See above for caption...
I thought Mary Whitehouse was dead?
"Praise the Lord for Guantanimo and George Bush"
The counter demo arrives...
..and swings into action.
Go girl!
"Sorry miss, it's free speech for homophobes only tonight"
"No sir SOCPA bans all rational debate with Christians"
So who will lead these lost sheep in their hour of need?
Who will provide them with spiritual guidance and moral fortitude?
Stupid question really....
"rant...rave...no gays...no surrender...free Micheal Stone...ect"
"We love you reverend Paisley and your loyalist death squads"
"We're going to heaven along with Hitler, Mugabe and all the other gay haters"
Star attraction for the unruly mob is arch sponsor of loyalist terrorism the reverend Ian Paisley. After whipping the assembled scum into a homophobic frenzy he then gives a speech to the media. A speech which is pretty much illegal under the recent religious hatred law. Fortunately for Ian he is a loyal servant of the queen and not a Muslim or Republican Catholic or other undesirable for Britain’s ruling class. While we are on the subject this demo was billed as a multi faith affair? I can count the Muslims (who have been placed at the front for the benefit of the media) on one hand. Yet if our tabloid press are to be believed it is those narrow minded, bigoted followers of Islam that threaten our freedom to do what we like? So where are they? If this demo had contained 1,000 Islamic loonies and 4 Christians the media would be here in force. But Christians are not being bombed for sitting on the world’s oil reserves so their fascism just isn’t worth reporting…
Credit certainly goes to the gay activists who showed up to oppose the demo and argue with bible bashers. Although outnumbered by over 100-1 they gave a very good account of themselves and succeeded in infuriating both the Christian militia and the cops who were trying to control them. They stood their ground till the very end when the Lords voted to pass the law and all the Hymn singing mysteriously stopped.
It has recently come to light that George Bush and Tony Blair regularly pray (or is that prey) together whenever they meet. Bin Laden also believes that he is appointed by God to do his bidding using violence if necessary. So what’s the difference??
e-mail:
Comments
Hide the following 17 comments
Stereotyping and name calling undermine your argument
11.01.2007 00:47
However, some gays sexually abuse children, therefore using your reasoning all homosexuals must equally be regarded as paedophiles?
By calling Christians nutters you also give legitimacy to those that say homosexuality is a mental illness. Although, just because you are mad or just plain stupid, I have the rational sense to realise that not all gays are like you. I hope for your sake other gays do not think like you.
#
“lunatics” – photo 5
11.01.2007 04:10
In fact, if anyone has the audacity to disapprove of what I do, I going to deliberately do it in front of them just to annoy them even more.
After all who the fuck do they think they are to disapprove of what I do.
Having said that, if other people should even attempt to do something I disapprove of I am going to go fucking ballistic because the world revolves around me, not them!!!!!!
Narcissistic Personality Disorder
# - Language is a slippery eel, is it not?
11.01.2007 09:37
The term "Christian lunatics" refers to people who are both Christian AND lunatics.
If the writer intended to convey the sentiment that all Christians were lunatics, s/he would have simply used the word "Christians".
Hope this helps.
Duh
I think not...
11.01.2007 11:28
I think you're missing the point. Homosexuals have no belief in an unproven theory regarding the creation of the universe, the nature of mankind, the 'correct' ethical system, the laws governing the universe, the supernatural (miracles, etc), the afterlife, and so on and so forth. Therefore it WOULD be perfectly valid to hold the belief that Christians are insane without giving any legitimacy to the view you mentioned. However, I'm not saying I do think all Christians are nutters, or that anyone else should, simply that you're not right in that statement.
rogue
Here we go again....
11.01.2007 14:12
If someone sexually abuses a child they are a paedophile not a gay. Unless of course you wish to describe Ian Huntley as a heterosexual?
I can't recall seeing any documentarys about gays protecting paedophiles and sheltering them from the law. I've seen three about the church (usually catholic) doing just that.
Judas
the last thing we need
11.01.2007 14:29
yes there are gay people who are insufferable - but not because they are gay, merely because they are insufferable.
there are also christians who believe in the message of love behind the teachings attributed to christ (but are actually much older) and have no problem loving their gay brothers and sisters.
what we have here though, is a bunch of christain lunatics who would have us burning gays, whitches, heritics and the 'wrong' kind of christians before you can say inqusition
secular thinking has made enormous progress over the past 100 years or so ... those of us who believe in justice and peace should not allow these nutters to claw back our liberties.
jackslucid
e-mail:
jackslucid@hotmail.com
Bollocks!
11.01.2007 18:36
Just ask yourself who put a better fight up against Thatcher the churches or the Gay community?
Its not the god bothers you have to worry about, they have not been preparing the ideological argument for war against Iran like Tatchell and Outrage have been, especially when more Gay men and teenagers violently die in the US prison system than they do in Islamic Iran.
Engage your brains you thick bastards - this legislation means the state can now determine what constitutes sexuality and also what ‘legitimate’ religious belief is.
Your fools - that is what the BNP want the state to do.
This is not progress it is a fucking disaster and will come back to haunt all of us. It’s alright for Tatchell he can fuck off back to Oz when the shit hits the fan and play the martyr there.
Now start chanting "Four feet good, two feet bad!" - cos you lot clearly have not the brains to think through the implications of what is happening.
Bermondsey Bill
Well Said Bill
11.01.2007 19:50
>The term "Christian lunatics" refers to people who are both Christian AND lunaticsHomosexuals have no belief in an unproven theory regarding the creation of the universe...If someone sexually abuses a child they are a paedophile not a gay.what we have here though, is a bunch of christain lunatics who would have us burning gays, whitches, heritics and the 'wrong' kind of christians before you can say inqusition<
No, I think what we have hear is (poorly spelt) paranoid nonsense. Forget Christians, I know atheists who would refuse a gay couple to stay in any guesthouse they may own. I know people who change the channel every time a gay reference is made on TV. But they don’t want to burn gays or anything like it. They simply choose a lifestyle or subculture where homosexuality, and other things such as adultery, are seen as negative influences and thus discouraged as being thought of as normal, just as some religions see other faith as having negative influences and also discouraged. Surely they have the right to choose what they believe is best for them and their kin, just as you do?
Deliberately “infuriating” these people, as the article indeed boasts, is akin to the zero tolerance of Bush and his ‘your either with us or your with the enemy’ rationalisation. A ‘bring em on’ type arrogance that patently wins neither heart nor mind.
What do you suggest we do with those that adamantly refuse to embrace homosexuality (and/or adultery) into their subculture? Perhaps you can tell me what would you do with these people - what would be your ‘final solution’ to the homophobic (sic) question..?
Presbyterian Atheist
Correction
11.01.2007 20:27
Duh said:
“The term "Christian lunatics" refers to people who are both Christian AND lunatics”
Yeah right. Try getting away with that when calling someone who is a bastard AND black, mean AND Jewish or dirty AND queer…
Rouge said:
“Homosexuals have no belief in an unproven theory regarding the creation of the universe...”
Some do, but if you are generalising them it’s you who has missed the point. Generally speaking Christians have no belief in homosexuality…! The point I was making for example is that any Welsh prejudice against the English justifies any English prejudice against the Welsh. Likewise with other comparisons such as blondes and brunettes even. Prejudice begets prejudice.
Judas said:
“If someone sexually abuses a child they are a paedophile not a gay.”
But some men who have sex with other men have raped young boys as well. Therefore they are both gay and paedophiles. Although paedophiles are an abomination and homosexuality is just a perversion/deviation/alternative from the norm, therefore they would obviously be referred to as paedophiles, as paedophilia is of far greater importance to us. Nevertheless they are in fact both gay and paedophiles. The point I was making was you cannot therefore stereotype all gays as paedophiles. Just as you cannot stereotype all Christians as nutters…!?!
jackslucid said:
“what we have here though, is a bunch of christain lunatics who would have us burning gays, whitches, heritics and the 'wrong' kind of christians before you can say inqusition”
No, I think what we have hear is (poorly spelt) paranoid nonsense. Forget Christians, I know atheists who would refuse a gay couple to stay in any guesthouse they may own. I know people who change the channel every time a gay reference is made on TV. But they don’t want to burn gays or anything like it. They simply choose a lifestyle or subculture where homosexuality, and other things such as adultery, are seen as negative influences and thus discouraged as being thought of as normal, just as some religions see other faith as having negative influences and also discouraged. Surely they have the right to choose what they believe is best for them and their kin, just as you do?
Deliberately “infuriating” these people, as the article indeed boasts, is akin to the zero tolerance of Bush and his ‘your either with us or your with the enemy’ rationalisation. A ‘bring em on’ type arrogance that patently wins neither heart nor mind.
What do you suggest we do with those that adamantly refuse to embrace homosexuality (and/or adultery) into their subculture? Perhaps you can tell me what would you do with these people - what would be your ‘final solution’ to the homophobic (sic) question..?
Presbyterian Atheist
You all mad
11.01.2007 23:49
Everyone happy and you can all go to bed.
Jo
I also said this:
12.01.2007 10:33
and it doesn't matter how I spell any of it
the point being that the mentality of those who took part and encouraged the inquistion is still alive and we must guard against it gaining any foothold in our society - especially at the cost of that which Bill states
peace
jackslucid
e-mail:
jackslucid@hotmail.com
quite apart from the irony ...
12.01.2007 12:38
'No, I think what we have hear is (poorly spelt) paranoid nonsense'
... itself containing a spelling mistake! (I'll let you find it!)
the simple truth is that christianity has a long and bloody history of killing human beings
you may think those days are all in the past
I've not seen that much change in either the rhetoric or the human nature of 'fanatics' myself, so will not risk it
jackslucid
e-mail:
jackslucid@hotmail.com
There are ‘fanatics’ in all groups
12.01.2007 14:43
And whot do you sugesst we do with thoes that addamutley reffuze to embrase homosexuallitey into their lifestille or subcullcha? What wood be your ‘final solution’ to the homophobic (sic) question..?
BTW, homophobia is illegal. Therefore, if these people were being homophobic, as claimed, they would have been arrested. I’ve not heard any gays saying they should have been arrested, so why use the term homophobia? ‘Prejudice’ and ‘dogmatic’ maybe, but ‘homophobia’ is like calling Blair a ‘fascist’. It is hyperbole.
As said in a letter in today’s Independent; ‘The issue is glaringly well summed up by Lord Smith: “People have the right to believe that homosexuality is somehow wrong…but I do not believe they have the right to put their beliefs into action.” The new regulations are not a law about gay rights at all, but the suppression of non-gay’s rights to lawfully express their beliefs.’
PA
my solution to it all is ...
12.01.2007 15:52
... beyond that I will attempt to engage in debate, non violently resist and finally resist without violence to the person.
If one needs to be violent against lifeforms then more times than not it is a lose lose situation. That depressess me.
It's a complex issue really ... no doubt I have some of it back to front, but then I am an idiot.
Peace to all.
jackslucid
e-mail:
jackslucid@hotmail.com
lawful?
12.01.2007 15:56
This is giving gay people the same rights not to be discriminated against as other marginal groups. Someone's sexual orientation (unless its unlawful in and of itself e.g. Paedophilia) should be no barrier to obtaining a room in a B&B or getting a job
I'm pretty sure the Christian right would also like it if people who weren't married couldn't get a room together or people with more than one sexual partner get a job in a Christian run business etc. etc.
Christians can say all they want that they think its wrong to be homosexual but they shouldn't be able to treat a homosexual in a discrimanatory manner in the ways proscribed by this law.
Pete
e-mail:
Psutton@orange.net
The Thought Police’s anti-discrimination laws cut both ways
13.01.2007 14:31
Why would gays want to work for a homophobic (sic) boss forced by law to employ them, or stay in a guesthouse run by a landlord that simply didn’t want them there?
Surely this new legislation was not needed?
Besides, how does this new legislation effect employers with neo-Nazi members applying for a job? Or a landlord of a guest house with neo-Nazis applying to stay?
Can the BNP demand access to gay pubs and clubs now? Will you be arrested for opposing neo-Nazis teaching kids in schools? If not, why not?
Surely this legislation gives all people the same rights not to be discriminated against as other marginal groups…?
PA
Hyprocrisy
15.01.2007 15:01
Georgie