Of course it isn't right for you, no, because you are heterosexual. That doesn't give you a passport to be so publically judgemental about it though, IMO.

Artisan, I don't like cinammon, so I avoid it. I don't constantly rant on about how or why I don't like it, I just accept that I don't and subsequently stay away from it.

If I protest too much and too often about the fact that I don't like cinammon, there may be those on the forum who could perhaps think that I secretly quite like it...

:)

You can say all you want, but its still not right is it?
I mean, two men having sex, it really makes the skin crawl doesnt it?
Somethings are just not right, and that is one of them, yuek

You deserve a slapped wrist for trolling artisan! :nono:

However...... I have no problems at all in accepting that these are your views. You are entitled to them, and you are entitled to express them. So are other people, including the Christians, Jews and Muslims referred to in the title of this thread. I have no problem with that either.

But no-one should be allowed to discriminate in the provision of services and goods just because of someone's sexual orientation, or because they are fixated with particular sexual practices.

It seems to me that a number of posters on this thread assume too much about the sexual practices of gay men, as there appears to be an automatic assumption that gay men always engage in sodomy.

Out of interest artisan, does your skin also crawl at the thought of a heterosexual couple engaging in sodomy? Or are you only fixated about consensual anal sex between two men?

Not right for who? Of course it isn't right for you, no, because you are heterosexual. That doesn't give you a passport to be so publically judgemental about it though, IMO.

Artisan, I don't like cinammon, so I avoid it. I don't constantly rant on about how or why I don't like it, I just accept that I don't and subsequently stay away from it.

If I protest too much and too often about the fact that I don't like cinammon, there may be those on the forum who could perhaps think that I secretly quite like it...

:)

You don't like cinnamon?! But nobikejohn has a fantastic recipe for apple and cinnamon pie. Such a shame sTaGeWaLkEr..... you don't know what you're missing! :hihi:

Gentlemen, gentlemen...

This is still supposed to be a Family Forum.... ;)

Let's not go in to TOO much detail here, and Artisan, trolling doesn't suit you!

You don't like cinnamon?! But nobikejohn has a fantastic recipe for apple and cinnamon pie. Such a shame sTaGeWaLkEr..... you don't know what you're missing! :hihi:

:gag:

I'll take a chance chicken!

:D

x