You cannot argue in any rational way with these fanatics.
The Christian Institute and its members,like their American counterparts are homophobic and anti-Muslim.They do not attack Jews because they recognise how powerful the charge of antisemitism would be.So they pick those they see as soft targets wielding their corruption of Christianity and with wealthy backers.

Unlike true Christians however but very reminiscent of pre-war Germany ,the Christian Institute are accomplished liars with their propaganda.

I’m afraid I won’t be making any further contribution to this comment-thread as I’m rather busy with other priorities. I have written about homosexuality in-depth in my book ‘Definitely Sexy’ (2009), which is freely available to read at:

http://www.richardcarvath.net/book.htm

The subject of homosexuality is mentioned in various parts of the book but the main chapter that deals with it is Chapter 18, ‘An Onus On Anus’ [which is, by the way, best understood in the context of the whole book's message].

If homosexuality is, indeed, unnatural, then why is it practiced amongst nearly all species in the animal kingdom?

As Robin Ince has said, reading the Bible and seeing, within it, condemnation of homosexuality is a little bit like reading Great Expectations and deducing that the book is a warning about the flammability of wedding dresses.

Why not try following the logical line of one of your own arguments rather than validating every comment you make by referencing a book written over 2000 years ago by many different -and conflicting- voices?

Now it seems to me that the biggest dispute we have here [if we are to sidestep the fundamental moral issues] is over the harmful effects of homosexual behaviour and the public manifestation of homosexuality in society at large.

You wrote: “There is no physical threat to me, you or anyone else from homosexuals, and no innocent that requires protection.”

I strongly dispute this; there are major direct and indirect risks to the public at large from homosexuality. I do not have time to get in depth on it, but here are a few quick points:

(1) The threat to public health. Most practising homosexuals are highly promiscuous and so are major facilitators of the spread of infections; for example, male homosexuals are the largest reservoir of syphilis in the UK. [Let's not forget the cost to the taxpayer for all the NHS treatment needed either]

(2) The threat to children. Homosexuals are proportionately massively over-represented in the numbers of those adults who commit sex offences against children; homosexuals pose an enormous danger to teenage boys.

(3) The threat to the marriage-based family. The traditional [heterosexual] marriage-based family is the bedrock of any strong and civilised society. Homsexuality is the antithesis of this, and so its active promotion (such as through ’sex education’ promiscuity indoctrination to children at school) actively undermines the best basis for family foundation and the best setting for a sexual relationship – to the detriment of society at large [because we all have to live with (and pay for the costs of) our dysfunctional and disintegrating society which is directly attributable to the breakdown of traditional, stable family structures].

(4) The threat to moral and God-honouring society. [Doubtless you'll find this point difficult to stomach, however...] Homosexuality stands in direct opposition to God and to orthodox Biblical Christian morality. There is a reason why the UK is in such a chronic and diabolical state of crisis – the rejection of God and his standards – and the homosexual movement is one significant aspect of the cause of our state of crisis. The UK is founded upon the Judaeo-Christian ethic – this is our history and our heritage; we were at our greatest when we adhered to our Godly foundation; we are in dire straits now because we have drifted far away from God and His standards which were once our sure foundation when we were a strong, prosperous and respected nation. The homosexual movement is just one part of the prevailing political culture of [anti-Christian] secular humanism which has utterly destroyed the UK in just forty years.

Homosexuality is not benign in British society; homosexuality is a deadly cancer which is killing sane and civilised society in the UK (in conjunction with other similar evils, such as the poison that is pornography). Homosexuality is not just disastrous and deadly for its participants but is a destructive force which works its way through all of society. There is very much a public interest in returning society to a state in which nothing is done to condone, tolerate, promote or support homosexuality – in the best interests of everybody (without exception) in our society.

In response to your question, yes I do think Oxford is right to choose one candidate over another based on their individual academic achievement. However, I believe they should not choose an individual because of their personal lifestyle choices… for example because they are a Muslim (or indeed a fundamentalist Christian). The other two examples you cite are slightly different since there is an element of physical safety. In the case of the paedophile, innocent children who are unable to protect themselves require the protection of law. Similarly, in the case of the visually impaired driver, it is other road users that require the protection of law.

Throughout your posts you seem to be suggesting that the public require the protection of law against homosexuality but I wonder who it is that you would aim to protect? Perhaps you would argue that it is the morality of society at large that requires protection. However, I believe, where the law does not dictate our actions, each individual is responsible for their own moral choices. It is not your responsibility to protect my morals or mine to protect yours. There is no physical threat to me, you or anyone else from homosexuals, and no innocent that requires protection. It is, however, against the law to discriminate on the basis of gender, race, religion and sexual preference.

As such, perhaps the title here, rather than being “Some people are gay – Get over it” should be:

“Some people are gay – accept it”

Of course sometimes – and particularly on these types of blog comment-threads – it’s just a case of “Hey this is fairly casual and quick commenting, not a formal academic essay, and people know something of my background and worldview, so I’m not too bothered about either how I present every point or what I say to back everything up.”

In these brief comments written off the cuff so much must necessarily remain implied rather than expounded in detail and with sources stated because there’s just not the time and neither is blogging the best forum for heavyweight discourse.

But I do appreciate your comment Steve… keeps me on my toes!

It’s not just a case of loving all homosexuals… it’s a case of loving all people (which of course includes homosexuals). [and even Liberal Democrats!]

On discrimination… we disagree here. I do not think discrimination is by definition always wrong (whether morally or legally or both). Though we tend to think of discrimination as meaning and being wrongful discrimination – and often this is so – it is not always (and necessarily) so. There is such a thing as rightful discrimination too.

It is right and proper to discriminate between what is morally right and what is morally wrong and to make decisions and act (or omit to act) on those discriminating decisions. [And in fact everybody does this, whether they are aware of it most of the time or not.]

Don’t you think it is right to discriminate against somebody of very low educational ability and say “Sorry but no you can’t go to Oxford University.”?

Or to discriminate against the paedophile and say “Sorry but no you can’t work as a teacher.”?

Or to discriminate against the visually impaired man and say “Sorry but your vision just isn’t good enough for you to hold a driving licence.”?

These are all examples of discrimination but none of these are wrong – quite the contrary.

In reply to your point (1). The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to protect men and women from discrimination on the grounds of sex. (quote from Wikipedia).

While the act does apply in the provision of goods and services, I doubt that In your example, the hotelier would be breaking any laws since I believe the hotelier has the freedom to choose whom he does and does not provide his services to. So in this case, it would still be discrimination – since the hotelier would refuse to provide a service on the basis of the sexual orientation of a potential customer. That may not be against the law, but it would be wrong (in my view).

In response to your point 2, I quote Wikipedia once again, you may check the link yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_Kingdom

And while your last point is a little vague, I am in no position to doubt your motives or indeed your assertion that you love all homosexuals (I cannot say the same!), but I do want to make the point that just because you say something “is” does not make it so.

For example in one of your previous posts you have stated “homosexuality is evil” perhaps what you should have said was “I believe homosexuality is evil” I could quote other examples where you have stated something is true, when it is just your opinion.

I would ask you try not to distort your opinions into facts, but I would never ask anyone to withhold their views.

(1) What counts as “discrimination” is the heart of the discrimination issue. For example, it would be wrong for a Christian dentist to refuse to treat a homosexual patient simply because that person is homosexual, however it would be quite right for a Christian hotelier (say, running a B & B in his own home) to refuse two homosexuals a room together. Discrimination can be right or wrong. For example, practising homosexuals are ‘discriminated’ against when it comes to donating blood – indeed blood is not accepted from such persons – for the simple and sensible reason that because of the astronomically high prevalence of blood-borne infections amongst gays it would be dangerous to accept the poisonous blood of gays for use in transfusion.

(2) I dispute your assertions [or the poll which is your source] about what the majority views of the British public are on gay issues. [Bear in mind I'm well-versed in the findings of many polls on gay (and other) socio-political issues (and in the whole 'polling game' itself!).] I do not doubt the sincerity with which you offer these ’statistical claims’ though, which leads me to my last point…

(3) I don’t doubt the sincerity with which you have put forward your points – though I am in fundamental disagreement with your understanding of these issues – and neither do I doubt your respect for the person, which is rare in somebody who opposes me and what I stand for (re gay issues). Thank you; it makes a refreshing change from anonymous commentators on my blog likening me to the Yorkshire Ripper!!
It is very easy to understand the love of a Christian nurse as she nurses a twentysomething homosexual as he dies from AIDS. Nobody disputes the love of that Christian nurse. It is very easy to understand the love of a Christian police officer as he talks a suicidal homosexual (tormented by his homosexuality) down from a roof. Nobody doubts the love of that Christian police officer. But a Christian political activist campaigning against homosexuality and all its horrific consequences?… Love is the motive for every genuine Christian campaigning against homosexuality in the political arena but politics being what it is the campaigning process is not always a pretty sight! Neither was killing Nazis but it had to be done – the motive was right and the action justified.

Richard, did you know that the outlawing of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is supported by 90% of UK citizens? And that a poll conducted by The Observer affirmed that the majority of Britons support gay marriage?

Your motives are admirable, Richard, you clearly are a caring persons but I feel your view above represents a need to “save homosexuals from themselves” when in fact I would suggest that many homosexuals have struggled with their sexual orientation and it has taken great courage for them to admit that to family and loved ones.

You should be commending people who are happy with their sexual orientation (whatever it is) and not condemning their “perverse behaviour”. Their behaviour is within the law, regardless of your religious beliefs, so please let them be.

Neither can I prevent [and this is a veiled reference to something else - not this comment thread] silly, immature and insecure little boys taking away their ball as the only way they can see to keep control of what they could not otherwise control by their own merit.

What I can do is periodically reiterate my position, which is:

I love homosexuals (as people) whilst at the same time I hate their perverse behaviour – their homosexuality – which hurts and damages the homosexuals themselves first and foremost, which is a tragedy I don’t want to see anybody suffer.

Because I love homosexual people so much, that’s the very reason why I am so strongly opposed to homosexuality and thus why I am a political activist opposed to the gay political agenda (exemplified most notably by Stonewall).

Love is my motive and my attitude towards homosexual people. Polemical political discourse should not be ‘decontextualised’ from its political activism primary context and neither should it be ‘mistranslated’ into judgements about how the writer relates to and speaks with [homosexual] people in an everyday social setting.

Polemical satire is a quite legitimate form of political action or protest (in that context), but it would be quite wrong to operate in the same way in other circumstances (and indeed would be counter-productive). As a political activist (exercising free speech) engaged in a socio-political cause, there is nothing wrong in, for example, my characterising the militant gay movement or Stonewall in particular as ‘The Botty Bashers Brigade’. If I were to refer to an individual homosexual person in a similar fashion in their presence – e.g. call somebody a ‘fag’ or similar – that would be deliberately insulting and hateful (and indeed I would never do anything like that because it would be quite wrong).

Any writing of mine on homosexuality on the internet must be understood in its proper context as political activism opposing the manifestation of homosexual perversion, practice and culture [so-called 'gay rights'] in public life and society generally. But of course I don’t go around talking to people one-to-one in the same fashion as a political essay or a lobby submission!

The purpose of my polemical political writings is to attack the evil of homosexuality in the best interests of both homosexuals and society as a whole and the motive for this is love… love which must be manifested in the adversarial arena of politics (’adversarial’ being the operative word).