You've seen the photos with witty captions, that led to the photographers email inboxes being flooded with bible text, now you can see the pictures moving, with sound.
Listen and learn as the Christian Right, who say they don't hate gays, let rip and it all comes flooding out, crucifying themselves for all to see - except to the mainstream media, who seemed intent on making them look a nice bunch of "concerned parents".
Victor Meldrew, Carlton Banks from The Fresh Prince of Bel Air (in a Guantanamo Bay prison uniform) and the lovely Ian Paisley all get to have their say, as police authorise free speech to the Christian Bigots, but move-on the Gay Rights activists.
Sorry, only Right Wingnuts get to shout on this night. Everyone else, you're not on the list, so you're not coming in (out).
Victor Meldrew, Carlton Banks from The Fresh Prince of Bel Air (in a Guantanamo Bay prison uniform) and the lovely Ian Paisley all get to have their say, as police authorise free speech to the Christian Bigots, but move-on the Gay Rights activists.
Sorry, only Right Wingnuts get to shout on this night. Everyone else, you're not on the list, so you're not coming in (out).
e-mail:
Comments
Hide the following 26 comments
this will be hidden soon enough
13.01.2007 20:55
Christians demonstrate = bigotry;
but to state that fact that Iranians hang is verboten ...
sceptic
Christian Bigots v Infuriating Queers
13.01.2007 23:09
(aka Christian traditionalists v gay rights movement)
Why would any gays really want to work for a homophobic boss forced by law to employ them? Or stay in a guesthouse run by a landlord that simply didn’t want them there? Therefore is the new legislation really needed?
Is this so-called moral battle between the traditionalists and the gays in fact a smoke and mirrors trick and the real winners of the new anti-discrimination legislation are the BNP? Surely this legislation gives them the same rights not to be discriminated against, and if so, what are the likely consequences of that?
Concerned Observer
'Infuriating Queers'
14.01.2007 00:11
sceptic
'Homophobia' Christians Should Be Given Respect As Other Phobia
14.01.2007 00:23
All Christians are people right?
Made in the image of God?
Some Christians are scared people?
People scared about homosexuality?
Scared people with their own views and opinons and beliefs who live a life in fear of homosexuality?
So scared people should be made fun of, abused, taunted etc, yet these are the very same qualities which others want to see erradicated, for the opposite side of the fence or different opinion?
Should people who are scared be made fun of because their fears are judged by others to be not real, not genuine, unfounded?
Should real scared people not be given any respect as equal to others that suffer from other types of phobia?
Jesus Christ! May God forgive us all our foolish ways!
Amen
Justpassing
Take three ...
14.01.2007 02:13
Now let's just change two words:
'Why would any coloureds really want to work for a racialist boss forced by law to employ them? Or stay in a guesthouse run by a landlord that simply didn’t want them there? Therefore is the new legislation really needed?'
Remember the sign: 'No Coloureds Here'? [no, probably too young]
Did the Race Relations Act help the BNP or its 60s equivalent? And if it did, should we have not passed the law?
sceptic
good point
14.01.2007 10:12
good point
jackslucid
e-mail:
jackslucid@hotmail.com
Equal Opportunities
14.01.2007 12:04
All nutters have a right to their opinions be that fundamentalists or racists, it's when they feel they can impose their ideology on others we should feel threatend.
Breeder
Beware the Thought Police
14.01.2007 12:44
Jackslucid, I bet you are more than a little confused to find yourself on the same side as the scourge of Indymedia – i.e. sceptic?
The comparison he draws is not comparative at all. Racism in the 60s was a very serious problem. Homophobia today is hardly in the same league, and don’t forget, we already have laws against “homophobia”.
This new legislation goes one step further and takes away the right to even believe that homosexuality is somehow wrong.
Whatever next? A law that takes away the right to believe that adultery is somehow wrong? Or a law that takes away the right to believe that abortion, obesity, pornography, vivisection, eugenics or pre-emptive war is somehow wrong?
The new regulations are not a law about gay rights at all, but the suppression of non-gay’s rights to hold their beliefs. Beliefs that have been around for thousands of years.
Choosing a lifestyle or subculture where homosexuality is seen as somehow wrong has now been outlawed. Yet, providing they don’t harm others, people should have the right to choose what they believe is best for them and their kin. But apparently not any more, the State will dictate what you are allowed to think (see breeders comment!).
CO
only a little suprised actually
14.01.2007 14:23
Quite clearly, I am an opinionated idiot (why else would I be here?). I believe I have good intentions though (see: road to hell) so would be a fool to throw out the possibilities based on personality or association alone.
I think I will have to go away and think more about this subject ... it is possible that there is merit to be had from both sides of this debate ... if when found, this merit allows for greater understanding and convergence from two seemingly dispirit sides, all the better.
peace.
jackslucid
e-mail:
jackslucid@hotmail.com
Notice in hotel window:
14.01.2007 14:55
'No gays here'
So we find one acceptable, and the other not? Please tell me which.
sceptic
NO BNP?
14.01.2007 20:56
I believe you have good intentions Jascklucid, and I believe you are right to think in the way you do. I’m also content with the fact you could see my argument may have at least some merit. Peace and Respect!
Sceptic you muppet, putting a notice in a hotel window is more than just holding a belief, it is putting that belief into action - just as an employer advertising a job would be if he said Homosexuals need not apply. Besides, those things were already illegal.
How about ‘No BNP’?
CO
Concerned Observer and muppets
15.01.2007 09:56
'Or stay in a guesthouse run by a landlord that simply didn’t want them there?'
Now, how is the landlord going to make it known he doesn't want gays there? Well, he could turn them away. Or, to save confrontation, he could put a notice in a window.
How do you suggest he would make it known?
sceptic
Answer:
15.01.2007 13:05
..using the same methods Indymedia use to avoid neo-nazis and other psychos using this site. Or perhaps the same way a landlord would avoid swingers using his guesthouse…
Try and book a reservation for a party of six 18-20 year old men at a guesthouse or campsite and see what happens – 9 out of ten will say NO.
Perhaps we should have a law preventing the discrimination of fat and ugly people from doing promotions work..?
People are discriminated against all the time because of personal prejudices.
Would you allow a 70 year old homosexual man and a 16 year old homosexual boy book a room at a guesthouse owned and run by you? After all there is no law against that. And if not, are you discriminating against their sexuality are the age gap.
CO
'People are discriminated against all the time because of personal prejudices. '
15.01.2007 16:50
'No Coloureds here'!
'No Gays here'!
70 year old man and 16 year old - look, why don't you apply for a job on the Daily Mail? You'd go down a bomb there.
sceptic
Your insincere weasel worded response speaks volumes.
15.01.2007 20:59
Sceptic. Unless you answer the question I will naturally think you have something to hide. So here it is again:
Would you allow a 70 year old homosexual man and a 16 year old homosexual boy book a room at a guesthouse owned and run by you?
A simple yes or no would suffice.
You’re too afraid to answer.
yes.
15.01.2007 22:12
Please do tell me why I shouldn't?
sceptic
16…?
16.01.2007 00:49
Would you have a problem with it if it was your son? What if it was your father?
Sounds as if you have no real moral objection to 15 year olds. If it wasn’t for the law how low would you stoop, 14, 13, 12…?
CO
either a troll, or stupid.
16.01.2007 11:43
Firstly, that is a particularly stupid comment. 'Sounds as if ...' Build your own argument then suggest I support it.
The law lays down certain ages when an act is legal/illegal.
If I served alcohol to an 18 yr old, does that mean I have no moral objection to serving it to 17 yr olds?
If a 70 yr old man and a 16 yr old girl stayed in my hotel, does that mean I have no real moral objection to 70yr old/15 yr old?
My own moral feelings are irrelevant - the law states this is legal/illegal.
By your logic, if I had 'moral objections' to a coloured man and a white woman sharing a room, I would be entitled to turn them away. 'No coloureds here'!
sceptic
Or
16.01.2007 12:07
Hegel
sceptic, we all know you are a stupid troll
16.01.2007 15:49
You said “If a 70 yr old man and a 16 yr old girl stayed in my hotel, does that mean I have no real moral objection to 70yr old/15 yr old?”
Yes, your earlier response: “Yes. Why not? Please do tell me why I shouldn't?” does suggest that from your perspective the age gap is irrelevant. And you imply that as long as something is legal it is moral.
In fact you do say “My own moral feelings are irrelevant - the law states this is legal/illegal”
Therefore, if the law changed to allow 70 year olds to have sex with 14 year old children presumably you would have no problem with that…?
Whereas, I would never let a 70 year old book a room to have sex with a sixteen year old regardless whether they were male or female. Fuck the law. I have to live with the consequences of my action.
You clearly have no moral consciousness!
It therefore appears that I as an atheist have more in common with religious groups, and you have more in common with pimps and paedophiles. And ironically you think you have the right to chastise me…?
Very Concerned Observer
Very Concerned Observer
16.01.2007 18:13
No, it doesn't. YOU are making inferences beyond Sceptic's statements- and doing a right bad job of it too!
.
And what right have you to foist your prejudices on others?
16.01.2007 18:18
Yes, you do what the law says, or you take the consequences. If you don't like the law, campaign against it [the point of the original post]. If you don't like it the law, and break it, be prepared to take the consequences.
You might think a 70 +16 year old to be 'wrong'. What then is 'right'? A 60 +17 yr old? 50 +18? 40 +20? Please do tell us where your prejudices would stop drawing the line.
sceptic
The same right as you!
16.01.2007 20:10
If your own moral feelings are irrelevant, as you say, you will have no problem with 70 year old men having sex with 16 year old boys because that is legal, and it would logically follow that you are oppose 16 year old boys having sex with 15 year old girls because that is illegal.
So the question remains: “If the law changed to allow 70 year olds to have sex with 14 year old children presumably you would have no problem with that…?”
Please do tell us where YOUR prejudices would stop drawing the line…Come on muppet, the scourge of Indymedia, answer my question first.
A simple yes or no will suffice...
VCO
sigh
16.01.2007 20:50
sceptic
sceptic
16.01.2007 21:50
Slash Bee Star Domain
another sigh
16.01.2007 22:51
And apologies: I said 'flaunt' when I meant 'flout'.
sceptic