Dave,

Surely crediting Melanie Phillips with anything as intellectual as an agenda is rather complimentary to her? I think she just reacts blindly.

But it is interesting she believes in normal sexual behaviour – I wonder if she’d care to define that (I might like to try it, unless it turns out to be what I already do), since to the best of my knowledge comprehensive surveys of sexual behaviour since the 1950s have consistently shown high (and I think increasing level) of experimentation and what I assume Ms Phillips would see as abnormal sexual behaviours.

Still, nice to see that there are those who still want to share our bedrooms with us to the extent they will dictate what goes on.

This is the same Melanie Phillips who last night on Question Time said that Egyptians shouldn’t have democracy because they might end up with a regime like Iran which hangs gay people. From this I conclude that she hates Muslims marginally more than gays. Though what position on gay Muslims is, I cannot possibly begin to imagine.

I have principles
You have an agenda
They have an ideology

I thought it was alien lizards that ran the UK. Are they gay alien lizards?

While Mel’s article is clearly barking, I do think you’ve slightly misinterpreted some of the howls.

the current ‘ruthless campaign by the gay rights lobby to destroy the very ­concept of normal sexual behaviour’.

That’s right. Not only is there a concerted drive to eliminate straight shagging, but even the idea of it is soon to be eradicated

It’s not the fact of heterosexuality she’s claiming is being eradicated, it’s the idea that there’s any such thing as “normal sexual behaviour”. And she’s clearly right – as Watchman illustrates. Part of becoming a more tolerant society is recognising that different doesn’t necessarily mean abnormal. I think that’s a good thing, la Phillips thinks it’s a bad thing. I don’t think there are many people who would deny that it’s happening though are there?

@4 To be perfectly honest I’d like to eliminate the concept of “normal” as a worthwhile position/argument entirely, “normal” tends to be what everyone is currently used to experiencing at any given time, fer example it used to be normal for teachers to cane naughty children. I’m sure others can think of other “normal” behaviour which is now regarded as abhorrent these days.

If I were tyrant for the day anyone making an argument in favour of something because it’s “normal” would get a stormtrooper’s kick to the babymaker. As for anyone who blats on about “normal people” and what they want, well, their punishment doesn’t bear thinking about.

So, Dave, what do you think about using science, maths, geography and English to promote homosexuality? You didn’t say. Do you approve of this AGENDA?

To compare a B&B owner’s sexual ethics with putting up a sign saying, “No blacks, no dogs, no Irish” is totally missing the point.

What do you think about Islam? If the 40% of Muslims in the UK who want Sharia law get it, those homosexuals won’t just be denied a double bed on someone else’s private property, they will be denied of their freedom and possibly their life.

If you undermine people’s conscience what you will eventually end up with is Islam vs “gay rights” and we know who will win that one.

This sort of thing not only ridicules the “gay movement” but also removes the freedoms we have come to rely on in this country for *all* of us – freedom of conscience, freedom of association and property rights.

Are these worth sacrificing so that “gays” can book into a hotel in order to make a fuss and get thousands of pounds in compensation?

Not only that, but some hotels advertise they are “gay” only, so you wish to deprive them of their freedom of association and property rights.

Who wins according to your beliefs?

Hang on Stewart, are you suggesting that we have a choice between allowing B&B owners to discriminate against homosexuals, and allowing a minority of Britain’s Muslim minority to introduce Sharia law in the UK? It’s one or the other?

I don’t think I need to point out how utterly fucking stupid that assertion is.

Andy,

Clearly you neither understand, nor can communicate like a civilised human being, so just try and work it out.

Old mad mel, is she for real? Seriously? I thought it was a delightfully satirical ironic joke, rather like the newspaper she writes for.

@ 6 Stewart Cowan

“What do you think about Islam? If the 40% of Muslims in the UK who want Sharia law get it, those homosexuals won’t just be denied a double bed on someone else’s private property, they will be denied of their freedom and possibly their life.”

I really doubt that many people who are against Christian homophobia and secular homophobia are in favour of Islamic homophobia. Just a guess, you understand.

“If you undermine people’s conscience what you will eventually end up with is Islam vs “gay rights” and we know who will win that one.”

Um, how? What kind of path starts with “not letting people discriminate against gays” and ends up with “Islam exalted in UK; discrimination against gays legal again”?

“This sort of thing not only ridicules the “gay movement” but also removes the freedoms we have come to rely on in this country for *all* of us – freedom of conscience, freedom of association and property rights.”

Yeah, fighting homophobia ridicules the “gay movement”, whatever that may be. Right.

Lets say someone runs a pub that discriminates against blacks. When challenged, they say that blacks are bad people, so it’s immoral to let them near the white people in their pub, that they themselves wish not to associate with blacks, and in any case it’s their pub so everyone else can fuck off.

Forcing them to allow back people into the pub could clearly therefore be said to removing freedom of conscience, freedom of association and property rights in exactly the same way as was claimed over the case with the hotel and the gay couple. How do you feel about this pub?

@ OP

“gay inquisition”

This seems to indicate that Mel believes the police, prosecution lawyers, judge and jury in the hotel case were all gay. What odds that’s an accurate interpretation of her grip on reality? 50:50?

I couldn’t give a fig what people do with their genitals, providing its consensual. I’m not interested. It’s simply none of my or anyone else’s business.

However, I don’t agree with using science, maths, geography and english to promote toleration of homosexuality in schools, because many children and parents will see it as patronising at best and indoctrination at worst, and so they will react against it. (‘Gay’ is a word I hear young people using as a synonym for ‘naff’ or ‘uncool’.) Toleration in general is something children should learn about in general studies, assembly, personal and social education, etc

Similarly, using the law against bigoted hoteliers makes them look and feel like martyrs. Far better to laugh at them and/or picket them peacefully.

That said, there is such a thing as abnormal sexual behaviour – eg necrophilia, paedophilia, bestiality, rape. It’s just that we no longer place homosexuality in that category.

And while most people in the UK are happy to tolerate homosexuality, I think few parents would wish their child to be homosexual. Consider this thought-experiment. Suppose it is conclusively proved that children become homosexual because of larger than average hormonal fluctuations in utero (or whatever), and a treatment becomes available to prevent this in pregnancy. My guess is that most parents would want the treatment, not because they dislike gays but because they want grandchildren…

Science and maths are agnostic and asexual, how would you use them to promote gayness ?

@ 12 Paul

“However, I don’t agree with using science, maths, geography and english to promote toleration of homosexuality in schools, because many children and parents will see it as patronising at best and indoctrination at worst, and so they will react against it. (‘Gay’ is a word I hear young people using as a synonym for ‘naff’ or ‘uncool’.) Toleration in general is something children should learn about in general studies, assembly, personal and social education, etc”

OK, I can see where this might happen with English, and just possibly science. But the other two?

The only way I can imagine there might be an accusation of maths being used to promote toleration of homosexuality is if questions that use hypothetical characters start to feature gay characters. Just as Tom, Dick and Harry became Tom, Sally and Ahmed, a question involving three couples would now feature a gay couple.

But that wouldn’t be actively promoting tolerance, it would be removing the pre-existing bias that promotes intolerance. So the accusation doesn’t stick. If that’s not what you’re talking about, then I think you need to unpack it a bit more.

“Similarly, using the law against bigoted hoteliers makes them look and feel like martyrs. Far better to laugh at them and/or picket them peacefully.”

Makes them look like martyrs to fellow bigots. Sure. But isn’t that always a side effect of social progress – letting the bullies pretend to be victims for awhile? And the real-life impact of this is that we continue to allow people to oppress gay people.

Taking the idea to its logical extreme, would you say we should picket slave-owners instead of banning slavery, because otherwise people would martyrise them?

Julian and Graham have £20 and it costs £4 each to get into to G.A.Y, how much will cost to buy two tickets and how much will they have left over to get some amyl nitrate.

Littlejohn can have that one for free.

@6

Not only that, but some hotels advertise they are “gay” only, so you wish to deprive them of their freedom of association and property rights.

They can advertise they are Gay only all they want, the law was written so it swings both ways so they cannot discriminate against hetros, the moment they try turning a het Christian couple away for no reason other than they ain’t gay they can be taken to court just as easily. Most gay bars/hotels these days go with “Gay friendly” and a polite warning to be respectful to their regular clientele.

12 paul ilc

“And while most people in the UK are happy to tolerate homosexuality, I think few parents would wish their child to be homosexual.”

Presumably in ye good olde dayes people were happy to tolerate black people (or Muslims, or the Irish, or Catholics….), but they wouldn’t wish their children to marry one, or convert etc….. you see where this is going right?

Things change. I want my child to be happy and healthy. It’s none of my business what gender she finds attractive. Bigotry by any other name still smells just as bad.

15 car down

Haha. Littlejohn and amyl nitrate don’t seem like natural bedfellows…. but.. I’m sure many would pay good money to see it!

@ 16 Cylux

“They can advertise they are Gay only all they want, the law was written so it swings both ways so they cannot discriminate against hetros”

Some gay venues do turn away groups of people they believe are straight – generally groups of blokes that they suspect might cause trouble or take the piss (possibly even for those people’s protection). Although I’m not saying that’s not prejudiced, or that it’s lawsuit-proof. I’m guessing the sort of people who would want to bring a lawsuit over that are less likely to be drinking in Canal Street in the first place.

@14 Apparently the proposed gay-maths was to be an statistical exercise featuring gay population levels.

@ 15 £8 and £12 but why not just ask the mathematical question what is 20 – (4×2) rather than giving it some spurious “context”. It doesn’t need to be straight or gay.

@19 From my travels to Canal Street I can confirm looking like trouble is far more likely to get you turned away than not being gay, in these metrosexual times it isn’t always easy to tell who is gay from who is straight, and bouncers don’t generally demand proof. Unless you’re good looking I suppose, heh.

As for Blackpool the current running gag is that all the gays go the straight bars and all the straights go to the gay bars.

@18…Its the normally the kind of nonsense he says anyway, bless his right wing cotton socks. Though mad mel is well mad. Though I daren’t get too vitriolic, she seems to take trolls far to seriously.

The Maths and Science stuff is to do with LGBT History Month and about acknowledging that there are such things as gay scientists and mathematicians. Which is the same sort of motive as acknowledging and celebrating women scientists and black inventors during one time in the year: providing role models for gay and lesbian kids.

You do all know that this machine on which you’re conveying your thoughts was in part invented by the gay genius Alan Turing? Didn’t know that? That’s kindof the point.

@ 20 Cylux

“Apparently the proposed gay-maths was to be an statistical exercise featuring gay population levels.”

So in other words, to believe these claims one has to accept that admitting gay people exist means you’re promoting some kind of gay agenda? Like people will stop being gay if we stop believing in them? (I’m aware this conjures a rather lovely image of us liberals chanting “I do believe in fairies! I do believe in fairies!”)

@ 21 Matt Munro

” £8 and £12 but why not just ask the mathematical question what is 20 – (4×2) rather than giving it some spurious “context”. It doesn’t need to be straight or gay.”

Contextualisation helps some kids learn, and has probably been done since education began. It certainly wasn’t invented so that gay people could be mentioned.

@22…about the Blackpool bars…I think us straights should leave those gay bars alone, we are always trying to take over their scenes, just look at the whole metrosexual thing. We ruined disco, house music, and now we are trying to ruining the whole gay bar scene. When will this straight tyranny ever end.

Paul ilc

> That said, there is such a thing as abnormal sexual behaviour – eg necrophilia, paedophilia, bestiality, rape.

Actually, there is a lobby out there, arguing that bestiality is just another equivalent sexual orientation. I think they call it zoophilia. They use the same kind of language as homosexuals do in arguing how their sexuality is natural and congenital.

And some paedophiles argue the same way. (But as there are minors involved…it’s harder for them to argue that their sex is genuinely consensual)

@27 The stupidest thing about it is that I have a few hetro facebook friends who constantly go to the blackpool gay bars on nights out, and then proceed to whinge about going to a gay bar and seeing guys kiss the day after on facebook. Quite what they expect to find I don’t know.

@ 29

Maybe to the right sort of bigot, a night out in a gay bar is like an exciting horror movie, only with booze?

Wrong, wrong.

Bestiality is a one night stand, but Zoophillia is for life!

But hey J V at least homosexuals keep there sex within the same species, yeah. I think thats why I view someone having sex with say a chicken to be quite abnormal, but someone having sex with a consenting adult to be quite fun really.

@30 Either that or I’m witnessing a protracted denial-heavy emergence from the closet on facebook…

And some paedophiles argue the same way. (But as there are minors involved…it’s harder for them to argue that their sex is genuinely consensual)

Not just paedophiles. Some libertarians made that argument in the 1980s. One of them revisited his past beliefs this week…

Having read this piece after so long, I find myself wanting to grab my teenage self and slap him around the face a bit and tell him: You arrogant young fool!

@29…’I hate gay people kissing, I know, why not go to a gay bar’…stupid facebook friends…see that’s my point, leave it alone. Go if you want, but your going to kind of get a few men kissing men if you end up having a beer in a gay bar. Not that I have been, I just go to pubs full of big balled beer soaked men who talk about football top gear and pulling birds, even though the amount of female company in the pub is about zero. Maybe they are all at the gay bars.

“You do all know that this machine on which you’re conveying your thoughts was in part invented by the gay genius Alan Turing? Didn’t know that? That’s kindof the point”.

Gay people have probably contributed to every academic subject imaginable but it would be absurd to keep mentioning it in lessons, in the same way as it would be absurd to keep mentioning that this or that historical figure was straight

Cheers BenSix, that made for fun if slightly unsettling reading. Best bit was the inverted commas around the word abusing….Libertarianism, its not all that bad, infact its good in theory, like communism that was good to, in theory. When it comes to Libertarianism, I blame the internet.

My goodness! – what astonishing expertise in arcane subjects the above comments reveal – I realise now that I’m a naive old git myself – but among the wisest things I ever heard said – (albeit not exclusively applicable to this subject) – were the words of Bob Dylan: ” . . . and don’t criticise what you can’t understand . . .” those words – to me – are worth a whole ark load of religious fundamentalism.
Oh yes – and the song was called ‘The times they are a-changin’” As I have grown ancient with years I realise that that is what times inexorably do – “change.”
And therefore, thanks to the poetic vision of Dylan + old age – I tend to back away from final judgements -after all – we are all impermanent and none has been granted the right of having the last word – on anything. Here endeth the lesson.

word.

Car down @ 38 Oh no you don’t you smart arse!

@ 35 Matt Munro

“Gay people have probably contributed to every academic subject imaginable but it would be absurd to keep mentioning it in lessons, in the same way as it would be absurd to keep mentioning that this or that historical figure was straight”

Agree, but I don’t think anyone’s saying that this happens, unless I missed something up the thread. Wasn’t the whole thing about gay people contributing supposed to be a specific event or something? You know, one of those rather cringeworthy but ultimately positive things where we publicise the fact that everyone contributes to society?

Chaise Guevara @40:

” . . .everyone contributes to society?”

Long before the advent of the deficit deniers – Thatcher ushered in the era of the ‘Society’ deniers – they are far from extinct you know – so what contribution do you think you will get from them?

Ah, Mel and the Mail! So no chance of the headline “Hurrah for the Pinkshirts!”, then? No – thought not.

To be fair, even if you’re of the opinion that these lesson plans/suggestions are “political correctness gawn maaad”, they’re still not going to be anyway near as damaging as section 28 was. Hell, this proposal is likely ongoing damage limitation from that little Tory gift, how do you tell a pupil not to use gay as a slur without it being construed as a “promotion of homosexuality”?

Cylux,

The vast majority of people wanted to keep Section 28 (7 out of 8 in Scotland).

But history gets changed. Just a few years after its untimely demise, you could be forgiven for believing that Section 28 was only supported by a few rabid Tories at the time.

Experimentation with schoolchildren will, if anything, hasten calls for its return.

At least, I hope so.

@ 44

Arse.

Yep. It’s Friday, I’ve had a few and I’m going for accuracy over argument.

@ 43 Cylux

In defense of “gay” as an insult… Yes, its origins are very homophobic, but I think the term as used to mean “pathetic” in the playground has disassociated itself from its origins to a large extent. If a kid misses an open goal from ten yards and his mate says “that was so gay”, they don’t actually mean gay.

It’s an insult that always seems to be sourced from something politically incorrect. The best synonym I can come up with for “gay” in that sense is “lame”, which is almost as bad. The next one’s “girlish”. The noun form is “spazz”. But I wouldn’t see its usage as automatic proof of homophobia. I grew up calling people “gay” when they did something uncool and I’d never have wanted people to think I meant gay people were pathetic.

@ 44

Oh, ok, argument…

Clause 28 WAS experimenting with school children. It was artificially limiting how much support a teacher could give a child in the specific situation that they were being bullied for being gay. It was forcing teachers to misrepresent reality to encourage bigoted behaviour. Real “hand that rocks the cradle” stuff, all aimed at fostering hate by silencing the opposite view.

But I guess that right-wingers are cool with social engineering as long as it fits their agenda. Oh, and: arse.

@46 While true to an extent, having gay=pathetic hammered home during your formative years can’t be that great for your self confidence if you turn out to be gay yourself.
Or at least that’s the impression I’ve gotten from dating guys who’s main desperate concern is to try to minimise how outwardly gay they are, and bang on about how screeching queens are making life harder for all us “normal” gay lads. It’s almost a form of conditioning, I even find myself unthinkingly calling guys puffs when they’re being soft, much to my own consternation.

I am old enough to remember the 80s and the clause 28 debate. I was under the impression that it was more to with the sort of literature councils could put in schools and libraries, as in you can’t have kids books that represent having 2 dads or 2 mums as “normal”. It’s was absolutely barking mad of course, but was based on the then prevailing view that being gay was a learned behaviour.

@ 48 – So if someone calls you a poof and you’re not gay, is it homophobic abuse ?

@ 48 Cylux

“While true to an extent, having gay=pathetic hammered home during your formative years can’t be that great for your self confidence if you turn out to be gay yourself.”

Yeah. That’s the thing: the unintended prejudice would be fine and dandy if you didn’t have the actual prejudice to back it up.

“I even find myself unthinkingly calling guys puffs when they’re being soft, much to my own consternation.”

I kept using “gay” as an insult long after I realised I probably shouldn’t, because I knew I knew what I mean, and so did my friends, etc.

I stopped, or at least stopped using it unless I was with a group of people who would realise I was being ironic, after unconsciously calling something “gay” in front of a gay guy at work that I didn’t know too well. He was gracious enough, but I hated the idea that I might be offending people who might prefer to keep quiet than complain and cause a fuss.

Oh, please join me in calling Mr Yay-for-Clause-28 at 44 an arse. Or, even better, explain why he’s wrong. It might even work!

@ 49

It was vague, but I’m pretty sure the implication was that if a kid was upset because he was gay, and the teacher said “don’t worry, nothing wrong with that”, that teacher could be sacked.

Chaise Guevara,

Let me get this correct. In your opinion, the vast majority of people are @rses?

Obviously, you believe that supporters of Section 28 have horns growing, even though we are the normal ones.

It’s a few years since I was at school, but I don’t recall any “homophobic” bullying. If you ask me, this has been blown out of all proportion by Stonewall so they can get access to schoolchildren and their teachers to peddle their “lifestyle”.

There is also evidence that encouraging children to identify with an alternative sexuality too early leads to problems and increases suicidal thoughts.

@50 It’s a homophobic slur (if gentle) regardless of when it’s used, in much the same sense calling someone a twat has misogynistic overtones. But it’s worth bearing in mind some kids have taken their own lives due to constant homophobic bullying by their peers, and they were either straight or of unknown sexuality at the time. The other kids just decided they looked gay and that was that.
Calling someone a puff is a rather light insult compared to ddrq though, then you’re into real homophobe territory.

It’s a few years since I was at school, but I don’t recall any “homophobic” bullying.

Hey, good point Stewart! Neither do I. But, heck, why stop there? I look up at the sky sometimes and don’t see much “pollution”. I walk around every day and I’ve not seen much “street crime”. I’ve got lungs, a brain and a pancreas and I’ve not felt much “cancer”.

@ 53 Stewart

“Chaise Guevara,

Let me get this correct. In your opinion, the vast majority of people are @rses?”

Not really. I freely admit I was being immature there. I’ve had a few drinks, remember?

Also, I wouldn’t worry about the @. Pretty sure you can swear here. I don’t remember seeing anything about it in the website policy.

“Obviously, you believe that supporters of Section 28 have horns growing, even though we are the normal ones.”

No, I’m aware that people can be ignorant or misled. But I’d ask you to bear in mind that “normal” is not the same as “right”.

“It’s a few years since I was at school, but I don’t recall any “homophobic” bullying. If you ask me, this has been blown out of all proportion by Stonewall so they can get access to schoolchildren and their teachers to peddle their “lifestyle”. ”

Your personal experiences are purely anecdotal. I’ve heard plenty of stories from people who grew up being hounded and bullied for being gay. You mention suicidal thoughts… what do you think causes them? Could bullying, or the belief that you will be bullied if you come out, play a role? I suspect it’s the strongest factor.

Also: peddling?

“There is also evidence that encouraging children to identify with an alternative sexuality too early leads to problems and increases suicidal thoughts.”

Again with the inaccurate phrasing. Nobody’s encouraging people to be gay. They’re telling people it’s ok if they happen to be gay. Not encouraging, not repressing: dead centre.

“There is evidence” is a weasel phrase… without links, you’re stating your opinion and claiming it’s scientifically supported. If this evidence does exist, I’d be interested in its provenance and methodology. It could be accurate, but it could also be failing to take a lot of factors into account. And it could not exist.

@ 55 BenSix

Well put.

@53 re: referring to yourself as part of “the normal ones” I refer you to the second paragraph of my comment @5

Ya marmoset’s mudpit.

@ 54 Cylux

“in much the same sense calling someone a twat has misogynistic overtones”

Have to disagree with you there. Swear words tend to have a sexual or scatalogical basis. I think it’s stretching things to think “twat” is misogynistic or “dick” is misandristic. They’re just naughty words. I’ve come across a couple of lunatic feminists who have tried to convince me that the fact that the word “cunt” is generally seen as the naughtiest word in the language is undeniable evidence of linguistic misogyny, but then lunatic feminists and language have only ever been on nodding terms.

@ 58

Heh. Speak you’re branes.

@59 Heh, to be honest I might be bringing some baggage with me from some of the US based blogs I frequent, cunt isn’t used as the worst word over there, but is an insult that is usually reserved for women, and often is called out for it, I imagine that’s where ya feminists picked up the idea as well.

Plus thinking about it I use twat as a verb for hitting something as well, “twat it with a hammer” etc, meh, as long as you’re not driving someone to distress you’re good I think.

@53…When I went to school being gay was the worse thing ever, that and not liking football or fighting. Queer, fag, gay, bum bandit, bugger, pansy, arse bandit where quite common terms of insult in my school, so I can guess why many gay kids never came out during there time at school (They just waited for Uni). So in a way there wasn’t any homophobic bullying going on at all, cause no kid would ever admit to being slightly uninterested in the wonderful loveable breasted female sex…but still it was the late 80s and 90s when I was at school, things where different back then…we didn’t have Alan Carr or Graham Norton or Brokeback Mountain.

@55…F you Ben6. Man, if only I could of said it better.

@ 61 Cylux

“Heh, to be honest I might be bringing some baggage with me from some of the US based blogs I frequent, cunt isn’t used as the worst word over there, but is an insult that is usually reserved for women, and often is called out for it, I imagine that’s where ya feminists picked up the idea as well.”

Very true: I hadn’t come across that usage till I watched the Sopranos (all of it, in like two months) about a year back. And yes, that version is offensive. Has a definite “stupid fucking women” thing going on. Often preceded by “numb”. That may have informed these women’s opinions (at least one was American), but both of them said it was because men hate the vagina. There’s ample evidence against that.

“Plus thinking about it I use twat as a verb for hitting something as well, “twat it with a hammer” etc, meh, as long as you’re not driving someone to distress you’re good I think.”

Possibly the best mutation of a swear word ever. “Twat ‘im, Sidney!” Although I’m still a huge fan of inserting swear words in the middle of other words. “That’s just fan-fucking-tastic” and so on.

Incidentally, I think we’ve proven that this site has at best a lazy anti-swearing policy.

twat and the c word are quite sexist when said in an episode of Sopranos, but when I say them I would never call a lady it. Its just not called for really. My friends are twats and seen you next tuesdays when they have done something to warrant that abuse but not a lady or a lovable big gay bear.

Very true: I hadn’t come across that usage till I watched the Sopranos (all of it, in like two months) about a year back.

Relive it here!

@ 66

Inspired!

And half an hour long!

@ 65 car down

“twat and the c word are quite sexist when said in an episode of Sopranos, but when I say them I would never call a lady it. Its just not called for really. My friends are twats and seen you next tuesdays when they have done something to warrant that abuse but not a lady or a lovable big gay bear.”

Me too. Not sure why.

But your post reveals how uneasy we are about this stuff, and the rules we set for ourselves. You’ll say “twat” on a blog, but not “cunt”. I go the other way: as the great man says, fear of the word increases the fear of the thing itself*. Although that doesn’t mean I’ll use words like that when I think they’ll offend people, or at least not for the sake of it.

*Thanks, Dumbledore!

Sorry, the t word has always just been that less offensive then the c word, and to be honest, I try not to say either when in the company of lady and never use it as a descriptive term for the loveable female sex either. I only use it to describe me mates when they done something wrong, and would never use as an actual term of abuse…unless they where some right wing columnist troll like Littlejohn, Hitchens (P) or Mad Mel.

@ 66…whatever happened to Tony Soprano, he used to be cool

@ 69

Well, hell yeah. I’d never call someone that to their face unless they were a mate who would find it funny, or an irredeemable bastard. I certainly wouldn’t use it in an argument. Then again, I wouldn’t insult anyone in an argument either (except online, where apparently all gloves are off).

What happens online should stay online.

@72

You just made me spill beer all over my jumper. So: well put!

13. Matt Munro – “Science and maths are agnostic and asexual, how would you use them to promote gayness ?”

Sorry but while mathematics may be difficult, Science is certainly not agnostic or asexual. Science is agnostic on the question of agnosticism. There is no reason to think that scientists could not prove or disprove the existence of God. And when it comes to sex, science has a lot to say. To claim homosexuality is genetic is a scientific statement.

47. Chaise Guevara – “Clause 28 WAS experimenting with school children. It was artificially limiting how much support a teacher could give a child in the specific situation that they were being bullied for being gay. It was forcing teachers to misrepresent reality to encourage bigoted behaviour. Real “hand that rocks the cradle” stuff, all aimed at fostering hate by silencing the opposite view.”

No it was not. Why do you feel the need to so grossly misrepresent what Section 29 did? It did not control what teachers did at all. It applied only to Local Councils. It said LEAs “shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality” or “promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship”. It was also toothless because it contained no penalty clauses.

There was nothing in it prohibiting a teacher from comforting a bullied gay child, nor was there anything requiring teachers to misrepresent reality.

49. Matt Munro – “It’s was absolutely barking mad of course, but was based on the then prevailing view that being gay was a learned behaviour.”

Well being Gay, as we understand it, is certainly a learned behaviour. But there is no evidence to say whether being homosexual in the broader sense is learned or not. Given that it is heresy to suggest gender is anything other than learned in any other context I expect the Left is being hypocritical here.

What Section 28 was about was preventing ideologically motivated teachers pushing their political agenda on children whose parents objected. This fuss just shows that the people who wanted to abuse the education system for their own ends back then have not gone away and they want to abuse the system for their own ends now. And that is irrespective of the morality of those ends. If someone wants to make a case for the normalisation (and this is not about tolerance any more) of Gay people, they need to make the case. They should not twist the teaching of real subjects to push their ideological agendas.

whats the deal with clause 28. What is it, I dont get it, its an 80s thing right? Me dad worked for a ‘looney left council’ and loved it, but never told me what it was all about. He was proper left wing but never loved the gays, he just seemed to support them just cause the tories didn’t

@76 So Much For Subtlety (or indeed common sense it seems….)

What exactly do you mean by “Well being Gay, as we understand it, is certainly a learned behaviour.”? I think the general consensus is that there is overwhelming evidence that being gay/homosexual is not learned. The “reality” won’t have anything to do with what your ideological persuasion is; no doubt there are people who regard themselves as left wing on both sides of the debate.

The predominance of negative views towards homosexuality, and measures such as civil partnerships, on the political right is an ideological stance, based on social conservatism and adherence to religious bigotry…nothing new there.

Your points about Section 28 are disingenuous. The measures were seen as, and meant as, an ideoligically driven attack on socially liberal attitudes towards homosexuality by a right wing government. To maintian otherwise is pure sophistry.

74. So Much For Subtlety

“To claim homosexuality is genetic is a scientific statement.”

In which case it wouldn’t be propaganda, would it?

@ 75 So Much For Subtlety

“No it was not. Why do you feel the need to so grossly misrepresent what Section 29 did? It did not control what teachers did at all.”

Actually, there was confusion over its applicability throughout its existence. Teachers were unsure whether it applied to them, but tended not to take the risk. When the Department of Education said it didn’t apply to teachers, the MPs that supported it said that it did.

So even if it never applied to teachers, it had the same effect.

However, thanks for proving it was a bigoted bit of legislation by pointing out that it made it illegal to “promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship”

@ 76

“What Section 28 was about was preventing ideologically motivated teachers pushing their political agenda on children whose parents objected. ”

How strange! You just said it wasn’t about teachers! Well done: in two consecutive posts, you’ve proved yourself a liar.

Chaise guevara @14:

But would using the academic curriculum to promote tolerance – or, as you prefer, removing the pre-existing biases that promote intolerance – stop at gay rights? Feminists, anti-racists, disability activists,animal liberationists, environmentalists etc would all want a slice of the action….Before we knew it, we’d have bureaucrats writing reams of ‘guidance’, with tick-box equality impact assessments for lesson plans, designed to detect all sorts of discrimination in even homeopathic concentrations. Meanwhile, the brighter kids would be sceptical and scornful about what was happening, and it would be largely counter-productive. Far better to discuss and confront prejudices in lessons intended for children’s broad moral education, and leave it to teachers’ professional judgement when and if to raise such matters occasionally in academic lessons in an unforced and unlaboured way.

“Makes them look like martyrs to fellow bigots. Sure. But isn’t that always a side effect of social progress – letting the bullies pretend to be victims for awhile? And the real-life impact of this is that we continue to allow people to oppress gay people. Taking the idea to its logical extreme, would you say we should picket slave-owners instead of banning slavery, because otherwise people would martyrise them?”

It also makes them look like martyrs to the undecided. Moreover, these cretinous hoteliers are not oppressing gays so much as making fools of themselves. And there is nothing “logical” about your “extreme”. Of course we should ban anti-gay discrimination just as we have banned slavery. But a couple of bigots not being willing to rent a room to a gay couple is hardly on the same level as enslaving someone. We don’t necessarily need to use the sledgehammer of the legal proceedings to crack these particular nuts!

Galen10 @ 17:

“Presumably in ye good olde dayes people were happy to tolerate black people (or Muslims, or the Irish, or Catholics….), but they wouldn’t wish their children to marry one, or convert etc….. you see where this is going right? Things change. I want my child to be happy and healthy. It’s none of my business what gender she finds attractive. Bigotry by any other name still smells just as bad.”

I think you miss the point of the thought-experiment. Not wanting one’s child to marry a black or whoever concern parents being unwilling to accept their children as they are because of racial or other prejudices. However, there is a difference between accepting an existing child as s/he is and what you want for a child who does not yet exist. Parents of Down’s syndrome or disabled children usually love them deeply; but, however fulfilling the lives of these children may be, those same parents would not have chosen their children to be that way – indeed, many pregnancies are terminated to prevent the birth of disabled or Down’s syndrome babies (which is a form of eugenics).

With the advance of reproductive technologies, prospective parents may one day be able to decide not to have gay children – and I think there is little doubt what the majority choice would be. I submit that this would not be prejudice; but a desire to want happiness for our children and to maximise their reproductive potential. Homosexuality is not a peversion; but, in reproductive terms, it is a disorder. Socially, however, the elimination of gays might have some very undesirable effects, given their cultural and scientific achievements – eg Leonardo da Vinci, Benjamin Britten, Alan Turing…

JV @ 28: As for zoophilia, Rover and Fido, like children, cannot consent to being used for adult human sexual gratification, so it is exploitative.

81 paul ilc

” I submit that this would not be prejudice; but a desire to want happiness for our children and to maximise their reproductive potential. Homosexuality is not a peversion; but, in reproductive terms, it is a disorder.”

No, sorry… that’s just not right. I would say there is a lot of difference between terminating the pregnancies in the situations described. Calling homosexuality a disorder is, apart from being a loaded statement, just kinda weird. Lot’s of other species exhibit such behaviour, and history and anthropology demonstrate that it has occurred in human society throughout time.

I’m not as you say “missing the point” about the thought experiment; you are missing the point that the negative attitudes many have towards homosexuality are based on bigotry, and reflect outdated social norms which have no place in a progressive society. Many, in fact probably most, people would accept that terminations in the event of severe abnormalities are acceptable; terminations to eliminate homosexuality are no more acceptable than say those to eliminate green-eyes, conservatism, or to ensure a male heir.

@81

Pseudoscientifically fine & dandy – you could say that a parent who doesn’t wish their child to reproduce with someone of a different race is acting naturally because they are preserving their tribe… Bet you wouldn’t, though. Because – like your example of a parent “naturally” not wanting their kid to be gay or lesbian or whatever – it’s a nonsense.

All evidence on the subject suggests that every human population has a homosexual population of between 3% – 10% : it’s as natural as ginger hair or green eyes.

(nb to @83 I don’t know the proportion of people with green eyes or ginger hair, just using them as examples of genetic stuff that not everyone has)

@ 81 paul llc

“But would using the academic curriculum to promote tolerance – or, as you prefer, removing the pre-existing biases that promote intolerance – stop at gay rights? Feminists, anti-racists, disability activists,animal liberationists, environmentalists etc would all want a slice of the action….”

Well, good. If schools are current teaching sexist, racist, anti-disabled, anti-science bullshit, that would need to be countered. I’m stunned that you think otherwise.

“Before we knew it, we’d have bureaucrats writing reams of ‘guidance’, with tick-box equality impact assessments for lesson plans, designed to detect all sorts of discrimination in even homeopathic concentrations.”

First: we already have bureacrats writing reams of rules. May as well make them positive.
Second: why do you think it would go down to “homeopathic concentrations”? Just because you don’t like the idea, it doesn’t mean that, if implemented, it would have to happen on a ridiculous scale.
Third: everyone’s wrong about bureaucrats. I know it’s tempting to blame them for everything, but usually they do a useful job. Like preventing schools from fostering bigotry, perhaps.
Fourth: The people who object to this sort of thing as often as not object to a teacher or school doing it on their own initiative. So they want to CREATE rules to enforce bigotry, not fight rules that prevent it.

Your objection seems to be “but implementing that would mean people would have to do things!”

“Meanwhile, the brighter kids would be sceptical and scornful about what was happening, and it would be largely counter-productive. Far better to discuss and confront prejudices in lessons intended for children’s broad moral education, and leave it to teachers’ professional judgement when and if to raise such matters occasionally in academic lessons in an unforced and unlaboured way.”

And if said teacher is a racist, or a homophobe?

“It also makes them look like martyrs to the undecided. Moreover, these cretinous hoteliers are not oppressing gays so much as making fools of themselves.”

No, they were refusing service to people because they hated them for their sexuality. And you can’t say that we’re martyring them and then claim that they’re just making themselves look like idiots. Either people take them seriously, which is all the more reason to prosecute, or nobody takes them seriously, in which case there’s no reason not to prosecute. Or it’s more complex than that and neither statement stands.

“And there is nothing “logical” about your “extreme”.”

I’m using your logic, buddy. Unless you can explain WHY it’s illogical instead of just saying so.

“Of course we should ban anti-gay discrimination just as we have banned slavery. But a couple of bigots not being willing to rent a room to a gay couple is hardly on the same level as enslaving someone.”

Um, I know. That’s why I said “taking it to its logical EXTREME”. The point was that I was using your logic to prove something that I expected you to find unpalatable. It’s called “reductio ad absurdum”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

“We don’t necessarily need to use the sledgehammer of the legal proceedings to crack these particular nuts!”

Then what do we use? Shall we write nasty opinion columns and express our disapproval on forums? Maybe get a few locals to picket the place for a few days? In the meantime, they and others like them keep repressing gays, while the government sends the message that gays aren’t worth defending.

@81 Aside from the fact that modern biology basically claims that eugenics programs are doomed to failure, the current consensus regarding what makes a child gay is “a variety of complicated factors”. It’s not genetic, at least not purely, it’s also not only due to chemical exposure in the womb, identical twin pairs where one is gay and the other straight put paid to that idea (or at the very least of being able to do something about it, variencies in exposure would be negligible).

There was a New Scientist article a couple years back that showed that there were similarities between neural pathways between het women & gay men, and het men & gay women, if it is just a case of our brain structure being a mix and match of viable pathways during development, I expect gayness to be “cured” at about the same time as autism and dyslexia.

Besides all this gay or straight talk is based on the black and white assumption that it is either/or, proponents of fluid sexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, pansexuality and transexuals (of any sexual persuasion) would strongly disagree.

CG @ 81:

“If schools are current teaching sexist, racist, anti-disabled, anti-science bullshit, that would need to be countered. I’m stunned that you think otherwise.”

I don’t think otherwise, and never said I did. What I am saying is that moral and social education should not take place in maths, science, english or any other academic lesson, except on the teacher’s discretion – otherwise we could easily end up with a quota system of approved examples for maths etc. The place for teaching these things is in general studies, sex education, assembly and so on. To repeat, I am not saying that that such attitudes should go unchallenged in schools – just that maths, science, english, etc are in the main not he best places for them to be challenged.

“And if said teacher is a racist, or a homophobe?”

S/he will be disciplined and possibly sacked. In my experience, the majority – probably the vast majority – of people in this country are not sexist, racist or homophobic, and there certainly is no shortage of parents and school staff who would report a teacher who made anti-gay, sexist or racist remarks.

When talking about Mad Mel, it’s wise to bear in mind that she probably doesn’t believe half of the drivel that she comes out with.

For example, she says militant Islam is a serious danger to Western civilisation, which must return to Christianity to combat it. But she hasn’t personally converted to Christianity.

Or to take another example. Mel’s always banging on about how virtuous Israel is and how the West should support it. She was 22 during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, and the Israeli army is happy to accept female soldiers, so did Mel join the Israeli army and put her own precious arse in danger? Of course not.

“What exactly do you mean by “Well being Gay, as we understand it, is certainly a learned behaviour.”?”

I think what he means is that the sexual drive is biologically, rather than socially determined, but its culturally expression is learned. Which is exactly the same as the theoretical distinction between biological sex and gendered identity.
The obvious flaw in the argument is that in all known cultures the direction of effect is the same (as in women in general nurture and, men in general get resources) whereas in true learned beahviour you would expect to see culturally mediated differences in role. Hence, provided gay people exist in all cultures, it cannot be learned in the true sense.
When I did my degree the latest reasearch was that homosexuality correlates with an extremely complex mother/foetus biological interraction, but it is not genetic (as in having gay parents does not change the odds) in the true sense, as in there is no “gay gene”.

Galen10 @ 82:

“Calling homosexuality a disorder is, apart from being a loaded statement, just kinda weird. Lot’s of other species exhibit such behaviour, and history and anthropology demonstrate that it has occurred in human society throughout time.”

Yes, you are right – homosexuality is common; and I accept that “disorder” was a rather loaded term. Nevertheless, purely in reproductive terms, homosexuality is biologically self-defeating – though socially and culturally it appears to have advantages. So, if parents ever have the opportunity to ensure that they do not have homosexual offspring, then I believe (1) that they would largely choose heterosexual offspring and (2) that they would not be do anything immoral because their choices/preferences would concern potential not actual persons.

“you are missing the point that the negative attitudes many have towards homosexuality are based on bigotry, and reflect outdated social norms which have no place in a progressive society”

No, I’m not missing that point: I accept it – though, from the polls I seem to recall, the vast majority of people in the UK are sympathetic towards gays. My point is that a negative attitude towards homosexuality in a potential person is quite different to a negative attitude towards homosexuality in an actual person. The former would involve, for a prospective parent in my thought-experiment, an assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of having a homosexual child. The latter is unacceptable.

“terminations to eliminate homosexuality are no more acceptable than say those to eliminate green-eyes, conservatism, or to ensure a male heir.”

I never once mentioned terminating homosexual foetuses; and I find the idea abhorrent.

@ 87

“What I am saying is that moral and social education should not take place in maths, science, english or any other academic lesson, except on the teacher’s discretion – otherwise we could easily end up with a quota system of approved examples for maths etc. The place for teaching these things is in general studies, sex education, assembly and so on.”

But we’re not talking about stopping in the middle of a maths lesson to give a sermon on tolerance, or filling the English reading list with a suspiciously high number of books that explored homosexuality from a sympathetic context. At least, I’m not. I’m talking about identifying where we might currently go the other way (not to the point of bashing gays, but pretending they don’t exist) and correcting that. So we might have one book on the syllabus that involved homosexuality, or at least not refuse to include that book on that basis alone.

Like I said further up the thread, maths questions that used to talk about Tom, Dick and Harry now talk about Tom, Sally and Ahmed: go back far enough and all characters were white by default (go back further and they’d be a lot more likely to be male, too). Refusing to artifically exclude people is a good thing. If ALL these people always had foreign-sounding and female names, then there’d be something fishy going on.

The point is this: some people are gay, it’s a fact of life, and telling kids that is not propaganda. Hiding it is.

@ 82 Cylux

“Calling homosexuality a disorder is, apart from being a loaded statement, just kinda weird. Lot’s of other species exhibit such behaviour, and history and anthropology demonstrate that it has occurred in human society throughout time.”

It’s a loaded statement in a debate over gay rights and the like. But I think scientifically it could be considered a disorder in a similar fashion to something like colour-blindness, and thus might be researched in a similar fashion. It depends how broadly you’re defining the term “disorder” and how neutrally you mean to apply it. I suspect that if society had always been completely accepting of homosexuality few would object to it being described that way – although many might say that it was a “disorder” they were perfectly happy to have.

That’s a totally different context, of course, to when someone calls it a disorder and want to imply that it’s negative or morally wrong, and something that should be cured or “resisted”. I myself appear to have a mild form of synesthesia, which probably counts as a disorder in a broad sense, but there are no negative implications.

I only make the point because sexuality is so politicised that I can imagine any study into what makes people gay, straight, bi etc would probably contain totally normal scientific phrasing that some people would object to because the words used have negative connetations in other contexts.

@90

Nevertheless, purely in reproductive terms, homosexuality is biologically self-defeating

For the individual this is correct, but we are nothing if not a social animal, gay siblings could aid in the raising and protection of their nieces and nephews without adding to the further burden of the tribe by having their own offspring. Those nieces and nephews would possess a collection the gay aunt/uncles genes and thus, thanks to the extra help in raising them, pass them on. The selfish gene tends to result in rather unselfish ways.

Of course these days families tend to be truncated little blocks of mum, dad and their kids all surviving on their own, and it is a worry that if the processes of how someone becomes gay were to be known, a quick quid could easily be made on selling preventatives to prospective mothers, however what has been discovered so far is that the chances of doing so are slim to none.

@92 I think ya mean Galen10 @82

@ 93

“For the individual this is correct, but we are nothing if not a social animal, gay siblings could aid in the raising and protection of their nieces and nephews without adding to the further burden of the tribe by having their own offspring. Those nieces and nephews would possess a collection the gay aunt/uncles genes and thus, thanks to the extra help in raising them, pass them on. The selfish gene tends to result in rather unselfish ways.”

The idea that homosexuality could have evolved as a positive feature is, well, possibly possible. The science around that area is very controversial, because the genes being passed on wouldn’t be those that made you likely to be gay, they’d be those that made you likely to give birth to a gay person. The whole survival/procreation part of evolution fits weirdly onto the frame.

Something that seems more likely (and yet never seems to be said) is that the part of our brain that makes us lust for one sex and not the other only evolved to a certain degree of accuracy, and that said accuracy can vary widely in specific individuals.

“Of course these days families tend to be truncated little blocks of mum, dad and their kids all surviving on their own, and it is a worry that if the processes of how someone becomes gay were to be known, a quick quid could easily be made on selling preventatives to prospective mothers, however what has been discovered so far is that the chances of doing so are slim to none.”

My two cents is that if such a pill was on the market, a lot of people would refuse to take it for moral reasons, but if it was a routine part of the breeding process to choose your child’s sexuality nearly every straight person would pick “straight”. Something to do with sins of omission and commission, maybe.

@ 94

So I did!

@95 Theories about it possibly being genetic generally fall within the idea that a gene that say, increases fertility in females might increase homosexuality in males and visa-versa, or in short not really something you want to go around purging from the gene pool.
Like I said above though there’s identical twins where one is gay and the other straight so even if genetics plays a part it cannot just be genetics.

And your 2 cents are probably right, look at how circumcision of boys became so common in the US just because “it’s what you get done after a boy is born”, routine can be quite a bastard.

@97 “Like I said above though there’s identical twins where one is gay and the other straight so even if genetics plays a part it cannot just be genetics”

Likewise you can get identical twins where one is, say, schitzophrenic and the other is not, it does not prove that there is no genetic component to schtizophrenia. The risk is still raised but that doesn’t mean the outcome will be the same. Currently accepted wisdom is that you need a complex interraction of genes, biology and environment although I personally would dispute that the environment is deterministic in any meaningfull sense.

@ 99

“Theories about it possibly being genetic generally fall within the idea that a gene that say, increases fertility in females might increase homosexuality in males and visa-versa, or in short not really something you want to go around purging from the gene pool.”

That’s the sort of thing I’d expect.

“Like I said above though there’s identical twins where one is gay and the other straight so even if genetics plays a part it cannot just be genetics.”

Evidently not. Of course genetics must play a role to some extent, otherwise it would be impossible for people to be gay. So the question is really whether someone’s genes can raise the predisposition to be gay, and how much of a factor that is alongside environmental influences.

@75 So Much For Subtlety: “It said LEAs “shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality” or “promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship”. It was also toothless because it contained no penalty clauses.

There was nothing in it prohibiting a teacher from comforting a bullied gay child, nor was there anything requiring teachers to misrepresent reality.”

I think we need to reflect on why laws are created. Aside from those that address criminality and social order (theft, violence, deception etc), some laws are made for logistical reasons (eg to generate revenue, and to spend that money on public services) and others to send a message (cultural hegemony).

Section 28 was about sending a message. As SMFS notes, the law did not include specific sanctions. Nor did it abolish sex education about homosexuality or prevent teacher support for gay pupils. But it told everyone that homosexual relationships should be a private issue, not for discussion in class rooms and by implication, in society generally. Sex education became a technical description of homosexuality, rather than a discussion about society and relationships. Alongside that was the implied narrative that homosexuality was abnormal, that gay people were another class.

The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policies adopted by the armed forces of many nations delivered a similar message.

Laws send powerful messages, which is why any government should resist the urge to use them for social management. Laws have unforeseen consequences (Section 28 discouraged school education about homosexuality that would have been legal under its terms) and it takes a long time to abolish them. It’s best not to create them in the first place.

For me, that means I cannot support laws that “enforce liberalism”. Society can tell bigots that they should host gay couples at their B&B, but the law should not compel them to do so.

I’ve just gone and read the linked article by Phillips all the way through. I’d forgotten how mind-shatteringly stupid that woman is. I was going to post a choice quote or two here, but it’s impossible to choose because the whole damn article is written in stream of proto-consciousness.

100

“For me, that means I cannot support laws that “enforce liberalism”. Society can tell bigots that they should host gay couples at their B&B, but the law should not compel them to do so.”

…and then you go and spoil it all!

The law should compel them to do so if they are ignorant and bigoted enough to insist that that their made up religion gives them license to discriminate against one sector of society. It is every bit as unacceptable as not accepting black people, or Muslims, or unmarried people. This isn’t 1910; if they don’t like it they should find a different way of making money that doesn’t involve trying to impose their discredited values on others.

@99 Chaise Guevara: “Of course genetics must play a role to some extent, otherwise it would be impossible for people to be gay.”

I don’t follow that argument. It is possible for humans to display behaviour that is not determined by genes. The first ape to crack a nut using a rock did not have genetic foreknowledge. The understanding of tools may have been passed from that first ape to his/her descendants. Apes elsewhere, unrelated genetically, acquired the same understanding or perhaps did not. This is why we have different evolution on different continents.

In addition to genes and environment, humans are determined by the pre-natal process. The mix of X and Y chromosomes determines the physical layout of a child, but exposure to the mother’s hormones is important too. In crude summary, that is one explanation for transgenderism or gender identity disorder.

@102 Galen10: “…and then you go and spoil it all!”

Sorry, mate, but I’m just an old fart liberal. Once upon a time I would have agreed with your comment. I suppose my change in attitude is pragmatic as well as philosophical. If there are so many bigots in the world, do we create laws that cannot be enforced (for that one gay couple denied B&B, many others just said “goodbye, we’ll find somewhere else”) or do we strive for a liberal society in general?

I could challenge my own argument, with regard to employment practices. UK law defines procedures, breach of which may allow a civil case for discrimination. The law is difficult and expensive to enforce (cases are noted for their infrequency) and most victims of discrimination are helpless. (My own employer has a web “Equal Opportunities Statement” that can only be accessed by employees; huh, job applicants?)

In the case of employment law, unenforced as it is, I tolerate the message that it sends. Perhaps I should start describing myself as a pragmatic old fart liberal.

@ 102 “This isn’t 1910; if they don’t like it they should find a different way of making money that doesn’t involve trying to impose their discredited values on others”.

But they might argue that in a liberal democracyt they should be able to make a living how they like, and that they are operating a private, not a public service, therefore there is no implicit right on them to provide services to everyone and anyone. I would argue they should be free to accomodate whoever they like (or not), and if they get it wrong, they go out of business.

As to value systems, they are of course subjective. I could say that the capitalist system, is in my view discredited, and the Ritz hotel therefore has no right to refuse me a room on the grounds that I cannot pay for it ?

The case of the b&b is not just a straightforward case of “no gays allowed”, the b&b had a policy of only allowing beds to be shared by married couples, the gay couple in question are in a civil partnership, or “gay married” as it is currently known. The Christian couple refused to recognise their legal union as fulfilling the requirement of “married couples”.
Given the political push to make civil unions as equal to marriage as possible without it bearing the M word, in the vain hope of not pissing off either sizeable portion of the electorate*, the case was only ever going to end badly for the b&b owners.

*Religious groups don’t want gays getting married, marriage is theirs for having kids or something, and equality minded peeps will be very pissed off if gays are treated as second-class citizens, hence the current civil partnership compromise. Alas for our illustrious leaders, the same-sex marriage issue doesn’t seem to be going away any time soon, despite cowardly attempts to fob it off.

78. Galen10 – “What exactly do you mean by “Well being Gay, as we understand it, is certainly a learned behaviour.”?”

The way that homosexual behaviour is expressed in the West is certainly a learned behaviour. You can trivially see this in places like Thailand where traditional forms of homosexual behaviour are being taken over by Western forms. There is no gene that says Thai Lady Boys should dress up in sparkles and sing “It’s Raining Men”. That is a form of cultural colonialism even.

“I think the general consensus is that there is overwhelming evidence that being gay/homosexual is not learned. The “reality” won’t have anything to do with what your ideological persuasion is; no doubt there are people who regard themselves as left wing on both sides of the debate.”

Then the consensus is wrong. That consensus is also a political one, not a scientific one. The American Psychiatric Association did not recognise new research that said homosexuality was not a product of childhood trauma as Freud claimed. They were bullied in to it by political activists disrupting their meetings. People have looked into what causes homosexuality. They have looked for centuries. There is no scientific evidence of *any* cause.

“Your points about Section 28 are disingenuous. The measures were seen as, and meant as, an ideoligically driven attack on socially liberal attitudes towards homosexuality by a right wing government. To maintian otherwise is pure sophistry.”

That may be true. I have no idea what the motives of the government were. But it says nothing about my point because I am not maintaining otherwise. Section 28 was exactly as I described it. And it was not an attack on society’s attitudes, but a statement of them. Section 28 was never unpopular among ordinary people.

79. Chaise Guevara – “In which case it wouldn’t be propaganda, would it?”

If it was based on scientific evidence it wouldn’t. But as there is no scientific evidence of genetics, it is irrelevant. It is actually a little more complex than that. You only have to compare with scientific evidence that intelligence is genetic and that it varies from racial group to racial group. There is evidence of this – IQ tests for instance – but most people sensibly recognise that most claims are political propaganda. But it not relevant here. As there is no scientific evidence of a genetic difference.

80. Chaise Guevara – “Actually, there was confusion over its applicability throughout its existence. Teachers were unsure whether it applied to them, but tended not to take the risk. When the Department of Education said it didn’t apply to teachers, the MPs that supported it said that it did.”

Produce the slightest evidence that there was any such confusion.

“So even if it never applied to teachers, it had the same effect.”

Sorry but no. Given that it had no penalty clauses at all, it is unlikely to have had any impact on any individuals at all.

“However, thanks for proving it was a bigoted bit of legislation by pointing out that it made it illegal to “promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship””

My pleasure.

“How strange! You just said it wasn’t about teachers! Well done: in two consecutive posts, you’ve proved yourself a liar.”

No. I have proven that reading is difficult.

86. Cylux – “Aside from the fact that modern biology basically claims that eugenics programs are doomed to failure”

Sorry but when did modern biology even suggest that a eugenics programme was doomed to failure? We could sterilise everyone with haemophillia. (Not that I am recommending that we do). This would be eugenics. And it would work.

“There was a New Scientist article a couple years back that showed that there were similarities between neural pathways between het women & gay men, and het men & gay women”

I remember East German research back in the day that allegedly showed brains of gay men were similar to heterosexual women. Give it time and someone else will probably show this is nonsense. If I was gay I might be offended by the suggestion my brain was similar to a heterosexual woman’s.

93. Cylux – “For the individual this is correct, but we are nothing if not a social animal, gay siblings could aid in the raising and protection of their nieces and nephews without adding to the further burden of the tribe by having their own offspring. Those nieces and nephews would possess a collection the gay aunt/uncles genes and thus, thanks to the extra help in raising them, pass them on. The selfish gene tends to result in rather unselfish ways.”

That assumes gay men are effeminate people who want nothing more than to stay home and play with children. It is an absurdly heterosexual-centred view of gay men. Why aren’t those gay men out hunting with the heterosexual men? There is no evidence I know of that gay men contribute in any way to the care of their siblings’ children. I don’t even know any gay men who particularly like children although I am sure many do. For this to work, they would have to do so more than heterosexual men. Any evidence of that? This is the problem with the “Just So” nature of evolutionary psychology. A bad example.

99. Chaise Guevara – “Evidently not. Of course genetics must play a role to some extent, otherwise it would be impossible for people to be gay. So the question is really whether someone’s genes can raise the predisposition to be gay, and how much of a factor that is alongside environmental influences.”

I don’t see how that follows. Genetics must play a role in Opera singing otherwise it would be impossible to put on Carmen? Sure, genes may control what range of sounds we produce, but we train opera singers for a reason. Genetics must play a role in rape? They must play a role in speaking French? Why do you think genes must play a role?

We have not come close to finding a gene or a combination of genes that play any role in being Gay. The only solid science I know of is that Gay men tend to have more older brothers. I don’t expect that to last.

@109 http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html?feedId=online-news_rss20
You can read it for yourself if you’re so inclined.

As for why eugenics is doomed to failure, yes you could sterilise everyone with haemophilia, and then, once they die you could then sterilise the next generation of haemophiliacs born from non-haemophiliacs, or you could try and systematically sterilise all those with the potential to produce haemophiliac children, I wouldn’t even care to guess how large a percentage of the population (all women incidentally) you would be sterilising then, for the high crime of having a bad recessive gene. Just to add insult to injury once your project is completed a random mutation a few years down the line might bring the problem back again. In short eugenics is doomed because you will never achieve your goal, not without near-genocide, and for it to be even implemented would require a regime that would make Nazi’s look like a bunch of pleasant chaps.

Modern biology merely demonstrated the futility and brutality of eugenics projects.

@110 Feeding children is often a required part of the raising of them, so “aid in the raising and protection” will also include the hunter-gather role, try harder.

83. Mr S. Pill

All evidence on the subject suggests that every human population has a homosexual population of between 3% – 10% : it’s as natural as ginger hair or green eyes.

No, Alfred Kinsey’s figure of 10% has been shown to be fraudulent. The latest ONS survey shows there to be 1% homosexual and 0.5% bisexual in the UK.

There are no moral implications about having different colour eyes or hair!

Peter Tatchell claims that homosexuality is a *choice* and to be thankful it is!

112. Cylux – “You can read it for yourself if you’re so inclined.”

I am not actually. I have seen too many of these claims come and go. This one probably will too.

“As for why eugenics is doomed to failure, yes you could sterilise everyone with haemophilia, and then, once they die you could then sterilise the next generation of haemophiliacs born from non-haemophiliacs, or you could try and systematically sterilise all those with the potential to produce haemophiliac children, I wouldn’t even care to guess how large a percentage of the population (all women incidentally) you would be sterilising then, for the high crime of having a bad recessive gene.”

Can we agree that once we prevent anyone with haemophilia having children, the incidence of the gene for haemophilia will go down? And once we track down and sterilise any woman who merely carries the gene, the incidence will go down enormously? Once we are down to the background noise of spontaneous mutation, we will have reached a eugenic end – we will have prevented this blood disorder in the vast majority of cases. No we might not get rid of it permanently but it will be reduced to a trivial percentage of spontaneous mutations. Eugenics does not demand perfection, just improvement.

I do not recommend it, but I fail to see why anyone could claim it is not possible.

“In short eugenics is doomed because you will never achieve your goal, not without near-genocide, and for it to be even implemented would require a regime that would make Nazi’s look like a bunch of pleasant chaps.”

Now you have added a caveat about near genocide. For haemophilia we are not talking about near genocide anyway. And plenty of people have considered implementing it. Without anything like genocide. America had an openly eugenics programme. Switzerland and Sweden were both sterilising people into the 1970s. China does today and their genocidal days are mostly over.

“Modern biology merely demonstrated the futility and brutality of eugenics projects.”

It does neither. History demonstrates the brutality, not biology.

113. Cylux – “Feeding children is often a required part of the raising of them, so “aid in the raising and protection” will also include the hunter-gather role, try harder.”

That simply reduces the definition of the Gay contribution to meaninglessness. Heterosexual men also feed children. There must be some added advantage to this supposed Gay gene or it would be bred out. If Gay men simply do what heterosexual men do, there is no genetic advantage. Which is precisely what I think they would do. But then I don’t think there is a genetic advantage. It will always be better for men to feed their own children than their nephews in the normal course of events. As long as we remain non-haplodiploid.

There must be some added advantage to this supposed Gay gene or it would be bred out.

For some reason, I’m remended of Inigo Montoya: “You keep using that word — I do not think it means what you think it means”.

In real life, there are two points here:

1) it is unequivocally true that there are certain genetic markers which are more likely to be shared by men who identify as gay than by men who do not.

2) these markers don’t account for all cases where men identify as gay, and because genetic science is still relatively new, we don’t know exactly what effects these markers have on physical development or on behaviour.

Some sociologists have speculated that the reason these markers survive despite the apparent evolutionary disincentive towards homosexuality *may* be because gay men care for their sisters’ kids. This is an interesting theory. As with many hypotheses in evolutionary psychology that get wrongly derided as “just so stories”, it’s empirically testable. At some point, it will be empirically tested.

There are plenty of other hypotheses for why these markers may exist. It could be like sickle-cell anaemia, where one combination of the genes is directly evolutionarily beneficial, but others are not. It could be that in some societies, men who’re generally gay are viewed as non-threatening so get more access to women, and then occasionally impregnate them if horny and man-less. It could be that closeted gay men who marry out of social pressure are in some ways better at providing for their families than straight men. We don’t know, because we’ve not yet worked out what the genes do or done the empirical studies.

One thing is certain, and that is that pretending there’s *no* genetic pattern behind homosexuality is bloody stupid and bad science.

John,

One thing is certain, and that is that pretending there’s *no* genetic pattern behind homosexuality is bloody stupid and bad science.

Whether there is a genetic link or not is not really the issue. I was a heavy drinker for a decade – an alcoholic. They say there is an ‘alcoholic gene’.

Should I have submitted to my genetic predisposition and refused to claim responsibility for my lifestyle?

117. john b – “For some reason, I’m remended of Inigo Montoya: “You keep using that word — I do not think it means what you think it means”.”

Yes. It is a pity that you do not name the word.

“In real life, there are two points here: 1) it is unequivocally true that there are certain genetic markers which are more likely to be shared by men who identify as gay than by men who do not.”

It is not unequivocally true. It is not even close to unequivocally true. I assume you are referring to the Xq28 claims? They have not been widely reproduced. They rely on self interested investigators using ridiculously small samples. If there is some other claim out there I am unaware of it – unless it is even older and even less credible. Which do you mean?

“2) these markers don’t account for all cases where men identify as gay, and because genetic science is still relatively new, we don’t know exactly what effects these markers have on physical development or on behaviour.”

Genetics has been around for decades. It took less time to go from theoretical ideas about nuclear fission to Hiroshima than it has taken from the first DNA tests to now – not to mention that we knew things like haemophilia were genetic a long time before we knew what gene caused it. They don’t account for any men who identify as gay except what you would expect from random sampling.

“Some sociologists have speculated that the reason these markers survive despite the apparent evolutionary disincentive towards homosexuality *may* be because gay men care for their sisters’ kids. This is an interesting theory. As with many hypotheses in evolutionary psychology that get wrongly derided as “just so stories”, it’s empirically testable. At some point, it will be empirically tested.”

It is an interesting theory. I have pointed out what is wrong with it. That wrongness has not been challenged. It is extremely unlikely ever having a gay uncle has ever conferred a significant advantage. Why sisters’ by the way? I await with some interest a design for an empirical test.

“There are plenty of other hypotheses for why these markers may exist. It could be like sickle-cell anaemia, where one combination of the genes is directly evolutionarily beneficial, but others are not.”

Sickle cell traits appear to be beneficial. We know what genes cause it. Nothing like homosexuality at all.

“It could be that in some societies, men who’re generally gay are viewed as non-threatening so get more access to women, and then occasionally impregnate them if horny and man-less.”

A nice theory but one that destroys the concept of homosexuality. After all, people who have an orientation for men do not have more children with women. Also anyone who impregnated women would soon trigger a response in other men. However the main problem with this is that women who are man-less is not even a theoretical possibility. Even a country like Paraguay, where 9 out of 10 men died, allegedly, in warfare, did not have a shortage of men.

“It could be that closeted gay men who marry out of social pressure are in some ways better at providing for their families than straight men. We don’t know, because we’ve not yet worked out what the genes do or done the empirical studies.”

It may well be although you would need some mechanism by which Gay men would make better husbands than straight men. I think most people would find that absurdly funny. We have not found any genes and it is hard to do any empirical studies.

“One thing is certain, and that is that pretending there’s *no* genetic pattern behind homosexuality is bloody stupid and bad science.”

We have yet to find one. That is a statement of fact. It is bad science to deny it and assert otherwise.

Whether there is a genetic link or not is not really the issue. I was a heavy drinker for a decade – an alcoholic. They say there is an ‘alcoholic gene’. Should I have submitted to my genetic predisposition and refused to claim responsibility for my lifestyle?

This is a good point, which I have some sympathy for. I don’t think the genetic debate on homosexuality really helps with rights arguments; the point is more that if you’re an alcoholic, then that harms those around you, whereas if you’re queer, it doesn’t. Equally, as an alcoholic, you’re not banned from marrying the person you’re in love with or having kids with them (you might end up disgusting her so much that you don’t want to, but that’s a rather different point).

If there is some other claim out there I am unaware of it – unless it is even older and even less credible. Which do you mean?

This is a good, non-partisan review. In short – while there isn’t any clear non-contentious evidence of markers yet, the levels of correlation (when you look at separated-twin studies, etc) mean you’d have to be wilfully blind to deny a link, despite the fact it’s still deeply unclear exactly how any such link works.

It took less time to go from theoretical ideas about nuclear fission to Hiroshima than it has taken from the first DNA tests to now

That may reflect the fact that 1% of total US GDP was spent on the Manhattan Project. I reckon that if we’d done that for genomic research, we’d probably have achieved rather more than we have.

women who are man-less

Oops, I wasn’t clear here. My theory was “men who’re known to be rampantly gay get trusted around married women. When said rampantly gay men are man-less, they occasionally shag the married women they’re trusted around, and get them pregnant without their husbands realising they’ve been cuckolded”.

john b – “This is a good, non-partisan review. In short – while there isn’t any clear non-contentious evidence of markers yet, the levels of correlation (when you look at separated-twin studies, etc) mean you’d have to be wilfully blind to deny a link, despite the fact it’s still deeply unclear exactly how any such link works.”

That link does not work for me. Twin studies are controversial. I doubt there are any separated twin studies of any use – separated twins are extremely rare and gay separated twins must be close to unheard of. On top of which this has become political – scientists are often motivated. You see this with finding same sex behaviour in the wild. People see what they want to. There is a problem of selection – twins who are both gay are more likely to report and be out. They are more likely to be willing to take part in such studies. Given the small influence there is, there is no reason to take it seriously.

Not to mention that twins share a uterus for nine months. If it is caused by, say, maternal hormones or maternal infection that would have an effect.

“Oops, I wasn’t clear here. My theory was “men who’re known to be rampantly gay get trusted around married women. When said rampantly gay men are man-less, they occasionally shag the married women they’re trusted around, and get them pregnant without their husbands realising they’ve been cuckolded”.”

It is unlikely we evolved with marriage as you seem to be describing it. Men are more likely to have evolved to dislike any man near their wives. When is any rampantly gay man likely to be man-less? Husbands resent time wives spend with gay friends from what I can see. No one is that rampant. Nor is the effect likely to be large. Again you assume a Western model for homosexuality.

@115 Then again Peter Tatchell has consistently argued from a liberal position anyway, that discriminating against people for how they choose to pursue their own consenting privative sex lives is wrong, that discriminating against people who violate gender norms is wrong, that even if lgbt behaviour was learned then discriminating against them would still be dead wrong.

He actively dislikes the argument that sexuality is inherent, like skin colour, and as such shouldn’t be valid cause for discrimination, he doesn’t believe there’s good cause for discrimination ever.

By all means read his own words and see if you really stand behind what he is trying to achieve, his vision of a future of unconcerned fluid sexuality sounds quite nice and relaxed to tell the truth:
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5375/

107

“Section 28 was never unpopular among ordinary people.”

I’m not aware of any figures for the time, but the statement simply isn’t true. It may have been popular amongst the Daily Mail reading classes, and reflected the knee-jerk or casual homophobia prevalent amongst some of the population at the time, but it was certainly deplored by many people from the start.

105 Matt Munro

“I would argue they should be free to accomodate whoever they like (or not), and if they get it wrong, they go out of business.”

This line get’s trotted out every time, and honestly get’s no more convincing for the frequency with which it is deployed. Using this logic, we would still have “No blacks, Irish or dogs” signs in windows, because you and people like you think that it is illiberal to stop bigots.

What you are proposing isn’t liberalism, it’s cowardice.

Sorry, linkfail. This was the one in question. Anyway, this is angel-pin-dancing; I’m with Tatchell and Cylux.

@ 103 Charlieman

“I don’t follow that argument. It is possible for humans to display behaviour that is not determined by genes. The first ape to crack a nut using a rock did not have genetic foreknowledge. ”

No, but it had enough intelligence to try it, the memory to remember that it worked, and the muscles needed for it to succeed. Genetics are involved in they make it possible for you to do or be something. That doesn’t mean that genetics need to play any part in deciding whether ot not any specific individuals are gay or straight, just that it’s possible for humans to be gay.

@ 108 So Much For Subtlety

“If it was based on scientific evidence it wouldn’t. But as there is no scientific evidence of genetics, it is irrelevant.”

Sure. It would only be neutral if it were actually true.

“You only have to compare with scientific evidence that intelligence is genetic and that it varies from racial group to racial group. There is evidence of this – IQ tests for instance – but most people sensibly recognise that most claims are political propaganda.”

Not necessarily – it’s more likely that someone making these claims is likely to be misusing the information for propaganda purposes. The data itself is just data, and were I to claim that group X was Y% more intelligent on average than group Z as part of a scientific study I’d be making a neutral statement. If someone used the information as an excuse not to employ anyone from group Z or to claim we want fewer people of group Z in the country, they’d be showing a failure to grasp basic statistics.

But yes, I’d hesitate to spread such information because it would almost certainly be misused like that.

“Produce the slightest evidence that there was any such confusion. ”

In this article, everyone on both sides seems to be talking about schools. It’s all “what you can say in the classroom”, and “children shown pro-gay video in school”. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/618034.stm

Here, the Department of Education claims that it does not apply to schools. Why does it bother to make this statement? Because “it is clear that it has caused much confusion and many teachers believe that it does apply to schools” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/689288.stm

“Sorry but no. Given that it had no penalty clauses at all, it is unlikely to have had any impact on any individuals at all.”

See above. People are not 100% logical and perfectly informed.

“No. I have proven that reading is difficult.”

Do you know what the problem is with posting ad homs instead of actual points? It’s boring, and it makes you look like you’ve run out of arguments. I’m cool with you insulting me, but at least try to defend your position when you do it. Otherwise you’re just being a troll.

@124 “This line get’s trotted out every time, and honestly get’s no more convincing for the frequency with which it is deployed. Using this logic, we would still have “No blacks, Irish or dogs” signs in windows, because you and people like you think that it is illiberal to stop bigots.

What you are proposing isn’t liberalism, it’s cowardice.”

It’s only cowardice if you set yourself up as a “neo liberal” arbiter of public values. I would be in favour of a B&B that *didn’t* allow married or straight people for the same reason. Dictating to owners of private business who their customers should be is absurd and profoundly illiberal. Would you argue they shoudn’t be allowed to turn away pedos/murderers/rapists because its bigotry ? Where does this value free control system start and finish ?

@ 128 Matt Munro

“Where does this value free control system start and finish ?”

The results look weird on both extremes. As you point out, there can be very valid reasons for not wanting to serve someone. But take the hypothetical other extreme: what if a particular (and easily identifiable) group is so unpopular that no shop will actually serve them? Or, slightly more realistically, all of the electricity and gas companies operating in the area have decided not to provide services to them?

For example, anti-Muslim sentiment may run so high in a certain area that anyone considered to “look Muslim” is unwelcome at all local shops that sell food. Or all the power companies may try to show how anti-bigotry they are by boycotting known BNP members, so the price for vocally supporting the BNP is that you have to light your house with candles and cook on a Calagas stove.

Not terribly likely to happen in this country, although something similar happened to union ringleaders back in the day, many of whom were black-listed for employment and forced to rely on their neighbour’s charity. My point is that either extreme ends up being unreasonable.

Would you argue they shoudn’t be allowed to turn away pedos/murderers/rapists because its bigotry ?

Depends really, how would they know someone is a pedo/murderer/rapist? If they know because said person was tried, convicted and jailed, did their sentence and was freed at the end of it, would it still be morally okay to refuse service to this person on the basis of their past paid-for crimes?

@ 130 Cylux

I think the answer there (morally at least; how this should be applied to law is a different kettle of fish) is the reason for refusing service. It’s understandable not to want a murder in the house if you think he could pose a threat to other people in the place (especially as those could well include the landlord’s kids).

128 & 129

The approach proposed @ 128 is the one which is value free surely? It takes liberalism to the ridiculous extent that it would protect the rights of racists, bigots and homophobes to an extent that most of use would find intolerable.

Owners of “private” businesses are dictated to all the time over a whole host of issues, which nobody finds remarkable. Unless you are ready maintain that, for example, the kind of segregation typical in the US south pre civil rights is acceptable, your profound liberalism still looks a lot like cowardice to me.

@ 132

My two cents here is that perfect social liberalism is fundamentally impossible. I’m not going to rehash the “freedom from”/freedom to” thing in great detail, but it’s clear that defending one person’s liberties can infringe on what might otherwise be considered the valid liberties of another.

The case in point is one example: I’m all for religious freedom, but not to the extent that it’s used as an excuse (or reason) to treat gay people as second-class citizens. Abortion is another: ideally we’d find a way to support the perceived rights of both the unborn and pregnant women, but it’s impossible.

123. Galen10 – “I’m not aware of any figures for the time, but the statement simply isn’t true. It may have been popular amongst the Daily Mail reading classes, and reflected the knee-jerk or casual homophobia prevalent amongst some of the population at the time, but it was certainly deplored by many people from the start.”

Deplored by many people perhaps. But you simply sound like Pauline Kael. Just because *you* know no one who voted for Nixon doesn’t mean he wasn’t elected. As it happens, Section 28 was supported by the public:

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/newsevents/ca/378/Section-28.aspx

A series of polls, first in Scotland where controversy initially arose, and subsequently across the whole of Great Britain, have made it clear that public opinion on Section 28 of the Local Government Act, on the age of consent for homosexual sex, and more generally on attitudes to homosexuality, are by no means as simple or as clear cut as some of those on either side of the argument would like to believe. On the one hand, there is a clear majority of the public opposed both to repealing Section 28 and to lowering the age of consent to 16; but, on the other hand, many of these opponents are happy to admit the legitimacy of homosexual relationships between adults.
….
A MORI poll for the Daily Mail in the last week of January and a Gallup poll for the Daily Telegraph in the first week of February found 54% and 51% respectively opposing repeal of section 28; the MORI poll also found 66% opposed to lowering the age of consent. But there is a very strong age dimension to attitudes – in the MORI poll, only 40% of 18-34 year olds, but 52% of 35-54 year olds and 70% of those aged 55 and over, supported keeping section 28.

The latest poll, by NOP, is reported in the Daily Mail to have found 65% against repeal and 35% in favour on Tuesday 8 and Wednesday 9 February, after the House of Lords vote that defeated the government’s proposal.
….

Nor does it have much to do with homophobia.

But what is also clear is that Britain is far more liberal than any of these figures might suggest, so long as homosexual relationships are confined to consenting adults. More than half in the Gallup poll thought that both kinds of relationship (homosexual and heterosexual) are of equal value. Only 26% were prepared to state that homosexual behaviour is “morally wrong” – and they were equally divided on whether or not it should be tolerated anyway. MORI found the public equally divided on the idea that “the Government should do more to ensure that gay relationships are accepted”, and even on whether gay couples should be allowed to get married.

As well as supporting Section 28 and opposing a lowered age of consent, the majority of the public oppose gay couples being allowed to adopt children. Plainly, the sticking point for many of the public is the involvement of children and young people, not the question of homosexuality as such. It is not quite as simple as either the bishops or the gay rights campaigners would like to believe.

132. Galen10 – “Owners of “private” businesses are dictated to all the time over a whole host of issues, which nobody finds remarkable. Unless you are ready maintain that, for example, the kind of segregation typical in the US south pre civil rights is acceptable, your profound liberalism still looks a lot like cowardice to me.”

So because we don’t have perfect freedom it doesn’t matter if we have none? It is perfectly possible to say that private (and I notice that you dispute these people even exist which is interesting) businesses may not be totally free but they should be as free as possible. The segregation in the South was the result of governments forcing people not to do what they wanted to do. That is totally different from allowing people to do what they want to do. Indeed these B’n'B owners are more like the businesses who wanted to serve Black customers but were denied than anyone else.

133. Chaise Guevara – “My two cents here is that perfect social liberalism is fundamentally impossible.”

It does not have to be perfect to be desirable. This is just an excuse.

“I’m not going to rehash the “freedom from”/freedom to” thing in great detail, but it’s clear that defending one person’s liberties can infringe on what might otherwise be considered the valid liberties of another.”

It can but it does not here. No one has a right to service in any meaningful sense. We insist through the law that we are going to enter into decisions that ought to be private and force them to conform to society’s expectations, even thought this is inherently totalitarian. If we do not have the right to buy and sell to whomever we want, if we do not have the right to say what we like, we have very few rights indeed. Once we have conceded that the State has the right to regulate every intimate detail of our lives, we have cut down every protection we might want to shelter behind and we are just waiting for the end of democracy. You can see this in Belgium where the State is determined not to allow a large minority of people to vote for the party they want.

“The case in point is one example: I’m all for religious freedom, but not to the extent that it’s used as an excuse (or reason) to treat gay people as second-class citizens.”

Which is just a convenient way of saying you support civil liberties whenever they agree with your political beliefs. It is precisely the people with opinions that people do not like that need defending. If we tolerate them, they will go away so there is not even any need for such laws. Once we have allowed such laws, we have signed away our most important civil liberties. What you mean is that you see no need to tolerate any organisation that does not share your prejudices and that is not liberal.

127. Chaise Guevara – “Do you know what the problem is with posting ad homs instead of actual points? It’s boring, and it makes you look like you’ve run out of arguments. I’m cool with you insulting me, but at least try to defend your position when you do it. Otherwise you’re just being a troll.”

The hypocrisy of someone who has just called me a liar also calling what I said, which contained no direct reference to you at all, an ad hominem is ridiculous.

It is beyond hypocrisy really.

127. Chaise Guevara – “Sure. It would only be neutral if it were actually true.”

Indeed. As I said. And as I also said in most cases people would be rather suspicious of the motivations of the people who pushed it even if it was neutral.

“Not necessarily – it’s more likely that someone making these claims is likely to be misusing the information for propaganda purposes.”

“Not necessarily” in this case meaning you are simply going to say what I said in a slightly different wording but then claim you are making your own point?

Cool.

“The data itself is just data, and were I to claim that group X was Y% more intelligent on average than group Z as part of a scientific study I’d be making a neutral statement.”

As I said. Brilliant.

“If someone used the information as an excuse not to employ anyone from group Z or to claim we want fewer people of group Z in the country, they’d be showing a failure to grasp basic statistics.”

Sorry but how does that follow? They would almost certainly not be making their decision for those reasons, but in what way would they be showing a failure to grasp basic statistics?

“http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/618034.stm”

Sorry but I see no evidence whatsoever in that link for your claims. Posting links at random that simply mention Section 28 does not support your argument.

“Here, the Department of Education claims that it does not apply to schools. Why does it bother to make this statement? Because “it is clear that it has caused much confusion and many teachers believe that it does apply to schools” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/689288.stm”

Because it is true. It is nice of you to post a link that supports what I originally said – that it applied to LEAs and not teachers. But I don’t see what this is doing for your case. That quote appears to come from this link, but I don’t see it. Why do you imply it does? What that link shows is precisely what I said – and even the NUT was claiming it did what you claimed.

Now I think you have been shown to have nothing but personal insults, to have displayed breath-taking hypocrisy is calling me out for your flaws and to have no argument at all. Can you think of one reason why anyone should take your position in this thread seriously at all?

123. Galen10,

“Section 28 was never unpopular among ordinary people.”

I’m not aware of any figures for the time, but the statement simply isn’t true. It may have been popular amongst the Daily Mail reading classes, and reflected the knee-jerk or casual homophobia prevalent amongst some of the population at the time, but it was certainly deplored by many people from the start.

I have already mentioned that 7 out of 8 Scots wanted to keep the Clause – and we hardly have any “Daily Mail reading classes” up here.

Folk weren’t stupid enough not to know what was going to happen if this protection was removed.

It’s not “homophobia,” but about values.

As Matt Munro said, “Where does this value free control system start and finish?”

Here is the Wikipedia page: Keep the Clause campaign

@138 What values we talking about here exactly?

@140 – The values of sexual morality. Homosexual acts are immoral. Using children to promote them is demonic.

@141 Why are homosexual acts immoral?

@ 141 Stewart Cowan

“@140 – The values of sexual morality. Homosexual acts are immoral. Using children to promote them is demonic”

Thankfully your outmoded views are less and less common, and more and more offensive to the majority both north and south of the border.

Polls showed most head teachers supported the abolition of Section 28 in Scotland (and thankfully the Scottish parliament was progressive enough to agree with them). An IPSOS poll as long ago as 2000 showed 69% disagreed with the arch-bigot Thomas Winning that homosexuality was a perversion, and only 15% agreed; so people are (thankfully) a lot more progressive than your narrow-minded view suggests.

Your hysterical rant about children being used will be seen for what it is; hateful bigotry, and the usual nut-job Christian fundamentalist equation that those opposing Section 28 are somehoe using children to promote homosexuality, a notion that is as absurd as it is offensive.

@ 134

The figures are hardly overwhelming, and in anycase the tide of progress is definitely against those assorted bigots, whacky Christian fundamentalists, and homophobes who want to turn the clock back, especially amongst younger people.

As is ofte the case with these things, it depends how you ask the question. People are becoming more socially liberal; of course it takes time, but before too long, some of the opposition you refer to will seem as deplorable and out of date as the casual racism of previous decades does now.

@ 135

“So because we don’t have perfect freedom it doesn’t matter if we have none? It is perfectly possible to say that private (and I notice that you dispute these people even exist which is interesting) businesses may not be totally free but they should be as free as possible. The segregation in the South was the result of governments forcing people not to do what they wanted to do. That is totally different from allowing people to do what they want to do. Indeed these B’n’B owners are more like the businesses who wanted to serve Black customers but were denied than anyone else.”

Where did I say that private people don’t exist?! That’s a weird interpretation, but of a piece with your muddled thinking. Private businesses or people should be subject to the same rules when providing a service as any other body, public or private. You can’t stop an individual being a bigot, a racist or a homophobe. you can stop them calling for apostates to be beheaded, for balcks to be deported, or gays to be stoned to death.

Similarly, if they are running a B&B, they are not free to turn people away on the basis of them being black, gay, unmarried, or Conservative, anymore than someone in Starbucks could refuse to serve some minority they happened not to like.

Trying to equate religious bigots turning away gay or unmarried people from their B&B using a laboured example of someone in the South wanting to serve blacks when they weren’t allowed to is just laughable.

@ 139 Stewart Cowan

Would that be the same Wikipedia page that states:

“Mainstream politicians, including the Scottish National Party (which Souter has supported) largely ignored the poll result, and disputed whether it was a true reflection of public opinion. The then Communities Minister, Wendy Alexander MSP, criticised the poll stating “I think what is significant about today’s ballot is that two out of three voters rejected, or binned or simply ignored this glorified opinion poll.

Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell stated that “Brian Souter’s support for Section 28 is the moral equivalent of the business-funded campaign to maintain racial segregation in the Deep South of the USA in the 1950s.” Tatchell went on to say that Souter’s campaign was “hateful” and that it is clear that Souter was using his vast fortune to try to keep a cruel and “bigoted law” intact.”

Souter’s involvement was probably enough to turn a large proportion of the population off irrespective of the issue by the way!

@ 136 So Much For Subtlety:

“The hypocrisy of someone who has just called me a liar also calling what I said, which contained no direct reference to you at all, an ad hominem is ridiculous.

It is beyond hypocrisy really.”

Ah, but I explained why you were a liar, by showing you had contradicted yourself. As I said, I’m fine with insults as long as there’s substance behind them.

If your “I’ve proven reading is difficult” was meant as a neutral comment with no bearing on our conversation, then I’m a blue-skinned mountain goat. No, it was a childish insult used to mask the fact that you couldn’t defend your own statements (and, based on this post at least, still can’t).

Not so much “hypocritical” as “accurate and internally consistent”, then! Tough break, eh?

@ 135 So much for subtlety.

“It can but it does not here. No one has a right to service in any meaningful sense. We insist through the law that we are going to enter into decisions that ought to be private and force them to conform to society’s expectations, even thought this is inherently totalitarian. If we do not have the right to buy and sell to whomever we want, if we do not have the right to say what we like, we have very few rights indeed. Once we have conceded that the State has the right to regulate every intimate detail of our lives, we have cut down every protection we might want to shelter behind and we are just waiting for the end of democracy. You can see this in Belgium where the State is determined not to allow a large minority of people to vote for the party they want.”

I think people have a right not be treated differently because of their skin colour, sexuality etc. You don’t – or, at least, you hold this as less important that personal autonomy. That’s cool, but it’s ultimately a value judgement on either side.

And please stop with the “anti-gay legislation will lead us down the path to facism” hyperbole, unless you’ve got anything other than conjecture to back it up. Or I’ll start the same tiresome nonsense about how your preferences will see us in a theocracy before the decade is out.

“The case in point is one example: I’m all for religious freedom, but not to the extent that it’s used as an excuse (or reason) to treat gay people as second-class citizens.”

Which is just a convenient way of saying you support civil liberties whenever they agree with your political beliefs. It is precisely the people with opinions that people do not like that need defending. If we tolerate them, they will go away so there is not even any need for such laws. Once we have allowed such laws, we have signed away our most important civil liberties. What you mean is that you see no need to tolerate any organisation that does not share your prejudices and that is not liberal.”

That’s fine in principle, but in practice, perceived rights and civil liberties clash. When they do, we have to either find a balance or to prioiritise one over the other. And how are people going to do that? Yep, using their personal values.

In EXACTLY THE SAME WAY, you are prepared to sacrifice the civil liberties of gay people in the name of defending those of hotel owners (so to speak). That doesn’t make you wrong and me right, or vice versa, but you can hardly act as if you never support anything that could be seen as infringing on civil liberties, because that’s impossible.

And incidentally, I see every need to tolerate groups I dislike. It’s just when they start messing with other people’s freedoms that I object.

@ 137

““Not necessarily” in this case meaning you are simply going to say what I said in a slightly different wording but then claim you are making your own point?”

Wow. You even snarl at people when they agree with you. You must be a hit at parties.

“Sorry but how does that follow? They would almost certainly not be making their decision for those reasons, but in what way would they be showing a failure to grasp basic statistics? ”

Because saying that one race is less intelligent on average than another, even if true, does not mean you can assume that this would apply between any two individuals of these two races. So someone who said “I don’t hire race X, they’ve been shown to be stupider than race Y” would be applying general trends to specific individuals. And failing statistics forever.

“Sorry but I see no evidence whatsoever in that link for your claims. Posting links at random that simply mention Section 28 does not support your argument.”

To paraphrase your good self: you have to actually read the article. Here, I’ll help.

["He expressed concern that a repeal of the bill would put homosexual marriages on the same basis as heterosexual marriages within teaching at schools."]

["Opponents to the ban have argued that it prevents teachers combating homophobic bullying."]

Hmm… “schools”, “teaching”… sounds like people weren’t sure it was just about local authorities, no?

“Because it is true. It is nice of you to post a link that supports what I originally said – that it applied to LEAs and not teachers. But I don’t see what this is doing for your case. That quote appears to come from this link, but I don’t see it. Why do you imply it does?”

Yes, it does. Again: read the source before you make claims about what it says. It’s just below the little yellow box on the right of the text.

“What that link shows is precisely what I said – and even the NUT was claiming it did what you claimed.”

Nice attempt to shift the goalposts, but my memory ain’t that patchy. You asked for any evidence that confusion over whether or not Section 28 applied to schools. Not whether it applied to schools, but whether people were confused on the issue. I have provided that evidence.

So you’ve responded to the evidence I gave you by not reading either article then pretending you asked a different question. Well done!

“Now I think you have been shown to have nothing but personal insults, to have displayed breath-taking hypocrisy is calling me out for your flaws and to have no argument at all. Can you think of one reason why anyone should take your position in this thread seriously at all?”

Mainly because I don’t ad hom (well, I do, but at least I provide an argument alongside it), don’t lie about what sources contain, don’t try to change the argument just because I’m losing it, don’t refuse to defend my own statements… oh, all sorts of reasons.

By the way, “proven” is not synonymous with “accused by someone who’s losing the argument and is being grumpy about it”. Just so you know!

@146 Gallen 10

Would that be the same Wikipedia page that states:

“Mainstream politicians, including the Scottish National Party (which Souter has supported) largely ignored the poll result, and disputed whether it was a true reflection of public opinion. The then Communities Minister, Wendy Alexander MSP, criticised the poll stating “I think what is significant about today’s ballot is that two out of three voters rejected, or binned or simply ignored this glorified opinion poll.

Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell stated that “Brian Souter’s support for Section 28 is the moral equivalent of the business-funded campaign to maintain racial segregation in the Deep South of the USA in the 1950s.” Tatchell went on to say that Souter’s campaign was “hateful” and that it is clear that Souter was using his vast fortune to try to keep a cruel and “bigoted law” intact.”

Souter’s involvement was probably enough to turn a large proportion of the population off irrespective of the issue by the way!

Of course politicians ignored it – they no longer represent the people.

It was a gigantic opinion poll.

Some elections have lower turnouts – they aren’t dismissed because “two out of three voters rejected, or binned” it.

Peter Tatchell’s comment is the typical smoke screen response. It’s pathetic.

Why don’t you show me some evidence to support your claim that Section 28 was loved by everyone other than “the Daily Mail reading classes?”

144. Galen10 – “The figures are hardly overwhelming, and in anycase the tide of progress is definitely against those assorted bigots, whacky Christian fundamentalists, and homophobes who want to turn the clock back, especially amongst younger people.”

You are probably right about the last part, although don’t under-estimate the ability of young people to grow old, move away from their schooling and think for themselves. Assuming of course the future of Britain is British. But those figures would be enough to form a government if it was an election. Don’t forget the undecided.

“As is ofte the case with these things, it depends how you ask the question. People are becoming more socially liberal; of course it takes time, but before too long, some of the opposition you refer to will seem as deplorable and out of date as the casual racism of previous decades does now.”

Well the casual racism of the past is almost certainly our future. People and their attitudes do change, but they do not always change in one way. White Britain may be becoming more socially liberal, but the growth in the population is not among White British people. As Britain becomes more influenced by African Christians and assorted Muslim immigrants, you think it is going to be more or less homophobic? The Canadian conservatives just won an election in Toronto, I think, where half the population was born overseas, and it looks as if they won because their opponent was openly Gay.

145. Galen10 – “Where did I say that private people don’t exist?!”

You put “private” in quotes. I assume you are disputing that they are really private. If not, what’s your point?

“Private businesses or people should be subject to the same rules when providing a service as any other body, public or private. You can’t stop an individual being a bigot, a racist or a homophobe. you can stop them calling for apostates to be beheaded, for balcks to be deported, or gays to be stoned to death.”

You can’t stop them calling for those things. Nor should you. We ought to be encouraging free and open debate. Asserting that some speech is allowed and some is not is the death knell for democracy as the people in power will use those laws to keep themselves in power. As we have seen in Belgium. There is a huge difference between public and private providers. There is no reason why all the laws applying to one ought to apply to the other. You simply assert what you need to prove.

“Similarly, if they are running a B&B, they are not free to turn people away on the basis of them being black, gay, unmarried, or Conservative, anymore than someone in Starbucks could refuse to serve some minority they happened not to like.”

Again you assert. There is no reason why the State needs to interfere in the private contracts of individuals in this way. Indeed there is a very good reason for not applying ideological tests to every aspect of our lives. A Liberal society depends on not doing it for one thing.

“Trying to equate religious bigots turning away gay or unmarried people from their B&B using a laboured example of someone in the South wanting to serve blacks when they weren’t allowed to is just laughable.”

Except it is the same thing – people exercising their conscience in what ought to be a matter between two consenting adults and being denied the right to do so by the state. That your personal politics approves one and disapproves the other is not the issue here. The issue is a bigger one.

147. Chaise Guevara – “Ah, but I explained why you were a liar, by showing you had contradicted yourself. As I said, I’m fine with insults as long as there’s substance behind them.”

Except you have not shown any such thing. Not that a contradiction is a lie either. So even if I had, you would still be wrong. And a hypocrite for your bare faced double standard.

“If your “I’ve proven reading is difficult” was meant as a neutral comment with no bearing on our conversation, then I’m a blue-skinned mountain goat.”

Pleased to meet you. Always wanted to meet a blue-skinned mountain goat.

148. Chaise Guevara – “I think people have a right not be treated differently because of their skin colour, sexuality etc. You don’t – or, at least, you hold this as less important that personal autonomy. That’s cool, but it’s ultimately a value judgement on either side.”

Well as a paid up member of the Left, it is almost certain you do not. Where do you stand on Affirmative Action and land reform in South Africa? But even if you did, it would not matter as it is not an enforceable right. You cannot stop some other person thinking bad thoughts and even acting on those thoughts, as long as they openly comply with the law. You can reject a gay couple as long as you lie about the reasons for doing so. And no law is going to change that.

Nor is it a value judgement, or if it is, it is only because you do not understand the implications of what you are calling for.

“And please stop with the “anti-gay legislation will lead us down the path to facism” hyperbole, unless you’ve got anything other than conjecture to back it up. Or I’ll start the same tiresome nonsense about how your preferences will see us in a theocracy before the decade is out.”

I would enjoy that. Except I don’t think I mentioned the word Fascism. Nor is my hyperbole, hyperbolic. It is a statement of fact. Either you accept that the State ought to be (and even is) limited in its power or you don’t. If you don’t, we have a problem. If you assert that the State has the power to oversee each and every formerly private relationship to see if it is ideologically acceptable, and the power to punish if it is not, you have conceded the pass. Britain, as a liberal and democratic society, cannot survive the State having such powers. Even assuming the extremely unlikely event of them being used well.

“That’s fine in principle, but in practice, perceived rights and civil liberties clash. When they do, we have to either find a balance or to prioiritise one over the other. And how are people going to do that? Yep, using their personal values.”

Again you try for this false equivalence. It is not. I agree that you have a perceived right. Just as, say, slave owners perceived their right to own property in other people. And indeed those perceived rights did clash with civil liberties. But the result was not a liberal society with some personal values trumping others, but a profoundly illiberal South. Now those perceived rights were comparatively small and unambitious. You want every single relationship to come under the Government’s supervision. That is harder to reconcile with a liberal society.

“In EXACTLY THE SAME WAY, you are prepared to sacrifice the civil liberties of gay people in the name of defending those of hotel owners (so to speak). That doesn’t make you wrong and me right, or vice versa, but you can hardly act as if you never support anything that could be seen as infringing on civil liberties, because that’s impossible.”

Except I am not. They have no civil liberties to sacrifice. If they cannot book into one Bed and Breakfast, they have lost nothing. There is no damage to them at all. After all, no one sues if a BnB is full. What this couple is being punished for is being open and honest about why they did what they did.

So it does make you wrong. You assert something that does not exist, cannot exist and is not worth pursuing if it could, and ignore all the consequences. You re-define civil liberties to suit yourself and your argument at any one time. But you are still wrong.

“And incidentally, I see every need to tolerate groups I dislike. It’s just when they start messing with other people’s freedoms that I object.”

No one’s freedom was messed with and you still object.

Galen10, Chaise Guevara – while I suffer from “someone is wrong on the internet” syndrome as much as the next man, you’re arguing with two toss-rangers who just like to discriminate against gay people and don’t much like elected representative governments saying “no, that is wrong” and writing anti-discrimination laws.

My money is on them being equally outraged if the gay couple in question had instead undertook an aggressive boycott campaign which resulted in the B&B going out of business.

@ 154 Cylux

Yeah, I know you are right of course…but when I haven’t got anything better to do at present, it can be fun

@ 150 Stewart Cowan

As was pointed out at the time, this electoral list used by the bigots behind the campaign was out of date, which accounted for some 10-12% of the total potential votes.

The fact remains that those who voted with the bigots represented a minority. I didn’t say Section 28 was loved, you made that up (quelle surprise!). What is evident, and what trolls like you can’t stand of course, is that the tide of history is against you. Sectarian bigotry has been the bane of Scottish history for centuries, and people are increasingly rejecting it, and the likes of you who promote it.

@ 151

Again, you are making things up, as obscurantist bigots generally do.

I didn’t say private people don’t exist, what I said is that it is no defence for their bigotry or refusal to provide services that the B&B is their private home. You can’t and shouldn’t stop people from inviting whoever they want into their own home in a general sense, but if you can’t see the difference involved in someone running a business refusing to serve someone on the basis of their race, gender, religious outlook or sexuality, you just aren’t very intelligent…… or indeed a very nice person. Good luck with justifying your bigotry tho’….it’s not as if you’ve done very well so far!

@156. Galen10

You know, people who accuse others of being “trolls” have lost the argument, IMO.

You can keep trying to make excuses for Brian Souter’s referendum, but the fact remains that even if every homosexual in Scotland had voted to scrap Section 28, the vast majority of voters still wanted to keep it.

Not everyone with SSA would be against Section 28, as many seek counselling for unwanted SSA.

I didn’t say Section 28 was loved, you made that up (quelle surprise!).

You said that only the “Daily mail reading classes” were opposed to it, which is clearly not true.

What is evident, and what trolls like you can’t stand of course, is that the tide of history is against you. Sectarian bigotry has been the bane of Scottish history for centuries, and people are increasingly rejecting it, and the likes of you who promote it.

History shows I am right to fight against the moral decay, because the descent into decadence is what destroys nations. Or is this another fact you wish to try to deny?

There has always been bigotry -everywhere – and always will be. The alternative is to be forced to believe whatever the government tells you. There’s been plenty of those societies throughout history, and many on the earth today – where there is no freedom of conscience, religion or association.

Can’t you see that the “gays” are just being used to create the same system here? They are just one part of the agenda to ruin this country for easier transferring of our country’s sovereignty and wealth to the EU and other globalist cliques.

Look at the bigger picture.

158 Stewart Cowan

1. “You know, people who accuse others of being “trolls” have lost the argument, IMO.”

Not when they are, in fact, trolls.

2. “the vast majority of voters still wanted to keep it.”

No, the majority who voted may have wanted to keep it, but as has been demonstrated it still represents a minority of those eligible to vote, and the “pro” figure was in any case inflated by the use of an out of date electoral register. Bear in mind also that the Electoral Reform Society refused to be involved in the vote because it felt it “would not be a legitimate democratic exercise to ask people to give an opinion on the repeal of Section 28 without knowing the detail of what would replace it”.

Your “vast majority” equates to only one third of potential electors returning ballots; as was pointed out it was cheque book democracy at it’s worst, because two thirds of electors, and most of those who opposed the pro-bigotry campaign, threw the ballots in the bin. Also notable is the vote in the Scottish parliament which was 99 to 17 I believe in favour of repealing the legislation.

3. “You said that only the “Daily mail reading classes” were opposed to it, which is clearly not true.”

Yeah, sorry, it is true. The types who voted in favour of keeping such a bigoted piece of legislation are Daily Mail types, whether they read the rag or not; the 86% of the one third of voters you term a “huge majority” represent sundry Tories, religious bigots and homophobes. They don’t represent Scotland as a whole.

4. “History shows I am right to fight against the moral decay, because the descent into decadence is what destroys nations. Or is this another fact you wish to try to deny?”

It ISN’T a fact, so I don’t have to deny it. History shows no such thing, still less could it be demonstrated to be a “fact”. It’s hardly as though Christian morality delivered the New Jerusalem in the past is it…. Victorian values may be something you pine for, but thankfully you are now in the minority. Why do you think organised religion, and it’s baleful influence, has been collapsing in Scotland over the past decades?

5. “Can’t you see that the “gays” are just being used to create the same system here? They are just one part of the agenda to ruin this country for easier transferring of our country’s sovereignty and wealth to the EU and other globalist cliques.”

Woo woo. Really, you saved the best bit until last didn’t you? If you don’t want to be called a troll, then don’t spout trollish nonsense like the above.

@158 I’ll ask again while you’re here, what is immoral about homosexual acts?

@159. Galen10

1. If you think I’m a troll, why don’t you ignore me? Perhaps you know I’m right.

2. “No, the majority who voted may have wanted to keep it, but as has been demonstrated it still represents a minority of those eligible to vote.”

You have a big problem understanding the nature of polls.

By your reckoning David Cameron has no mandate to be PM. (BTW I think treason should exclude him, but that’s a separate matter.)

“Also notable is the vote in the Scottish parliament which was 99 to 17 I believe in favour of repealing the legislation.”

That’s because they are as pro-gay, anti-family, as Westminster and Brussels.

Lenin said, “Destroy the family, you destroy the country.”

Can you see the bigger picture yet?

3. “They don’t represent Scotland as a whole.”

Well, the two-thirds who binned the poll clearly couldn’t be bothered supporting “gay rights” with the simple task of signing a piece of paper and putting it in a post-paid envelope.

You’re clutching at straws.

4. “History shows no such thing, still less could it be demonstrated to be a “fact”.”

Actually, it is a fact. Learn some history. We’ve become dumbed down, fat and lazy in the UK.

“Why do you think organised religion, and it’s baleful influence, has been collapsing in Scotland over the past decades?”

It’s been collapsing all over the western world – look at the bigger picture – religions are a power-base outside of government and have had to be reigned in.

The BBC has admitted to being anti-Christian.

What we have seen is the rise of militant (is there any other type?) Islam, New Age religions, Environmentalism, celebrity-worship, etc.

5. Look at the bigger picture.

@ 152 So Much for Subtlety

“Except you have not shown any such thing. Not that a contradiction is a lie either. So even if I had, you would still be wrong. And a hypocrite for your bare faced double standard.”

Still not explaining yourself, I see! And I don’t think I’m a hyprocrite. I’m pretty sure I haven’t ad hommed you in this thread. Insulted, maybe, but not ad hommed.

Cylux,

@158 I’ll ask again while you’re here, what is immoral about homosexual acts?

Not so long ago, almost everyone knew the answer to that question. Years of propaganda later, people no longer trust their own instincts.

I don’t let the government/EU do my thinking for me or determine what I hold as right or wrong. It is not their place to do that, but they are preoccupied with making us conform to specific ways of thinking and acting.

If homosexual acts were wrong a couple of decades ago, why are they accepted now?

It’s not because we are a more tolerant society, because we aren’t.

160 Stewart Cowan

1. “If you think I’m a troll, why don’t you ignore me? Perhaps you know I’m right.”

Bigots should be confronted wherever they spew their filth.

2. “You have a big problem understanding the nature of polls.
By your reckoning David Cameron has no mandate to be PM. (BTW I think treason should exclude him, but that’s a separate matter.).”

No, I understand them pretty well. The amount who voted for the bigots was around a quarter of those eligible to vote (probably less given the outdated list used). Of circa 3.9 million eligible voters sent ballots (with 10-12% potential error margin due to the list being out of date), 31.8% returned ballots, of whom 86.8% voted pro-bigot. Shameful enough in itself, but still only around 25%.

3. “That’s because they (the Scottish Parliament) are as pro-gay, anti-family, as Westminster and Brussels.
Lenin said, “Destroy the family, you destroy the country.”

Can you see the bigger picture yet?

LOL..too funny..the idea that MSP’s are all in thrall… grow up.

3. “Well, the two-thirds who binned the poll clearly couldn’t be bothered supporting “gay rights” with the simple task of signing a piece of paper and putting it in a post-paid envelope. You’re clutching at straws.

No straw clutching going on here. It wasn’t a valid exercise: that isn’t how democracy works. The people’s representatives spoke in Holyrood; they weren’t going to be swayed by religious bigots, homophobes, and Mr Souter’s money. Didn’t it occur to you that the sinister agenda might be those bigots, religious nut-jobs and plutocrats supporting the poll?

4. “Actually, it is a fact. Learn some history. We’ve become dumbed down, fat and lazy in the UK.”

How does a PhD suit you as a history qualification? Your view of our society is as flawed as your argument on this topic.

5 “It’s been collapsing all over the western world – look at the bigger picture – religions are a power-base outside of government and have had to be reigned in.
The BBC has admitted to being anti-Christian.
What we have seen is the rise of militant (is there any other type?) Islam, New Age religions, Environmentalism, celebrity-worship, etc.

The BBC is too prone to give undue credence to religious mumbo jumbo. It ought to be more sceptical, rather than less. It reflects the public; religion is fading because it is discredited and no longer needed by the majority. You are obviously too blinded by “faith” to see reality and evidence…. stun us with another.

5. “Look at the bigger picture.”

Your bigger picture isn’t any more convincing than the voices in your head, or the faith position you so obviously cling to that allows you to rant on about immorality.

@ 153 So Much for Subtlety

“Well as a paid up member of the Left, it is almost certain you do not.”

Guess again. But thanks for telling me what I “almost certainly” think. Further proof of your open-mindedness.

“Where do you stand on Affirmative Action and land reform in South Africa?”

Against the former, don’t know enough about the latter to comment. So what?

“But even if you did, it would not matter as it is not an enforceable right. You cannot stop some other person thinking bad thoughts and even acting on those thoughts, as long as they openly comply with the law. You can reject a gay couple as long as you lie about the reasons for doing so. And no law is going to change that.”

What you say is true. But a weak law is better than no law at all.

“Nor is it a value judgement, or if it is, it is only because you do not understand the implications of what you are calling for.”

Oh yes I do. This is boring, isn’t it? Why don’t you actually unpack some of these scary implications instead of just making vague statements about nowt?

“I would enjoy that. Except I don’t think I mentioned the word Fascism. Nor is my hyperbole, hyperbolic. It is a statement of fact. Either you accept that the State ought to be (and even is) limited in its power or you don’t. If you don’t, we have a problem. If you assert that the State has the power to oversee each and every formerly private relationship to see if it is ideologically acceptable, and the power to punish if it is not, you have conceded the pass. Britain, as a liberal and democratic society, cannot survive the State having such powers. Even assuming the extremely unlikely event of them being used well.”

Uh, I think the state having the power to “oversee each and every formerly private relationship to see if it is ideologically acceptable, and the power to punish if it is not” would qualify as fascism. What did you mean by the “end of democracy” if you didn’t mean one form of facism or another?

Anyway, I think the state should be limited in its power, so I don’t see what the above has to do with the conversation.

“Again you try for this false equivalence. It is not. I agree that you have a perceived right. Just as, say, slave owners perceived their right to own property in other people. And indeed those perceived rights did clash with civil liberties. But the result was not a liberal society with some personal values trumping others, but a profoundly illiberal South. Now those perceived rights were comparatively small and unambitious.”

Exactly: without reasonable government intervention to prevent some people from exercising what they see as their rights, illiberalism can rise. Thanks for proving my point.

“You want every single relationship to come under the Government’s supervision.”

For someone who objects to being called a liar, you sure like lying! Stop pinning ridiculous political opinions on me. Do you think you’re a mind-reader? Or are you so paranoid that you think anyone on the left must have read 1984 and thought “now THERE’S a way to run things properly”?

“Except I am not. They have no civil liberties to sacrifice. If they cannot book into one Bed and Breakfast, they have lost nothing. There is no damage to them at all. After all, no one sues if a BnB is full.”

Being treated as a second-class citizen is an infringement of civil liberties.

“What this couple is being punished for is being open and honest about why they did what they did.”

It’s true that they could probably have gotten away with it by lying. So they decided to martyr themselves rather than be bigoted in secret. That’s their call.

“So it does make you wrong. You assert something that does not exist, cannot exist and is not worth pursuing if it could, and ignore all the consequences. You re-define civil liberties to suit yourself and your argument at any one time. But you are still wrong.”

LOL. I guess you get to define civil liberties and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong and their beliefs impossible? Dear me.

“No one’s freedom was messed with and you still object.”

There was a gay couple, remember? Turned away by bigots? I can find the story for you again if you like.

Your problem, judging by your posts at least, is that you think in absolutist terms. Once you have decided which rights are valid and which are not, everyone who disagrees is just “wrong”. Anyone who believes in anything other than heavy social libertarianism must want “want every single relationship to come under the Government’s supervision”. If you bothered to listen to what other people were saying, rather than smearing them as ludicrous caricatures, you might actually learn a little about the world.

163

“If homosexual acts were wrong a couple of decades ago, why are they accepted now?”

What a ridiculous excuse for an argument. They are accepted because we are more tolerant, and because it is the “right” thing to do. Discrimination against homesexuals is just the same as discrimination against racial or religious minorities.

At least have the courage to come out and tell us why you think we should give any more credence to your “faith” that it is immoral… preferably without reference to whichever mongrelised faith based set of clap trap you adhere to.

@163 Your evasiveness speaks volumes, give your answer to the question, don’t just allude to some unspoken past consensus. If you are so sure of your moral superiority you should have no qualms about explaining why exactly homosexual behaviour is immoral.

Galen 10,

Sorry, I don’t feel like spending any more time trying to get throught to you. You just come back with the typical Pavlovian responses you have been programmed to give.

@168 Stewart Cowan

“Sorry, I don’t feel like spending any more time trying to get throught to you…”

Yeah, yeah. Shorter troll = “I surrender”. Good.