Thursday, April 12, 2012

Christians fight back on Stonewall's London bus campaign


Next Monday, 16th April, will see the launch of an advertising campaign carrying the slogan: “Not gay! Post-gay and proud. Get over it.” London buses, travelling along five different routes, will carry the advert for two weeks. No doubt some of the more militant gays will demand a capital-wide boycott of London's buses. But His Grace hopes not, for these plucky Christians are merely doing what the Prime Minister exhorted them to do: ' fight back'.

The organisers, Anglican Mainstream and Core Issues Trust, say that Stonewall's similar bus campaign, launched to support their ‘equal marriage’ website, implies the false notion that there is indisputable scientific evidence that people are ‘born gay’, and that they have no choice but to affirm their homosexual feelings. They claim that Stonewall's slogan, "Some people are gay. Get over it!" is merely another attempt to close down critical debate about being gay and marriage ‘equality’, and warn that the promotion of homosexual practices to children and young people, many of whom are known to experience ambivalence as they sort through issues of sexual identity, is misleading and dangerous.

Both organisations recognise the rights of individuals to identify as gay, and to live according to their own values. But by the same token, they believe that individuals – such as married men and women unhappy with their homosexuality – should be supported in developing their heterosexual potential, where this is the appropriate life-choice for them. They point out that current scientific research says there is no ‘gay gene’ and that sexuality is far more fluid than has hitherto been thought.

Commenting on Stonewall’s vigorous support for the legalisation of same-sex marriage, Dr Mike Davidson, Director of Core Issues Trust, said: "Their campaign rides roughshod over individuals who by conscience reject the simplistic notion that their choice to move out of homosexuality is because of internalised prejudice taught by society, completely ignoring the profound effect on sexual identity, established by highly-respected scientific study, of childhood experience."

The bus adverts are part of a wider campaign being supported by AM and Core affirming conventional marriage between one man and one woman, as providing the best environment for the needs of children. Canon Dr Chris Sugden, Executive Secretary of AM, commented: “The current political debate surrounding the redefinition of marriage ignores not just the cultural base of this institution that lies at the heart of our society, but seems entirely to have forgotten about children, prioritising adult sexualities at their expense in an unprecedented way.”

His Grace now awaits the counter-campaign of the 'equal marriage' lobby. And, of course, the scorn of Stonewall and derision of The Guardian. We can't be having bigotry on London's buses, can we?

148 Comments:

Blogger Wallenstein said...

Presumably by the same token AMCIT support the view that individuals – such as married men and women unhappy with their heterosexuality – should be supported in developing their homosexual potential, where this is the appropriate life-choice for them.

After all, there is no current scientific research says there is a ‘straight gene’ and that sexuality is far more fluid than has hitherto been thought.

Or is this only going to work one way?

12 April 2012 at 12:32  
Blogger Derek T Northcote said...

Keep out of our bedrooms and we will keep out of your churches.

Not difficult. Is it.

12 April 2012 at 12:40  
Blogger Phil C said...

How is this a good thing? This campaign encourages people to think that the church only welcomes people who are not gay. That is not biblical. Surely Christians can openly fight discrimination against people based on sexual orientation while upholding the gospel and biblical teaching.

Soundbites are no help when it comes to constructive dialogue.

12 April 2012 at 12:51  
Blogger William said...

Keep out of our bedrooms and we will keep out of your churches.

I have no desire to go anywhere near your bedroom and you're more than welcome in my church. Just don't tell me that gay relationships are the same as heterosexual ones. It insults your and my intelligence.

Surely Christians can openly fight discrimination against people based on sexual orientation while upholding the gospel and biblical teaching.

Surely Gays can openly fight discrimination against people based on sexual orientation without undermining the building blocks of society?

12 April 2012 at 13:12  
Blogger Matt Leebody said...

Sure, quote Mike Davidson, who was discredited and basically fired from his 'psychodrama' training live on the radio, on the Nolan show if I remember rightly...

Perhaps you should use some more reputable sources if you intend to be taken seriously.

12 April 2012 at 13:12  
Blogger Matt Leebody said...

Just don't tell me that gay relationships are the same as heterosexual ones. It insults your and my intelligence.

Obviously they are different in some ways, I mean it's obvious that in one there are two people of the same sex... but in what way are they MEANINGFULLY different?

12 April 2012 at 13:15  
Blogger Phil C said...

William, my rhetorical question was a criticism of this counter-campaign. Whether or not your rhetorical question is a good one, it does not shed any light on whether this campaign is a good idea.

12 April 2012 at 13:20  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

Identical twins would be both gay or both straight, if this matter is settle genetically. In fact, in overwhelming majority - 80% - of the very few cases in which one identical twin is gay, the other is straight.

12 April 2012 at 13:24  
Blogger Albert said...

I agree with Phil C. Certainly, the Stonewall adverts are annoying because actually very few people need to "get over" the fact that some people are gay. Most of us, I suspect defend their rights against unjust discrimination and who's campaigning for re-criminalisation? We just don't want to be required to endorse their behaviour or say their relationships are equal to life-creating ones. The AM advert does not make this point: it just gives a sense that Christians believe gay people are inferior - we don't, and it is unjust to both gays and Christians (and especially gay Christians) to imply that we do.

12 April 2012 at 13:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Ha. That's a really feeble counter-campaign.

Whatever happens, the fundies won't be able to match this fabulous bus. :)

12 April 2012 at 14:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The two blokes at the left, too. Lol.

12 April 2012 at 14:02  
Blogger Albert said...

Isn't that bus an example of the kind of reason children use the word "gay" the way they used to use the word "crap"?

12 April 2012 at 14:20  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

"...sexuality is far more fluid than has hitherto been thought..."

Hitherto? I got news for you, Cranny, some of us were of that opinion a long time since. As long ago as the 1950s, Kinsey had put that idea out, but if you can create a white noise, a wallpaper, that a person is either 100% gay or 100% straight in every single case, if you can create an idea that bisexuals are in denial, then it's a lot less lonely for the very, very few people who are actually 100% gay.

12 April 2012 at 14:24  
Blogger Guido68 said...

Has His Grace been in your bedroom? Shocking!

Almost as bad as disagreeing with you.

12 April 2012 at 14:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Corrigan: "[...] it's a lot less lonely for the very, very few people who are actually 100% gay."

That'll be me. It's not lonely at all though. I've a married friend, that's straight-married, who has had sexual relations with me when he was single and in his 20s. It's quite odd chatting to his unknowing wife, knowing what sex with her husband is like.

12 April 2012 at 14:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Article: "[...] implies the false notion that there is indisputable scientific evidence that people are ‘born gay’, and that they have no choice but to affirm their homosexual feelings."

They're merely inferring that, I think. To me, the wonderfully dismissive "Some people are gay. Get over it!" slogan, which has been around for a while, is actually about some people's adverse reaction to others being, or perhaps self-identifying as, gay.

12 April 2012 at 14:45  
Blogger Pétrus said...

@Matt Leebody

Well, one meaningful DIFFERENCE (see I can use capitals as well) is that gay relationships can't produce children.

12 April 2012 at 15:30  
Blogger William said...

Phil C

" This campaign encourages people to think that the church only welcomes people who are not gay."

I don't see that. It does however counter-balance the view that sexuality is defined from birth and that in the domain of sexual orientation politics only pro-gay views are valid.

12 April 2012 at 15:41  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

“Some people are gay. Get over it!" describes in those few words for me that gays are akin to selfish, petulant children who can't get their own way flounce out of the room uttering these words. And the bitchy queens some of whom are funny so I can only laugh at them.

So the riposte from the Christians is merely addressing them in their own language and manner, they should have no cause to dare complain.
The help line phone number of the AMIT should be bigger.

12 April 2012 at 15:55  
Blogger Derek T Northcote said...

You VILE people are NOT Christians.

Jesus would be appalled at you.

DISGUSTING.

12 April 2012 at 16:01  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Northcote wrote,
Keep out of our bedrooms and we will keep out of your churches.

Keep away from our children and keep off the streets and you can do whatever you want in your bedroom.

And what would you know about Jesus?

12 April 2012 at 16:12  
Blogger Galant said...

Incoming:?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17690997

12 April 2012 at 16:19  
Blogger Galant said...

Mr. Northcote,

Other things aside, the problem with "Keep out of our bedrooms and we will keep out of your churches", is that it wont stay out of our churches. It will be forced upon our churches. Ministers will be forced to change their views, act contrary to them, or face the consequences. The issue here is not with allowing people to live their lives how they please, the issue is the blurring of lines and the enforcement of it by law.

12 April 2012 at 16:25  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
That 'rainbow bus' site has photos of provacative men prancing arround in their underware. This and the Gay Pride March is what I refer to in my previus comment about staying off the street.
They would have been arrested for indecency not so long ago.

12 April 2012 at 16:27  
Blogger Phil C said...

William:

The first campaign merely points out that some people are gay and that's ok. The message is clear.

The second campaign points out that some people used to be gay and are proud of not being gay any longer.

What is the significance of that? Why is the latter fact so important that Christians need to launch a counter-campaign? The easy answer is that Christians see a fundamental problem with being gay. That is intrinsically linked with the idea that being gay means you are evil (or fundamentally worth less) and not being gay is the solution. Any more nuanced meaning requires people to go to a web site or something, but the vast majority of people won't do that. The overwhelming result will be negative.

Combined with the (unjustified) fuss over Glynn Harrison recently, expect to see scare stories in the press. What a missed opportunity to show the true biblical view and reflect the gospel to people.

12 April 2012 at 16:42  
Blogger J J Hutchings said...

Will the AMCIT campaign also tackle the unmarried fornicators? Those married who choose not to have children?

12 April 2012 at 16:44  
Blogger party-in-the-uk said...

Utterly ridiculous. Your sexuality is not a choice, when did every one in that vain establishment choose to be straight? I was taught that jesus loved everyone rgardless or creed colour and motive. That god would forgive every sin. When did your 'faith' change this.
I hope every single person that encourages this infringement on certain peoples human rights meets satan (bugsy satan's penis) and your all buried face down.

YOUR ARGUEMENT IS INVALID

ps, religious festivals are now a time of drinking alchol, bingeing on food and days of work.

12 April 2012 at 16:52  
Blogger Flossie said...

Well, Your Grace, you didn't have to wait long!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/12/christian-anti-gay-ads-buses#start-of-comments

12 April 2012 at 16:52  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Well done Anglican Mainstream & Core Issues Trust. When will all the nammby-pammby, limp-wristed Christians wake up & realise that your "politeness" & unwillingness to confront evil isn't considered a virtue but a laughable weakness to be taken advantage of.

As for the idea that challenging the gay-mafia will only prevent gays from coming to hear the gospel: don't you people realise that there are far, far more people who don't come to church because they already consider it a bit - well - gay anyway? Walk round some of the housing estates I walk round and there is far more aversion to homosexuality than there is in the Church (with the exception of lesbian porn!)

Don't let Stonewall & their media arm (BBC) fool you into thinking their agenda is accepted by anyone.

Incidentally, DanJ0 ... the "fundies" have way cooler buses and they don't need exhibitionists to make a statement.

12 April 2012 at 16:52  
Blogger Dave said...

They seem to be very relaxed about the onward march of science and rationality and relatively relaxed about the persecution and slaughter of fellow christians in some of the most homophobic countries on the planet,by another religious brand, yet when it comes to homosexuality or marriage equality then all the stops are pulled out.

One could be forgiven for believing that, in some cases at least, their religion is just a veil to conceal their vindictive bigotry?

12 April 2012 at 17:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Rebel: "Incidentally, DanJ0 ... the "fundies" have way cooler buses and they don't need exhibitionists to make a statement."

Crikey. That looks like the inside of a pole dancing club in Prague that I once went to on a straight stag event. Top marks!

Are all the Kinect accessories etc to lure gullible kids in with the promise of games before they're set upon by weirdy beardies?

12 April 2012 at 17:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Flossie: "Well, Your Grace, you didn't have to wait long!"

Excellent. Looking at most of the comments there, Stonewall couldn't buy that sort of publicity themselves. Perhaps some of these organisations should propose campaigns like this in magazines like Attitude with a donations link for gay people to use to make them happen.

12 April 2012 at 17:21  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12 April 2012 at 17:28  
Blogger J J Hutchings said...

Just as valid as ever

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7100295.stm

Particularly this:

In the interview, Archbishop Tutu also rebuked religious conservatives who said homosexuality was a choice.

"It is a perversion if you say to me that a person chooses to be homosexual.
You must be crazy to choose a way of life that exposes you to a kind of hatred.

It's like saying you choose to be black in a race-infected society.

12 April 2012 at 17:33  
Blogger Roy said...

Wallenstein said...

Presumably by the same token AMCIT support the view that individuals – such as married men and women unhappy with their heterosexuality – should be supported in developing their homosexual potential, where this is the appropriate life-choice for them.

Don't be ridiculous. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not equivalent. One is desirable because we would not exist with out it. The other is undesirable.

When men (or women) who have been married, apparently happily, decide for some reason that they are really Gay then homosexual activists and PC heterosexuals seem to think it is something to be welcomed despite the pain caused to spouses and children. However they do not welcome it when homosexuals change.

In fact they frequently deny that change away from homosexuality is possible despite examples to the contrary, e.g the economist Keynes and, more recently, Chris Huhne's current girlfriend.

12 April 2012 at 17:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Cressida: "I feel pity for your friend's wife."

Ah, I think she'll be alright. As far as I know, he's not trawling the streets looking for gay sex with baby seats in the back of his car. He'd probably come back to me first if he wanted it, I expect. It doesn't seem appropriate to ask him now if he's a repressed bisexual or if it was a passing phase.

I used to think it'd be better being bisexual. A broader choice, you see. But I gather it's less clear than that i.e. there's something missing from either side, I think. I don't reckon I'd like to marry one. Think of the double potential for jealousy if you were inclined to that state of mind!

12 April 2012 at 17:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. “Unhappily gay”. Now there is a phrase you don’t hear very often. Even Elton John went down the conventional marriage route, so we know there must be legions of these people. These gay groups pride themselves in being supportive. Such cock that is. Where are the gay websites that actually acknowledge you can be ‘wanting out’ of the round hole and move to the square one. Where is the holistic approach ?

This is such a concern to the Inspector that he believes these groups charitable status is in doubt. Compare their attitude to that of a private school that refuses to teach all the national curriculum. The tax exemption certificate would be torn up in their faces, as so it should. Serious let down here. Questions need to be asked, what !

12 April 2012 at 18:07  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12 April 2012 at 18:07  
Blogger ECusick said...

"That is intrinsically linked with the idea that being gay means you are evil (or fundamentally worth less) and not being gay is the solution."

Well yes. That is orthodox Christian theology, namely that all people are evil including Homosexuals.

12 April 2012 at 18:09  
Blogger David B said...

As a matter of principle these people, misguided though I think they are, have as much right to advertise on London Buses as the 'Probably no God' advertisers.

What I would really like to see is the publishers of a new book, which I intend to read, exercising the same right.

http://www.amazon.com/Did-Muhammad-Exist-Inquiry-Obscure/dp/161017061X

David B

12 April 2012 at 18:27  
Blogger Guglielmo Marinaro said...

In 2001 Professor Robert Spitzer published a study which concluded that a change in sexual orientation could be successfully engineered in a very small number of cases. At the time the “ex-gay” brigade hailed it (and misrepresented it) as a vindication of the “ex-gay” philosophy. I bet Anglican Mainstream and Core Issues never guessed that they would be launching their campaign the week after Spitzer would have retracted that conclusion. It couldn’t have happened to a nicer lot of people.

12 April 2012 at 18:29  
Blogger Clare Slaney said...

O No! Now the ad's been banned by TfL! And now it will become a Massive Debate instead of being dismissed with contemptuous laughter.

12 April 2012 at 18:33  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

Those few words "Get over it", uttered following some form of aggressive statement are so unutterably rude that it's hard to describe how angry they make me. Once, in a meeting one of the attendees responded with that phrase after I had made an observation on the subject matter. I felt like punching his lights out, because there was no reason to be so aggressively rude, and in public. Afterwards, my boss apologised for the other person, and thought he should have upbraided him. But didn't. Therefore, the cretin got away with it, free to do it again to some other unsuspecting victim. So, to me, this is precisely what Stonewall are doing; and it only serves to alienate themselves from normal, rational people such as me.

12 April 2012 at 18:42  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

It cannot be repeated too often that desire is not its own vindication. The simple fact that a man authentically experiences desire does not immediately prove that he should act acording to that desire. People authentically desire to do evil things. So the "People do not choose to be gay" is not dispositive. It proves the case for homosexuality only if you already assume the case under question - that men should be free to act according to their homosexual desire.

Honmosexual sex is a behavior. Behavior is always a choice. A man is never compelled to any particular behavior.

carl

12 April 2012 at 18:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Oh crappety crap, it looks like it's true that it's been pulled by Tfl. The public ought to know what these Christian 'reparative' therapy people are about and it's too soon to pull it yet. Doh!

12 April 2012 at 19:05  
Blogger Jocelyn Knockersbury said...

If this is about homosexual relationships not bearing children I expect we'll see a Christian campaign against infertile heterosexual couples. If it's about gays "not being the people God wants them to be" I expect we'll see Christian campaigns against alcoholics, adulterers, fornicators, burglars, pickpockets etc. If it's about damaging "the institution of marriage " I expect we'll see Christian campaigns against the divorced. But I think we know what it's really about, don't we?

12 April 2012 at 19:11  
Blogger William said...

"If it's about gays "not being the people God wants them to be" I expect we'll see Christian campaigns against alcoholics, adulterers, fornicators, burglars, pickpockets etc"

You certainly will. As soon as the "Pissed and Proud" bus campaigns appear, I would hope to see a counter-campaign warning of the destruction of alcaholism to families and society.

"If it's about damaging "the institution of marriage " I expect we'll see Christian campaigns against the divorced."

Divorcees are not redefining marriage - they are abandoning it.

12 April 2012 at 19:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

hmmm. Men in underpants (again). It doesn’t help the gay cause to continually flaunt their sexuality in their campaigns. But it is very telling. An obsession with sex is nothing unusual, but it is an indicator of youth. So, here we have a situation where the campaigners probably have an average age of around 20. That means there is no restraining influence from older homosexuals, no doubt due to them getting on with their lives in a dignified way.

So there you have it. The people who want the law changed are rather new to the adult scene. A few more years, and they’ll be getting on with their lives too...

12 April 2012 at 19:32  
Blogger Jocelyn Knockersbury said...

So William : the church only campaigns against people that first launch campaigns of their own, is that right?

12 April 2012 at 19:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The Guardian is reporting that Boris himself pulled the ads as Chair of TfL. That's a bit off. This is already a bit of a freedom of expression issue now, Boris pulling the advert now looks like an election tactic.

12 April 2012 at 19:44  
Blogger JackOwenMay said...

HAHA THEY DIDN'T RUN THE CAMPAIGN. BIGOTRY STILL STINKS.

12 April 2012 at 19:58  
Blogger William said...

"the church only campaigns against people that first launch campaigns of their own, is that right?"

No, but my point is that this is a proportionate response to a well organised gay-promoting agenda and, furthermore, the implication of your post that Christians opposed to "gay marriage" can only be motivated by homophobia is fatuous and probably bigoted.

12 April 2012 at 20:22  
Blogger Albert said...

I've already expressed my opposition to this poster campaign, but I also don't like Boris banning it. True, I think it may be offensive to gays, and that is regrettable. However, I think it is offensive to see men walking in the street nothing but their pants - not because they are part of a gay pride march, but because they are in their pants in a public place. I find it offensive and I don't want my children to see it. And who will you find in such parades? Why Boris of course (at least he does now that he sees it as a vote winner - previously he supported Section 28). I am not aware of Boris in his underpants however.

Conclusion: some people are more free to offend than others, and thus some people are more free than others.

12 April 2012 at 20:48  
Blogger Albert said...

Now Boris has said:

London is one of the most tolerant cities in the world and intolerant of intolerance.

He didn't think that sentence through at all, did he? Apart from the incoherence of it, I am sure all those Muslims Ken has been after will be wondering if he is claiming to speak for them.

12 April 2012 at 20:55  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

Your Grace,
Everytime you post on the gay question you get many comments. But on the issue of Europe - a greater issue to all concerned on this planet- hardly any. Are you British sex -mad behind that stiff upper lip?

12 April 2012 at 21:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Everytime you post on the gay question you get many comments."

Lots of Christians seem to spend more time thinking about gay sex than gay people do. Curious, isn't it?

12 April 2012 at 21:14  
Blogger David B said...

If Boris has pulled the ads I see it as a massive abuse of power.

Free speech is more important than a few people being offended, and, from what I read here, the people he thinks might be offended are not unhappy about the ads, for a number of compatible reasons.

David

12 April 2012 at 21:15  
Blogger Albert said...

Alpha,

The issue is not really homosexuality - it's about freedom of religion. The perception is that gay rights are constantly extended at the expense of religious freedom. This has seemed to be confirmed by numerous court judgments, and now by Boris. Homosexuality is thus symbolic of secularism undermining freedom of conscience and belief.

Europe also is perceived as being opposed to freedom, but it's more remote and seems more focused on the nation's democratic freedom as a whole than religious or conscientious freedom.

12 April 2012 at 21:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I'm wondering whether someone ought to put this chap in contact with those lovely people at the Core Issues Trust.

12 April 2012 at 21:34  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace and others,

The question was asked, ‘why do Christians attack homosexuality so much’? The truth is, they don't. Sinners are sinners and every one falls short of the Glory of God.

Christians preach the Gospel and encourage others to follow Jesus and turn from their sin. If they don't, what can anyone do?

What Christians stand up to is minority groups seeking to take away the liberty of Christians. An earlier post said Jesus loves every one and all sins will be forgiven. Yes and no. He loves us all and died so that we could be saved from our sin but it takes a positive action from the sinner to receive his forgiveness. Otherwise the Bible is clear, it is eternal damnation.

No other group seeks to promote its anti-social ways. Thieves don't demand equal rights to enjoy the fruits of their labour.

The LBGT groups are out to destroy our culture for spurious reasons. They either enjoy seeing respectable people squirm or they are part of a secular warfare against religion.
Equality means that Christians are at liberty to counter accusations that attack their way of life.
Whilst I did not particularly like the wording of the repost, if Boris has pulled one and not the other, that is inequality.

12 April 2012 at 21:47  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

DanJ0

Lots of Christians seem to spend more time thinking about gay sex than gay people do. Curious, isn't it?

It is homosexuals that have made this an issue. The topic only ever comes up when some self obsessed homosexual activist wants to 'protest the pope', crush religious freedom of thought and expression or claim partial ownership of things designed for straight people.

No other group of sinners bleats on about their sin not being accepted by a group they dislike nearly with as much vitriol as homosexuals.

The fact of the matter is that orthodox christians don't treat homosexuals with contempt, but that's not nearly enough for the homosexual thought police. Tell them that you don't treat them differently but don't approve of what they do and you'll receive a stream of abuse that is normally reserved for rapists and paedophiles. We're frequently told that we should keep our faith private, but why is asking a homosexual to keep it to the bedroom without being accused of the etymologically ridiculous term 'homophobia' impossible? It seems that a philosophy that encompasses one's entire being is far less important than the vulgarities of sexual preference.

tl;dr If homosexuals stop pushing their philosophy on us, we'll stop talking about it. Deal?

12 April 2012 at 21:51  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Personally, I cannot see the harm in hetros proclaiming that they are proud to be hetros. And there is the freedom of speech issue. Never thought banning stuff is going to help us be a more tolerant nation. Banning this just creates the backlash.

12 April 2012 at 21:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lakester: "If homosexuals stop pushing their philosophy on us, we'll stop talking about it. Deal?"

I don't speak for all homosexuals, I'm afraid, but if I did then I'd tell you to foxtrot oscar. I see no reason to cut deals with past oppressors based on your false narrative now your own power is waning. We'll have our equality and measure of justice whether you like it or not. Go and whinge to one of your painted idols or whisper pointless prayers to a patron saint of lost causes if you don't like it.

12 April 2012 at 22:08  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Am I the only one who thinks we go round in circles on this whole issue?

12 April 2012 at 22:08  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

@alpha, don't worry we Brits still have the stiff upper lip!

12 April 2012 at 22:11  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
Just been looking at the comments after the Guardian article. It is very sad to see how the actions of Christians have caused such vitriolic reaction in those readers. I appreciate that you might not expect much more from a Guardian reader but never the less, Christians need to be more sensitive in their actions so that the World is won for Jesus, not lost. We can challenge, but in a way that is seen as caring, not hating.

12 April 2012 at 22:16  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Paul,
What should we do? Let them walk all over us? Get me a ticket out of here if that is the case.

12 April 2012 at 22:18  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Shame on you for bringing up yet another homosexual priest ! It’s your types in holy orders that has led to widespread mistrust of the Catholic church. You are are a hound, Sir !

12 April 2012 at 22:27  
Blogger David B said...

Albert, not so much about freedom of religion, though as a secularist I am concerned about that.

It is more, I think, about freedom of expression, of which freedom of religion is a subset.

There must be limits, of course. Shouting 'Fire' in a crowded theatre is an oft quoted case in point, and we don't really want people inflicting the OT punishments for various offences, now, do we?

But banning that ad seems to me to be wrong, there is, or should be, some sort of right to free speech, eve nwithin limits, but there is no right not to be offended.

Dammit, Bliar and Cameron offend me! Both!

David B

12 April 2012 at 22:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "You are are a hound, Sir !"

In all fairness, I was somewhat pushed earlier today. To make amends and to even up the tally a tad, I have a story about a vicar too. I'm hoping it wasn't a King Edwards.

12 April 2012 at 22:35  
Blogger Phil C said...

ECusick: the point is that the adverts make out that being gay makes you more sinful/evil than others. And if you want to be clear about orthodoxy, it talks about our being sinful, not evil. There's a difference!

Mr Integrity: "Christians need to be more sensitive in their actions so that the World is won for Jesus, not lost. We can challenge, but in a way that is seen as caring, not hating."

I agree completely.

12 April 2012 at 22:38  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Yes Mr Integrity @ 22:16 that Christian ad IS careing. It's offering a caring service to help those homosexuals who want to try and change, who are not out and proud. It's good that there are organisations like CIT. Boris is being daft to pull the ad, I take it he's pulled both of them?

12 April 2012 at 22:41  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0
Your friend is not bisexual. Don't be stupid. I mean, I went to a bah mitzpah once, that doesn't make me Jewish!

Tell me honsstly, have you ever loved a woman? Loved her to the point of wanting to be physically intimate with her? Or simply loved her without her erotic desire? And men? Have you ever loved aman without wanting to get naked?

Excuse the crudity, but I think this sums up the modern, chic attitude:

"I have a dick and it gets hard then that's good. I walk down the street and if I see a girl and my dick gets hard that's good and if I see a boy that's good too and same with seeing a chicken. If my dick gets hard and I want to fuck it then that's good.

People like to attach labels to themselves, straight, gay, S&M, it's just so simple. It doesn't matter what you do whether its horrible or mainstream or boring, you know what turns you on. So why the big brouhaha?"

(Jimmy Urine of Mindless Self Indulgence)

Compare this to the more 'intellectual and 'scientific' opinion:

"It would encourage clearer thinking on these matters if persons were not characterized as hetereosexual or homosexual, but as individuals who have had certain amounts of heterosexual experience and certain amounts of homosexual experience.

Instead of using these terms as substantives which stand for persons, or even as adjectives to describe persons, they may better be used to describe the nature of the overt sexual relations, or of the stimuli to which an individual erotically responds."

(Alfred Kinsey)

This sums it up:

"Bisexuality means I am free and I am as likely to want to love a woman as I am likely to want to love a man, and what about that? Isn't that what freedom implies?"
(June Jordan)

Back to natural reason and God - misuse of freedom and indulgence in eroctic love for hedonistic pleasure is bad for the individual and bad for a society. That's why God forbids it outside of a life long, permanent heterosexual marriage!

12 April 2012 at 22:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Your friend is not bisexual. Don't be stupid. I mean, I went to a bah mitzpah once, that doesn't make me Jewish!"

It was rather more than once for him. In fact, for a while, it was the equivalent of no pork pies, the loss of his foreskin, and an overbearing mother.

"Tell me honsstly, have you ever loved a woman? Loved her to the point of wanting to be physically intimate with her?"

Never. Not even through my teenage years. The idea of physical intimacy with a woman, if you mean sexual activity, is viscerally unpleasant. What about you, Dodo? Ever got breathless at the sight of a ripped set of abs on a man? Go on, you can whisper it to me if you're embarrassed.

12 April 2012 at 22:53  
Blogger bluedog said...

The Inspector @ 22.27 said to DanJO 'You are are a hound, Sir !'

Would you care to explain that remark? Should I be offended?

12 April 2012 at 22:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "It's good that there are organisations like CIT."

The Guardian now has a writeup underneath the main story on the research behind the activities of organisations like that. There's plenty of other stuff around from the Leslie Pilkington story if you don't trust the Guardian.

12 April 2012 at 22:57  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

Too much detail .... Let's keep his foreskin out of this, please!

No, never, though I have loved a number a men as my closest and dearest friends,

You must join a Monastry immediately and learn to overcome this lust you feel. I often feel aroused by women I meet (not so often these days, I admit). However, I keep my zip firmlyclosed. Perhaps you should do ythe same.

12 April 2012 at 23:06  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

The utter hypocrisy is surely the main point of this story.

Why should two adverts with almost identical wording result in one being banned and decried for being intolerant & bigoted etc etc?

That's now a rhetorical question though isn't it, because we all know the answer.

12 April 2012 at 23:09  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

bluedog

Clear case of 'Dogism' from the Inspector. His explanation will be interesting.

I myself am frequently subjected to Birdist remarks and comments. We should not tolerate this no for the sake of future generations. Think of our little puppies and chicks.

12 April 2012 at 23:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Bless you Bluedog, no offence meant. This gay insurrection is grotesque, don’t you think. Normal adults only consider sex when the setting is right – an Italian restaurant for example, and even then, not there and then, and not with children. Our Victorian forebears had it right to make this kind of activity illegal. Never appreciated this before, but there you go....

12 April 2012 at 23:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Perhaps you should do ythe same."

Why? I'm not a Christian and there's nothing inherently wrong with it. Honestly, do you worry at all when you drink a glass of wine that some Muslim somewhere has a dim view of what you're doing? If he said something about it being forbidden by Allah then wouldn't you be inclined to raise your glass with a wry smile, take a sip, express how lovely it is, and tell him firmly to jog on?

12 April 2012 at 23:10  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo, “Dogism” ? We have this problem in nearby Cranham woods. An arrestable offence, apparently. (Probably gays behind it, as with most sexual deviancy...)

12 April 2012 at 23:16  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

You are too worldly wise!

I believe the correct term is slightly different.

12 April 2012 at 23:30  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Leslie Pilkington suffered entrapment. She seems a genuine lady who wants to help homosexuals who are not happy about their sexuality who want to change. I don't see her forcing her therapy on to gays They go to her, she caters for a market.
For all we know homosexuality in some people could well be a mental disorder or an addiction.

So what do homosexuals find about women that is so repulsive to them? Is it that you are not programmed to reproduce?

12 April 2012 at 23:32  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0
But Islam is wrong! Christianity is right. All the Abrahmic religions agree on this issue.

Sensuality based Hinduism and its Buddhist offshoot probably permits it.

You have a choice. Besides, I sometimes get the impression you are not entirely committed to this 'cause' and only indulge in lustful activity occasionally.

12 April 2012 at 23:40  
Blogger bluedog said...

Thank you for your reassurance, Mr Inspector @ 23.10, and to you too, Mr Dodo @ 23.09.

For a dreadful moment it seems as though the Inspector was adding 'canophobic bigot' to his long list of prejudices. Let it be clearly understood that being a dog or hound is not a choice, it is genetic. Those who claim that being a dog is sinful and can be cured are themselves guilty of believing in medieval superstitions, or worse!

Get over it!

12 April 2012 at 23:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "So what do homosexuals find about women that is so repulsive to them?"

Erm, that's not actually what I said. Is that what your mind took from it? As for what I actually said, I'm pretty sure most of the men here will understand if they think about having sex with another man. It's like that for me, only when I think of sex with a woman. Hardly surprising, I'd have thought, if one approaches it with an open mind.

"Is it that you are not programmed to reproduce?"

Yes. None of us actually have sex, we just sit around and drink tea. Afterwards, we make up stories about huge willies and giggle to bolster the stereotype. Being gay actually means we have no sex drive at all in reality. Obviously this is different to straight men who have a sex drive but one which is only activated when they walk past a Mothercare shop, or when they think about kicking a football around a park with a young son.

12 April 2012 at 23:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "You have a choice."

As you do over the Meursault or the Montrachet. Just don't think about the Muslims religiously judging you on the sidelines!

12 April 2012 at 23:50  
Blogger David B said...

Marie, I would imagine that homosexual males do not find women repulsive as potential friends, any more than I, a heterosexual male, find men repulsive as friends.

I do find men repulsive as potential sexual partners though.

Don't think it is anything to do with being programmed to reproduce. All my reading tells me that many male and female homosexuals really do have an urge to reproduce, in a way I don't.

Hence all the fuss about surrogate mothers for male homosexual partners who would like a kid, and sperm donations for female homosexuals who want a kid.

My reading also tells me that in utero hormone levels have a major impact on sexual preferences.

I do think it a tragedy, though, if people who have strong homosexual leanings try to deny that because their religion, and/or social tells them to.

A tragedy both for the person concerned and for, if the person is a denying homosexual, for their wife or husband.

I have some personal knowledge of this. One of my ex girlfriends married a homosexual in denial, which led to some very bad things for her.

David B

12 April 2012 at 23:54  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

David B said ....
"One of my ex girlfriends married a homosexual in denial, which led to some very bad things for her."

Going out with you must have been a sore trial!

Hormone levels determine sex drive - not sexual preference. Although, I acknowledge, some people may just get over stimulated by anyone or anything. Maybe a darkened room would be preferable rather than involving another person in their sickness.

"I have a dick and it gets hard then that's good. I walk down the street and if I see a girl and my dick gets hard that's good and if I see a boy that's good too and same with seeing a chicken. If my dick gets hard and I want to fuck it then that's good.

People like to attach labels to themselves, straight, gay, S&M, it's just so simple. It doesn't matter what you do whether its horrible or mainstream or boring, you know what turns you on. So why the big brouhaha?"

(Jimmy Urine of Mindless Self Indulgence)

13 April 2012 at 00:37  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

Are you suggusting I have a wine fetish? How dare you!

13 April 2012 at 00:39  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0: “Is that what your mind took from it?” No, I was looking for deeper answers from you and wondering if God programmed you to reproduce then your brain would find the opposite sex attractive as you are not naturally destined to fatherhood your brain must be wired to produce pleasure and arrousal when you see others of same sex.

But as David B says some same sex people also want children. I wonder why? It can't be a biological urge more a mere whim? or is this just because they feel compelled to by society?

David B”I do think it a tragedy, though, if people who have strong homosexual leanings try to deny that because their religion, and/or social tells them to.”

I don't know if Brian Sewall the distiguished and wonderfully acebic art critic can keep his homosexuality at bay, I think he said in an interview how ghastly an affliction it was to him, then it can't be so difficult really.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/07/06/art-critic-brian-sewell-complains-theres-too-many-gays-on-television/

13 April 2012 at 00:45  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

Marie
Without giving away any secrets, let's be frank, very many men find it difficult controlling the sex urge. By nature, we seem programmed to "go forth and multiply".

From memory, of course, we all enjoy the chase and pursuit; the seduction game. So do women. The challenge is controlling this natural drive and directing it to its God given purpose.

Some people eat way too much. Some drink too much. In sex, self control applies to homosexuality and heterosexuality. Behind it is a drive to reproduce. The alternatives are marriage or chastity. We are asked to rise above nature.

13 April 2012 at 00:57  
Blogger Derek T Northcote said...

Absolutely Hysterical.

Bigots hiding behind religion.

13 April 2012 at 02:51  
Blogger len said...

If Satan can get control of your mind then he has total control over all else!.
This is basically what aggressive homosexuality and many 'other things' is all about.
We are being bombarded with propaganda who`s chief aim is to change the opinions of 'the guy in the street' about homosexuality.

IF what was considered as being 'unnatural' can become(by the constant use of propaganda)as natural then homosexuals will have 'won the battle'in the eyes of the 'guy in the street'.

So what is the spiritual motivation behind all this?.

Satan takes what is of God and distorts and twists it then presents it to us as 'good'.And IF he succeeds in doing this He remains 'as our god'.

Christians who hold out for the Truth of God are being attacked at every level of Society as the tide of secularism attempts to sweep them away.

'Bigot 'is one of the least of the assaults against Christianity many Christians are paying with their lives for holding out for the Truth .

13 April 2012 at 08:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Perhaps the two Christian organisations could hire a few of those mobile A-frame billboard vans instead and drive around London for the duration? Unlike TfL, I can't see the owners of that sort of advertising space being much bothered by the quack content of the adverts or any negative publicity it brings.

13 April 2012 at 09:09  
Blogger Albert said...

David B @ 2232,

I agree with you completely, and I much prefer your sharpening of the issue to "freedom of expression" - that's much more what I meant.

Pro-gay censorship should worry us all, but especially homosexuals. Partly because once we go down that route it could then apply to anyone, but partly also because if we do get gay marriage, then it will be all the easier for Christians to claim it is unjust - there wasn't a a full and fair discussion of the issues.

It's a win-win for conservative Christians.

13 April 2012 at 09:10  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

IF what was considered as being 'unnatural' can become(by the constant use of propaganda)as natural

Interesting, what is it that makes homosexual acts unnatural (I don't mean how you do you know it's unnatural)?

13 April 2012 at 09:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Actually, if they did go for the A frames then they'd be better changing the message to something like:

"We offer a Gay Cure for Christians. No surgery necessary. The snake oil is fat free too!"

Lots of people I know actually had to look up what the original advert was supposed to mean.

13 April 2012 at 09:19  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

I don't believe this level of STUPID

Look most people ar hetrosexual, some are bisexual and some homosexual
THAT IS THE WAY THEY ARE
IT HAPPENS IN ALL MAMMALIAN SPECIES

Now grow up!

13 April 2012 at 09:22  
Blogger Albert said...

Tingey,

IT HAPPENS IN ALL MAMMALIAN SPECIES

Many mammals - perhaps all in the wild - kill their young - especially if they are disabled. Just wondering if you think that is morally significant for human behaviour.

13 April 2012 at 09:28  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

Tingey

Many mammals do leap on another, yes. Dogs are notorious for it. Goodness, they'll hump anything given half a chance -legs, furniture, lamp posts!

Are we no better than this?

13 April 2012 at 10:59  
Blogger Guglielmo Marinaro said...

Tobacco adverts have now long been banned, and I see that supermarkets now have to keep their tobacco shelves hidden behind sliding doors. It therefore seems perfectly reasonable that young gays who are still in the process of coming to terms with their natural sexuality should be shielded from pernicious attempts to recruit them to fraudulent and abusive “ex-gay” programs.

13 April 2012 at 11:22  
Blogger Guglielmo Marinaro said...

By the way, arguments about mammal behaviour are totally irrelevant. It is erroneous to argue that homosexual behaviour among animals justifies it for humans. It is equally erroneous to suppose that any such justification is needed. As the American biologist Douglas Futuyma rightly said (although he wasn’t referring specifically to this subject), “At no time has anyone ever explained why human behavior should be modeled on nonhuman nature.” What occurs or doesn’t occur in other species is neither prescriptive nor proscriptive for us.

13 April 2012 at 11:29  
Blogger Phil C said...

Just as I and others here predicted, here is the reaction to the ad from a Guardian column:

"Gay people have been pointlessly reminded, not that homophobia is unacceptable, but that there exist organised groups that detest them."

The organisers of the counter-campaign may not detest gay people at all, but the advert certainly prompts people to believe it. Who cares about the publicity they or their cause gets? It's not publicity for Christ or the gospel. What a waste.

13 April 2012 at 12:04  
Blogger Albert said...

Guglielmo,

I think you are wiser than the Mayor. He seems to have banned the ads because they cause offence - which is the same as undermining freedom of speech. You are wanting them banned because they promote falsehoods and adverts shouldn't do that.

The impossibility of changing one's sexuality does seem to be the consensus, though matters are confusing here. Even Peter Tatchell recently admitted:

many people have a sexuality that is, to varying degrees, capable of both heterosexual and homosexual attraction.

Meanwhile, people who vociferously proclaim sexuality is fixed, seem quite happy also to say that celibacy causes paedophilia when they want to knock the Catholic Church. It's all these things that create the worry that there may be more politics than science here.

None of which justifies misleading bus posters, but it does indicate we need more freedom of speech on this issue, not less.

13 April 2012 at 12:33  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Your Grace

Ernst is unaware if you watch the paper review on BBC 24 late evening but over the last week I have noticed that several commentators of the papers are homosexual or lesbian and declared such during their review..

As the true number of Homosexuals is about 5% of the population, is the number involved with journalism nearly 50% then or are the BBC just so outrageously biased that they care not what we think of them and all we receive is the uplifting of two fingers to we, the license paying fools who contribute to their biased agenda?

That they are so inclined is irrelevant to me regarding their ability to review newspapers but states volumes of the BBC and their agenda.

E S Blofeld

13 April 2012 at 12:40  
Blogger Matt Leebody said...

@Pétrus

Clap clap. Glad you have worked out how to use capital letters. Now, your absolute steaming condescension aside, please tell me, does that mean that any marriage / coupling that does not or cannot (infertile couples) produce children is equal to a gay one then?

I suspect you're going to try to backpedal - or maybe just not answer. See, it's fine to tell gays that because they don't make children, they're worthless to society. Try telling an infertile man / woman that, and suddenly it is cruel and unfair.

That is the definition of prejudice. So wake up to the fact that you are prejudiced, and in so recognising, change your ways.

But as I say, since there is no counter to this argument, it will be ignored. Just like my other previous post, asserting how using a quote from Mike Davidson, a man discredited by his professional body LIVE ON AIR is like asking me my opinions on heart surgery. His opinion holds no credence or weight, and to attach such weight to it is folly.

13 April 2012 at 13:53  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

"Guglielmo Marinaro" said...

" ... young gays who are still in the process of coming to terms with their natural sexuality should be shielded from pernicious attempts to recruit them to fraudulent and abusive “ex-gay” programs."

Now, excuse me, but you've made a few assumptions there! Who says homosexuality is natural or that the process should be left alone?

A Christian would argue: why expose teenagers to any view about sexuality prior to founding this upon consideration of its purpose?

Kinsey and his entourage encouraged a divorce between purpose and intent by throwing a psuedo science around it.

" ... persons (should not be)characterized as hetereosexual or homosexual, but as individuals who have had certain amounts of heterosexual experience and certain amounts of homosexual experience ... they ... describe the nature of the overt sexual relations, or of the stimuli to which an individual erotically responds."
(Alfred Kinsey)

Potentially, this legitimises all forms of erotica without the purpose of sexuality being understood - the sane and insane; the consensual and the non concensual. Throw in peadophilia, sibling sex, zoophilia, and paraphilia too.

In my experience, it is possible to address stimuli which arouse erotic feelings and for individuals to control such impulses. All it takes is a willingness to change and for this to happen the development of an ethic and a morality.

13 April 2012 at 14:22  
Blogger Guglielmo Marinaro said...

Thank you, Albert. But I do have to say that I get a bit tired of reading comments that begin “Even Peter Tatchell admits...” Peter Tatchell speaks for himself and maybe for his group Outrage! – if it still exists – not for the gay community as a whole. He has his own (and to me rather barmy) ideology which he has expressed as “Anyone can be queer [sic]”. His assertion that “many people have a sexuality that is, to varying degrees, capable of both heterosexual and homosexual attraction” is both vague and questionable. How many is “many”? I suggest that “SOME people have a sexuality etc. etc.” would be a statement more justified by the extent of our present knowledge. I think that most people, and certainly most men, do not. When people’s sexual relationships break up, which unfortunately often happens, they generally form new sexual relationships – if they do – of the same kind as before, heterosexual or homosexual as the case may be. Yes, the contrary sometimes occurs, but when it does, it is usually a surprise to those who know them well (unless they were already known to be bi-sexual) and gives rise to puzzled comment. If a fluid sexual orientation were really common, switches of this kind would be a fairly humdrum occurrence and would occasion no more surprise than someone changing his or her job or moving from one town to another.

But my most important objection to “Even Peter Tatchell admits...” is that it seems to imply that if EVEN Peter Tatchell admits something, then that clinches it; it must be true. Nonsense. Peter Tatchell is perfectly entitled to his own views, which are clearly influenced by his eccentric ideology, but he is not an infallible expert, or even a fallible one. His opinions on this subject carry no more authority of superior scientific knowledge than would those of, for instance, David Beckham, Jamie Oliver or Beyoncé.

13 April 2012 at 14:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"But my most important objection to “Even Peter Tatchell admits...” is that it seems to imply that if EVEN Peter Tatchell admits something, then that clinches it; it must be true. Nonsense."

Well-recognised. :)

13 April 2012 at 14:57  
Blogger Guglielmo Marinaro said...

@ The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude:
I don’t wish to discuss what Kinsey said, because I couldn’t care less what he said. My views are not in any way dependent on any pronouncement of his. You can call homosexuality “unnatural” if you like, but the description has no objective meaning; it is merely an emotionally toned way of saying that you don’t like it. If anyone is proposing to tamper with a young person’s sexuality, they need an extremely good and compelling reason for doing so. There may be such good and compelling reasons, e.g. that they are sexually attracted to children, which is one of the examples that you gave – although you need to learn how to spell “paedophilia”. The fact that the young person’s attractions are to people of the same sex is not one of them. I regard interference in such cases as abusive and immoral. Indeed, the long-term repercussions of officious abuse of this kind can be very similar to those of paedophilic abuse.

13 April 2012 at 14:58  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

I was reading an excerpt from Brian Sewell's book “Story of my 1000 lovers.”
What drove him at 28 out of the arms of the Catholic Church one Sunday morning in 1959 on his way to Mass and in to the arms of men? He went from chaste to whore almost over night, a thousand fucks a year. Nothing unusual in homosexual circles.

I think homosexuality is a form of self harm addiction.

I think Boris should get the gay ad also taken down and concentrate on getting his face on the sides of buses instead as part of his mayoral campaign and forget about gays for now.

13 April 2012 at 15:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "Nothing unusual in homosexual circles."

Blimey. We must know some very different gay people.

13 April 2012 at 15:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

That's about 3 goes a day on average, allowing time to go to the dentist and stuff once in a while. How do all these gay people find the time? And the energy? And the bloody fluid? :O

13 April 2012 at 15:52  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0 Here are a few tips from Brian Sewell:

“In all this there was always considerable risk and yet not once was there a betrayal of which I am aware - though betrayals there must have been, for these circles reached across London and beyond (as any casual visitor to the old Turkish baths of Greenwich and Bermondsey must have known). There were too the contacts made in the open, effected with nothing more than a glance, a turn of the head and a pause in the stride - all so easy once one had the knack. The easiest place for this was the street, any street a happy hunting-ground, but it worked in a bus queue too, scanning the oncoming walkers, and in the Underground or walking the aisle to descend from the top deck of a bus. At weekends museums and galleries were the encountering points, none better, even on a fine Sunday afternoon, than the free-standing glass cases of the V&A. One exhibition there, of Italian Bronze Statuettes in 1961, produced a particularly rich crop of casual lovers, and I realise now that the exhibition catalogues that crowd my bookshelves are as much reminders of such episodes as records useful for the jobbing art historian. With so much sex so easily available, I wonder if Eric Bewsey was the God-given sign for which I asked.”

In 1959 I launched into a life of such promiscuity as might suggest that I was making up for the golden years that had passed me by, for the opportunities lost in the arid years of denial, but it was sheer intoxication with the sudden ease of it and the abandonment of guilt. It was not unusual to pick up a companion on my way home - Cléo de Cinq à Sept, so to speak - to have had a fuck one way or the other and be home having a bath by seven, then to go and see my current lover (duration three days to three weeks, perhaps), and on the way home to pick up someone else with whom either to have a quickie before bed or take home for the night - which usually meant another perfunctory fuck first thing in the morning. Throw in a few Jack Rabbit weekends and all this might amount to a thousand fucks a year and easily a thousand sexual partners in a quinquennium.

Outsider. Always Almost: Never Quite by Brian Sewell is published by Quartet Books (£25)

My ex-haridresser and his mates are like this

13 April 2012 at 16:02  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

Guglielmo Marinaro

Touched a nerve, did I?

Not attempting to "influence" sexuality is negligent and abusive.

You are assuming young people have a defined sexuality that is freely chosen and should be allowed expression.

In what way is same sex attraction different to attraction to children, a chicken, one's sibling and the electric hoover? On what basis is one justified in seeing these as "compelling reasons" for intervention?

Is the following reasoning wrong?

"I have a dick and it gets hard then that's good. I walk down the street and if I see a girl and my dick gets hard that's good and if I see a boy that's good too and same with seeing a chicken. If my dick gets hard and I want to fuck it then that's good.
(Jimmy Urine of Mindless Self Indulgence)

13 April 2012 at 16:21  
Blogger Albert said...

Gulgiermo,

I do have to say that I get a bit tired of reading comments that begin “Even Peter Tatchell admits...” Peter Tatchell speaks for himself and maybe for his group Outrage!

My apologies! I suppose all I meant was that the idea that sexuality can be altered does not seem unique to those who are opposed things like gay marriage.

13 April 2012 at 16:29  
Blogger DP111 said...

Is there a "homosexual" gene?

13 April 2012 at 16:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "My ex-haridresser and his mates are like this"

Blimey. How did he ever find time to cut your hair? And did he walk in like John Wayne every time? It was the number you cite together with the claim that it's nothing unusual in homsexual circles that I'm questioning. I expect there are some gay people actually like that. Heck, I know some straight people who are extremely promiscuous. But it's the extrapolation from that to the rest of us that is surprising ... and probably unjustifiable.

13 April 2012 at 16:42  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Bluedog. The Inspector acknowledges your right to exist. In fact, he is rather fond of blue animals. He’s is less fond of rainbow dogs, but that notwithstanding, also acknowledges their right to exist. Well, with one proviso. He would appreciate it if you rainbow breeds did your business in your bedrooms and your clubs. What he doesn’t want is you to do it against his door and on the street. You see, what you consider great stuff you can roll around in, he considers shit. Furthermore, he also doesn’t want to see the young step in the shit and think it’s natural to walk in the mire at times.

Now chaps, it you follow this request, we’ll all rub along nicely, don’t you think ! And we won’t have to mention your shit again, and that would be topper…

13 April 2012 at 16:49  
Blogger Oswin said...

Guglielmo Marinaro @ 14:38 :

What a pleasure to read something so beautifully written and so well composed!

Apropos elsewhere, of Tingey, Albert, Dodo and, of your own comments, ref' mammalian behaviours: it may be, as you postulate according to Douglas Futuyma's comment: ''At no time has anyone explained why human behaviour should be modelled on nonhuman nature'' - the pertinent words being: ''...should be...''. The fact is, that to some extent, they simply 'are'; and that's before any discussion of what configures/constitutes the nonhuman/human.

Desmond Morris' observations in ''The Naked Ape'' appear to have gained much subsequent, additional support, by the unravelling of species specific DNA.

Ciao.

13 April 2012 at 17:25  
Blogger Guglielmo Marinaro said...

@ The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude

‘Not attempting to "influence" sexuality is negligent and abusive.’

Attempting to tamper with sexuality when there is nothing wrong with it is abusive. Such abuse will not alter a person’s sexual orientation, but it is liable to do considerable psychological and emotional damage. Busybodies who want to do this need to be kept under control, just as paedophiles need to be kept under control.

‘You are assuming young people have a defined sexuality that is freely chosen...’

I am assuming no such thing, nor have I implied it. People do not choose their sexual orientation. They discover it. Most people discover that they are heterosexual, which is what they had always expected. Some discover that they are homosexual or bi-sexual.

‘...and should be allowed expression.’

Exactly what expression should be allowed will depend on the person’s age and circumstances. Whatever expression is allowed to a heterosexual person, analogous expression should be allowed to a gay person of the same age and in the same circumstances.

‘In what way is same sex attraction different to attraction to children, a chicken, one's sibling and the electric hoover?’

In what way is OPPOSITE sex attraction different to attraction to children, a chicken, one's sibling and the electric hoover? When you have answered that question, you will also have answered your own question.

13 April 2012 at 17:40  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

One is natural - the others are disordered inclinations. Simples! One has a purpose other than hedonistic pleasure - the others do not. One is unitive - the others singular or mutual masterbation.

13 April 2012 at 18:03  
Blogger Guglielmo Marinaro said...

@ The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude
If you like to call homosexuality a “disordered inclination”, you are free to do so, but you are once again merely dressing up an expression of personal dislike as an objective statement, which it isn’t. Both straight and gay sex can be purely hedonistic and can be used simply as a form of mutual masturbation, but if you really think that homosexuality is about nothing more than that, then you clearly know very little about it and understand even less. You would therefore be wise to refrain from any further comment on the subject.

13 April 2012 at 18:49  
Blogger Oswin said...

Cressida @ 17:28 : I couldn't agree more - 'bi-sexuals' are just greedy/dirty buggers, and cause untold problems for everyone!


Dodo @ 18:03 : ffs, do you have to keep banging-on about ''masturbation''? No wonder the likes of Derek T. Nothcote keep raising the old 'those who protest too much' argument! Give it a rest, it is both distasteful and worrying.

13 April 2012 at 18:56  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin
Interesting that the term troubles you. It is my public duty to speak of it!

"Hypochondriasis, hysteria, chorea, epilepsy, apoplexy, and palsy, constitute part of the list of dire maladies induced or immediately excited, by onanism and immoderate or ill-timed coition. The memory and intellectual faculties, in general, are enfeebled, and there are instances of complete idiocy, brought on by early and continued onanism, and of insanity from similar excesses later in life." (The Eclectic Journal of Medicine. Vol 3, No 4. Nov 1894. Haswell, Barrington, and Haswell: Philadelphia.)

Guglielmo Marinaro
When you get right down to it, that's really all it is! Please don't claim more for it.

13 April 2012 at 19:31  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

William Mariner - not a manu yourself, are you?

13 April 2012 at 19:43  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Guglielmo Marinaro. You’d be more acceptable as a homosexual if you dropped the sexy young boy avatar. As it is, you are every parents nightmare..

13 April 2012 at 23:16  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo @ 19:31 : it is you, forever using the term, or similar, that troubles me. Seriously, I'm not fencing with you here old chap; take the hint, it IS a tad too creepy.

14 April 2012 at 00:27  
Blogger len said...

We live in a 'rights based' Society and this is a 'lever'used to get whatever one desires.
Is this a good thing...or not?.

And who decides 'what is right' (for everybody) seems to be the main argument.

This of course is an argument which is as old as time itself.The Satanic lie(which has survived to this day) was "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."(Genesis 3:5)
And it was from this lie that all rebellion against God proceeds!.Of course vast amounts of pride are also involved!.

What we are witnessing is the construction of the' Last Kingdom of Man'where man will attempt to build his 'perfect World' unaided by the God of the Bible.It will of course end like all the others.The difference however is that when(not if) God judges this Kingdom of Man He will be compelled to intervene (like Sodom and Gomorrah and the Tower of Babel) because if he does not then man will totally destroy himself and God`s Creation.

14 April 2012 at 07:25  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

The difference however is that when(not if) God judges this Kingdom of Man He will be compelled to intervene (like Sodom and Gomorrah and the Tower of Babel) because if he does not then man will totally destroy himself and God`s Creation.

A bit melodramatic Len. Secular ideologies always die out - it doesn't matter how well resourced they are by the state and philosophy, they just collapse - look at communism. Our present secularism will not survive long. It is riddled with contradiction which is why, like all secular ideologies before it, it is now having to impose itself by force.

I have seen a wicked man overbearing, and towering like a cedar of Lebanon. Again I passed by, and, lo, he was no more;
though I sought him, he could not be found.
Psalm 37

14 April 2012 at 10:46  
Blogger Oswin said...

Albert: let us hope you are right.

Welcome back, by the way. :o)

14 April 2012 at 16:36  
Blogger len said...

Albert,(14 April 2012 10:46)
Mat. 24:21-22 - " For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be, and except those days should be shortened, (God's intervention to stop man's devastation against all life) there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake (God's chosen saints) those days shall be shortened." (end of quote)

(sounds pretty serious to me!)

14 April 2012 at 19:16  
Blogger len said...

Albert, Also Gods judgements are already happening,see if you recognise any of the signs?.
Civilizations fall apart in three stages: As a nation turns away from God and loses contact with Him, God releases the restraints against evil in the culture.

Stage One is a sexual revolution beginning with increasing heterosexual immorality: premarital sex, and adultery.

Stage Two in a collapsing society is the appearance and acceptance of homosexual immorality. This is of course one step further removed from God's intended purpose for marriage and sexual expression.

Stage Three is the appearance of violence in society--terrorism and terrible crimes: child abuse, kidnapping and the murder of innocents, bizarre evils which defy rational explanation. During this last stage good is often called evil and evil is named as good. The moral order has been turned upside down.

Albert , where would you place us on 'this scale'.

14 April 2012 at 19:20  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

I think no-one knows the time or the hour, nevertheless, in every age Christians have assumed they do know. If I were to look at a period of time when these signs seemed most likely to be being fulfilled, I would say it was in the mid-20th Century - communism, Hitlerism etc. But that wasn't the time. Let us trust our Lord's words: we must always be ready, but no-one knows the time or the hour.

14 April 2012 at 19:35  
Blogger len said...

Albert

'For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God?'(1 Peter 4:17)

'But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged.'(1Corinthians 11:31)

Paul wrote much about the return of Christ and warned us against being deceived. He provided a specific test to ensure we are not deceived about the timing of the Day of the Lord and the return of Christ. The Day of the Lord cannot come until ‘the man of lawlessness is revealed.’ Paul explains, that the ‘the man of lawlessness’ will be revealed when he goes into the temple of God and declares that he is God.

Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God. (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4).

Pope Pius V said this:
The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth.xiii

Pope Pius XI said this about himself:
PIUS XI, Pontifex Maximus.xiv

Pope Leo XIII said this about the role of the Pope:
We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.

15 April 2012 at 07:15  
Blogger Albert said...

Len,

Well obviously, if your interpretation of 2 Thess. and the papal comments are correct (and I think neither is) then the Second Coming should have happened in the 16th Century.

15 April 2012 at 10:05  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

len

When the rapture comes will you need a suitcase? What a silly, deluded man you are.

15 April 2012 at 14:46  
Blogger len said...

Quiet funny really.The Pope says he is God and they all bow down.

Any other man says he is God and they send him away to the 'funny farm'.

Oh well time will tell.

Which reminds me of the story about the' Kings new clothes'.

17 April 2012 at 21:32  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

len

Are you demented or just plain stupid? Quote me one passage where any Pope has ever said he is God.

Coming in on the tails of Ernsty is never a wise move.

17 April 2012 at 23:08  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

len said ...

"The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth."
(Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, "Cities Petrus Bertanous")

What Pope Pius V actually said:

"Pius Bishop, servant of the servants of God, in lasting memory of the matter.

He that reigneth on high, to whom is given all power in heaven and earth, has committed one holy Catholic and apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, to one alone upon earth, namely to Peter, the first of the apostles, and to Peter's successor, the pope of Rome, to be by him governed in fullness of power.

(Pope St. Pius V 'Regnans in Excelsis', 1570)

The phrase is about God, not about the Pope. Dummy!

It's been quoted radically out of context and with an invented addition.

Do check the sources of these "quotes" before being lifted in the Spirit and predicting the Second Coming! They're are mere flights of fancy.

You must stop surfing these poisonous websites. It is wrong, wrong, wrong and it makes you look ridiculous.

Catholics have never believed that the Pope is God. It is a damnable lie spread by anti-Catholics.

18 April 2012 at 00:57  
Blogger len said...

Dodo , I am quoting Catholic sources!.Don`t you believe your own stuff?.

"The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth."
Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, "Cities Petrus Bertanous".

"The pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not a mere man .... he is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief of kings, having plenitude of power." Lucius Ferraris, «Prompta Bibliotheca», 1763, Volume VI, 'Papa II', pp.25-29
Roman Catholic Canon Law stipulates through Pope Innocent III that the Roman pontiff is
"the vicegerent upon earth, not a mere man, but of a very God;" and in a gloss on the passage it is explained that this is because he is the vicegerent of Christ, who is "very God and very man." Decretales Domini Gregorii translatione Episcoporum, (on the transference of Bishops), title 7, chapter 3; Corpus Juris Canonice (2nd Leipzig ed., 1881), col. 99; (Paris, 1612), tom. 2, Devretales, col. 205

18 April 2012 at 07:55  
Blogger len said...

So does any man have the right to 'play God' on Earth?.It is vitally important that we all ask ourselves this question.

What does Jesus say about this?because there is a direct connection between the redemption of Christ and the ministry of the Holy Spirit, it is extremely dangerous to confuse the work of the Holy Spirit as Vicar of Christ with the position or work of any man.As Christ Jesus had been the Master, Counselor and Guide to believers, He promised to send the Holy Spirit as His substitute so that He might abide with them for ever (John 14:16). In believers' lives, the Holy Spirit has full, immediate, and universal influence, as the Scripture so wonderfully teaches, “now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord” (II Corinthians 3:17-18) The counterfeit nature of the Pope's claim to be “the Vicar of Christ” is shown by his doctrine and deeds. The key role of the True Vicar of Christ is to glorify Christ, “He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you” (John 16:14). The sending of the Spirit was the glorifying of Christ. God the Father glorifies Christ Jesus in heaven, and the Spirit glorifies Him on earth. All the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit are to glorify Christ.

The Lord Jesus Christ promised the Apostles, “when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13).

God's truth is an indissoluble, balanced and harmonious whole. In the Bible we have “all truth,” in this the Holy Spirit truly glorifies Jesus Christ. In stark contrast, the Pope claims to possess “infallible teaching authority.” This neither glorifies Christ nor honors the Spirit of truth. Also the Pope, as “the Vicar of Christ” teaches “rebirth” by baptism, which demeans the glory of Christ.

18 April 2012 at 08:10  
Blogger The Way of Fais Dodo the Dude said...

len
Your quotes are lies or distortions taken from anti-Catholic websites.

How many of the cited references have you actually followed up? Don't you think you should before bad mouthing Catholicism! Wilful, stubborn ignorance is not the same as innocent ignorance.

How many times?

Christ clearly and unquestionably established Apostolic authority and made Peter the leader of His church. It's plain and clear. Peter and the Church were given the authority of Christ on earth until His return. The Church and the Apostles were promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Look at the state of world wide protestantism - it surely tells you something!

18 April 2012 at 22:33  
Blogger Jocelyn Knockersbury said...

co

21 April 2012 at 07:24  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,
We seem to be' banging our heads' together constantly!.

This may be as much my fault as yours!.
All I want to do is arrive at the truth and I confess sometimes as to going a' bit over the top'.My passion and zeal for the truth of the Gospel sometimes causes me to go beyond what I intend.

However my main object is to unravel the truth of God as revealed in the Gospel.

Perhaps this will help

www.justforcatholics.org

Bless all those who seek God`s Truth as revealed by Jesus Christ.

22 April 2012 at 09:41  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

len

All I ask is that you be more considered in the web sources you use. There are intelligent and repectful critiques of Catholicism and there is anti-Catholic bigotry. You should distinguish between them and check the 'facts' they cite before embracing their wierd and distorted views.

25 April 2012 at 00:08  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older