addressing some criticism
Firstly, to reiterate, I am not being homophobic. I can't speak for Scott, or others who choose to comment, but they are entitled to their opinion. After being quite vociferous in the past about Free Speech I am afraid that I am still very reluctant to moderate comments, but for those of you who need a disclaimer, "some of the views expressed are not necessarily my own".
Secondly, I have no problem with the Gay Pride march being included in the news; it was after all a big event. It is the way it was included, which sparked the last post. At one level, to include something in such an irrelevant way does not demonstrate the high standards of journalism I'd like to see from the BBC, and - ultimately does not do the march justice.
My main point, however, is that it was included in the headline article where the terrorism had otherwise pushed everything else back or out of the news completely, and I couldn't help but wonder if this was a reaction to the pressure which civil liberties groups might have otherwise exerted.
Obviously I have no proof, but - as my comment on the previous post details - I am fed up with civil liberties groups who so often have their own agenda in the name of 'equality' for all, and I object to the fact that the media might feel the need to succumb to them.
As I outlined in my last comment, many members of the groups in question are heterosexual and I am not having a go at anyone based on their sexual orientation.
Neither am I questioning the idea of equality; I'm purely arguing against the use of the term for selfish motives beyond what is necessary and the promotion of self righteousness.
At the end of the day, it was a (controversial) observation and subsequent comment on Saturday night's BBC News; feel free to continue the debate but from my PoV it's time to move on and go back to being a little more light-hearted.
Comments
I still stand by my desire to avoid moderation as far as is possible (it'd be very hypocritical otherwise) but those of you reading should note that I am not a fan of offensive comments, homophobic or otherwise.
I might amend the post or I might write a third with a view to expressing my desire to return to being more light hearted and moderate.
Condemning them by no means sets one on the road to genocide or violence - the implicit premise of political correctness, the great fear post-Holocaust that any dislike of anyone else's behaviour is the first step on that road, a gratuitously useless, insecure and malicious concept, which grants nothing more than murderous intent and gross stupidity to oneself and every fellow man. I am homophobic because it is a disgusting, uncivilised, brutish and barbaric act (and one that it is unprecedent for a culture to encourage and survive). It's prettty damn unhealthy. I have no desire to hurt those who do it. They hurt themselves enough as it is.
Now. I think the above arguments can be made quite fairly.
Of course, if you'd read more than the first sentence of my last post, it might have been obvious that it was a joke. ("I hate gays. I wish they'd bugger off. Only, not literally, of course.")
No?
I'd stand behind either one frankly, whichever annoys you more.
You have escaped moderation again, but now that you've had your say I'd encourage you to move on.
Debate can be healthy, but in light of a couple of poorly judged posts I'm keen to restore balance and moderation to this corner of the blogosphere and not to get stuck on specific issues.
I didn't say homophobia was the same as being in the BNP, but there's parallels. The imigrant population of the UK was much smaller at the end of the second world war. Blaming homosexuals alone for the rise in STDs is as misguided as blaming immigrants for Britain's problems over the last 50 years. Just because it was banned for 1600 years doesn't make it wrong. Jewish people were banned from England for quite a while, but I'd be wary of anyone claiming the country has gone to the dogs since Cromwell let them back in.
I don't understand the sentence about 'Hell swells'. Sorry if I'm being thick. Are you claiming that a spiteful God has caused all this unseasonable rain and caused havoc to this year's Wimbledon, in order to punish those not actively blogging about the shame of homosexuality?
I am homophobic because it is a disgusting, uncivilised, brutish and barbaric act (and one that it is unprecedent for a culture to encourage and survive). It's prettty damn unhealthy. I have no desire to hurt those who do it. They hurt themselves enough as it is.
Disgusting, brutish, barbaric - that's your opinion. Unhealthy? Get citing. Uncivilised - what about the ancient Greece, the foundation of western civilisation. They loved a bit of pederasty.
Of course, if you'd read more than the first sentence of my last post, it might have been obvious that it was a joke. ("I hate gays. I wish they'd bugger off. Only, not literally, of course.")
No?
Similarity to BNP again - I would have found it odd if James allowed Bernard Manning jokes.
I'd stand behind either one frankly, whichever annoys you more.
Oh well, at least you're only posting this rubbish to annoy me, and not because you're a hateful biggot. Ho hum.
Greece may have condoned that, but Greece died and not unrelatedly, as did the Romans afterwards, though both, for very long periods of time, condemned and punished homosexuality. The fact that it is unhealthy is relatively obvious; I suppose you've never heard of HIV? Or are you one of those famous Aids sufferers who must daily throw whole buckets of pills down your throat to stay alive, and yet, whenever anyone dares point out that perhaps buggery isn't healthy after all, you sneer "homophobe". Well, I suppose you need such small pleasures.
Your BNP parallels are obviously weak, and you use such a spook-word - along with extraordinary, graceless, unmerited and insulting analogies with Jews - to do your argumentative spadework for you. Unfortunately, the whole thing is so amusingly flimsy that even that remains ineffective. Care to actually address the issue of homosexuality, and not in such a devious and pathetically underhand way?
I didn't blame homosexuality for the rise of STDs. A lot of that has to do with - quel surprise - sexual immorality from all kinds of people. Hence 20% of our adult straight population is infertile. There is much blame to go around.
Because it was believed to harmful for 1600 years DOES, in fact, make it very likely to be true - or should at least give you pause for thought as to whether or not you, in this historical moment, somehow have access to superior compassion or knowledge than those many millions who went before you, in deciding this matter. Feel the arrogance! Indeed, I'd suggest we have now even better evidence that our predecessors were correct (see: HIV).
Hell swells: hell is full, uncomfortably and unnecessarily, by those encouraged in their perversions by weak-kneed relativists like yourself, who have broken with their ancestors merely to bask in the warm PC glow as you happily usher hundreds to their doom. It isn't loving your neighbour to condone activity which buys them a one-way ticket to eternal damnation.
"It isn't loving your neighbour to condone activity which buys them a one-way ticket to eternal damnation."
The whole point of the Christian Gospel is that we have all fallen short of God's standards, and that it is Christ crucified who restores us to relationship with God, not what we do or don't do.
Now, granted, faith and action need to comne hand in hand and it is important as a Christian to try and live up to God's standards, but ultimately that's fruitless without belief in Christ first.
Remember that Jesus said to the thief on the cross (who'd presumeably done something worthy of eternal damnation) that "he would be in paradise". Remeber also that Jesus taught us not to judge one another. Now that doesn't mean that anything goes, and it is important to be clear on what is right and what is wrong in God's eyes but at the end of the day it is not loving either to vilify and ostracise someone based purely on one aspect of their life.
You haven't convinced that homosexuality is inherently unhealthy - Aids is blind to sexual orientation. If you practice safe sex and get yourself checked out regularly, then the health risks decrease substantially. You'll reply that there's no such thing as completely safe sex, but there's plenty of things in life that carry risk so that isn't enough reason for homosexuality to be immoral
Because it was believed to harmful for 1600 years DOES, in fact, make it very likely to be true
That sentence literally made me lol. Worst argument ever. You claim your beliefs about homosexuality are very likely true because of the weight of history. Attitudes towards plenty of things have changed over time. For example the Copernican view of the universe and (I mention it hesitantly, because I'm sure you'll tell me 'it's not the same at all', 'I'm being terribly insulting and arrogant', ...) slavery.
I make no claims to have more compassion than anyone else, and I'm aware that future generations will look back on our views as wrong or silly, so I have made no arrogant claims to know the absolute truth as you suggest.
I don't think this argument is going anywhere so I'm going to retire. Declare yourself the winner if you like. Well done. I'm off to bask in my PC glow and eat a muesli bar, or whatever it is you think I do as a liberal godless ponce. I think it's a shame your attitude towards homosexuality is still in the dark ages, and I think that you are poisoning the blogosphere. Maybe you're just repressed. Zing!
How flattering.
I don't quite know whether or not you had two drafts of that post, one where you wrote down everything you absolutely shouldn't say for fear of being cliched and ridiculous, and one where you constructed a finely crafted rebuttal, but if you did, I'm afraid you appear to have posted the first instead of the second. Could I see the other one, if you have it?
It's a bit weird to deny all my points, but not to say how or why you can do so; merely that you do. And where you do have arguments, they are bizarre. The Copernican view of the universe is superceded by scientific discovery, not by a subjective moral shift. Somewhere, perhaps, there is a fabulously pregnant homosexual. I haven't heard of one. Science merely reinforces the view that homosexuality is socialy intolerable: gays suffer HIV in far greater numbers and proportion than straights, and it is most often spread to straights through bisexuals.
I'm not surprised you "lol"ed at my argument. Arrogance is more often blithe stupidity, as it is concentrated ego.
I agree with James on this, although I do think that actually confident disapproval and societal prohibition of such sins is far more healthy for everyone concerned, than otherwise.
I don't know about coming hand in hand - or if that's deliberately some kind of innuendo - but agree all are under sin. But most decide to repent, not live with it.