i see the guy has been at it again and ruining a sombre occasion. whilst not remotely homophobic i find the likes of peter tatchell and his tactics obnoxious in the extreme. because he is gay ( yuk, what a bad choice of words ) he thinks his agenda is the only one that counts. give me peeps preferring other of the opposite genital group like dale winton/ kenny everett( rip ) any day. they are what they are and get on with their lives. why the hell cant tatchell just get on with his life? i recall hearing him on radio 2 recently saying it should be ok for homosexuals to "frequent" public toilets. thoughts anyone?

unlike some I PAY to post ,like to get my monies worth, too hot to fish, too hot to garden, markets are boring waiting for Greenspan tomorrow.

I assume that you're referring to Peter Tatchell's "invasion" of some god-bothering occasion & reading a "sermon"? (I don't know the specifics, read about it 2nd hand today).

I think his point might well be made by rephrasing your point: " ... whilst not remotely evangelaphobic i find the likes of evangelical christians and their tactics obnoxious in the extreme. because they are evangelical ( yuk, what a bad choice of life ) they think their agenda is the only one that counts ..."

It seems to me, that if (a) you are a campaigner for gay rights, and (b) some organisation has just capitulated to an outpouring of rampant homephobic bigotry, then this is an entirely appropriate time to complain & protest.

"... they are what they are and get on with their lives ...". Just keep quiet and don't say anything that will upset the servants or frighten the horses? It's the likes of Tatchell who has the guts to go out and be loud and obnoxious and confront the status quo, and shine a light into the ugly, dark corners of society and maybe shame the bigots into civilised behaviour.

I don't like Tatchell much, but I do admire his ability to get his agenda into the public eye, and I do admire his determination to confront the bigots.

One of the problems with the gay agenda is that it has been put around that 1 in 5, 1 in 10 or whatever your choice is, is gay. There is no evidence for this at all. In all studies these figures have been shown to be absurd. The figure that research psychologists, opinion pollsters and other measurers of human behaviour come up with consistently is less than 2%. In fact ther latest research comes up with around 1.1% of the population. It is clearly in the interests of the gay community to have the 10% figure believed. The source of the 10% was the Kinsey Report. The methods use were not statistically sound and did not remove bias and were not a random sample. There are not many other minorities of around 1% who would get such preferential treatment by governments and local left wing looney councils.

Kinsey was also responsible for claiming that 6" was the average lenght of the male member: -

3.75" 0.2%
4.00" 0.3%
4.25" 0.2%
4.50" 1.7%
4.75" 0.8%
5.00" 2.0%
5.25" 4.4%
5.50" 10.7%
5.75" 8.0%
6.00" 23.9%
6.25" 8.8%
6.50" 14.3%
6.75" 5.7%
7.00" 9.5%
7.25" 1.8%
7.50" 2.9%
7.75" 1.0%
8.00" 1.0%
8.25" 0.3%
8.50" 0.3%
8.75" 0.1%
9.00" 0.1

I hadn't realised that there so few of us!

In 2001 Lifestyle condom makers undertook a study in Cancun Mexico of 100 college aged men to determine the average penis length. Each guy was sent to a tent with appropriate material to get him sexually aroused. Then a doctor and four nurses each took the measurement to get a realistic and as close to correct as possible number.

The results were quite surprising with the average penis being 5.7 inches with 75% of guys measuring between 4.5 to 5.5 inches in length! Lifestyle have now bought out a new small sized condom for the 17% of men that are below 4.5 inches, and also for the "younger market".

Haystack: Quite right. About time somebody stood up (er, as it were) for the vast majority of us straights. I thought free democracy was all about the majority holding sway while respecting the rights of minorities.

As for the C of E, it might look more liberal to let the other half of humanity become bishops before gays: ie, a real Jennifer rather than a male whose nickname is (allegedly) "Jennifer".

hey there is a big market there for the 0.1% with a cool 9" in pornography, what`s the world population then 6billion?
that`s six million blokes wandering round with lethal weapons, or put it another way( er no not that way) 1.5m yards of mutton dagger, just as well
its well hidden.

ps that`s 852 miles of the stuff

"... There are not many other minorities of around 1% who would get such preferential treatment ..."

What preferential treatment? All Tatchell's mob are trying to get if equal (not preferential treatment). So property rights for partners, ability to be sergeant-major in the god-squad, and anything else that the majority take for granted. I note also that he criticised the recent changes on recognition of gay couples because it unfairly discriminated against straight non-married couples - and quite right too - the government are still in thrall to the sanctity of marriage zealots.

"...I thought free democracy was all about the majority holding sway while respecting the rights of minorities... "

And how exactly was the demonisation of Canon Jeffrey John "respecting the rights of minorities"?

I think that they do get preferential treatment. The laws of inheritance, the previous tax benefits most of which have gone and the various laws pertaining to married people are there because society, rightly or wrongly, deemed it to be beneficial to society for people to get married. This was was not the least for the benefit of any children of the marriage. Overall society has thought marriage to be 'a good thing'. Now a minority of maybe 1+% comes along and wants the same laws to be applied to them. In most circumstances such a minority would get short shrift from the law makers.

The homosexual lifestyle is very much a minority one. I have nothing against them per se. I don't mind their relationships and nor should I. I don't, however, agree that is is normal and I gnerally think it is an abberation of some sort either physical as in genetic or mental as in a psychological disorder. That is my personal view and I am entitled to it. I would guess that a large number of people also think something very similar. I would venture to say that it would be massively in excess of 1% of the population. You may not agree with that view, but it does not make it incorrect.

The 'demonisation' of a Canon of the C of E is merely the result of the church's view on homosexuals. A view which they are also entitled to as they set the rules. The membership of the clergy is not a public club. It is open to those who apply and agree to abide by the rules of the C of E. He really has nothing to complain about.

"...I thought free democracy was all about the majority holding sway while respecting the rights of minorities... "

I am sure that this is a genuine quote-seen it somewhere before, but what a load of twaddle it is- it`s just weasel words, people have to be grown up about the fact that if a democratic Parliament votes overwhelmingly for something-e.g. a hunt ban- how on earth can they then look after the interests of the minority-i.e. the hunt IS the minority- its junk, and I am pro-hunt.

If the vote of a majority holds sway, how on earth can the minority overturn this vote- is that their right?no they go away and try again later.
Time after time in this country the views of the majority are trodden upon by vocal minorities who should be told to buzz off
You know the trouble in this country - there is no democracy (dic. "a system of government by the WHOLE poulation,)in the US you don`t vote for shadowy figures called " councillors" who will keep up the jobs for the boys culture, you vote for the Firechief by name , the mayor by name , the police chief by name etc.etc.
We have a cobbled together unwritten constitution, handed down and little changed- from the days power was wrested from the hands of Royalty& the Establishment, the latter are omni-present with only a name change.
The tragedy is that those for whom an unwritten Constitution gives succour, are always the ones who trot out the well worn cliche-" its not perfect, but it works"- add the words `it does for us anyway`.
Anyway if the gay guy had been voted in by church goers by a majority vote- he could have said with a clear conscience` up yours`or whatever clerics say in dismissal.

Government has rarely listened to 'the voice of the people'. They do what they want and wrap it up so it is acceptable. Very few people expected the actual tax rises we have had under the current Labour administaration as it was disguised. The majority of the population would bring back hanging. Have we got it back? No we havent't and probably just as well as far as I am concerned. Bringing back hanging would rank as a far more important topic for most people than the banning of hunting. The government say 'we know what's good for you and hanging isn't it'. Tax rises are good for and so is banning hunting and abolishing guns. Of course all the ciminals stopped using guns as they were illegal and now we have a non violent society.

exactly, but as you say its `un-conStitutional`, in the real world not to allow people a vote on hanging for instance- er what `constitUtion`- you can`t win.

compare and contrast: "...Overall society has thought marriage to be 'a good thing'. Now a minority of maybe 1+% comes along and wants the same laws to be applied to them..." from Haystack

and

"... Married couples make up 50.7 per cent of the population of adults (aged 16 and over)..." from the National Statistics Office, http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=299

Seems to me that 49.3% of the country have a vested interest in changing the laws of inheritance, pension rights, taxation and every other thing which is biased in favour of the married. Me for one!

"...The 'demonisation' of a Canon of the C of E is merely the result of the church's view on homosexuals. A view which they are also entitled to as they set the rules. The membership of the clergy is not a public club. It is open to those who apply and agree to abide by the rules of the C of E. He really has nothing to complain about."

Much as golf clubs, social clubs and employers etc did for jews, blacks, Asians, Irish, women and anyone else that weren't the same as them. Just because they're a club doesn't mean it's not bigotry.

None of this is about disadvantaging the majaority, it's about giving the same rights to the minority - you know, unreasonable things like votes for women, property rights for unmarried people, that sort of thing.

I didn't say it was fair that the law worked in favour of married people. I said that society (and for society read successive governments) have thought it was a good thing. I would also have thought that a large number of the 49% not married are planning to get married or have been married and may be widowed. I can't see that tax laws for homosexuals is really the same thing as votes for women and I don't think that banning homosexuals from senior posts in the church is necessarily bigotry. For the church it is a moral question. They believe it to be wrong and against God's teachings. I don't hold that view being an atheist. I see no moral wrong in it, just abberant behaviour. To the members of the Synod, accepting homosexuals is akin to allowing an active criminal to be a bishop. They believe that homosexuals are wrongdoers. It is not a case of bigotry, where they don't like a group of people like Jews or blacks for no apparant reason. They genuinely believe they they are sinners and that is exactly what they are against them as a group.

Much as golf clubs, social clubs and employers etc did for jews, blacks, Asians, Irish, women and anyone else that weren't the same as them. Just because they're a club doesn't mean it's not bigotry.
------------------------------

What if you are part of a minority who can`t afford the cash to join a golf-club, will you get a grant?Will there be vote?,who will pay?
I don`t want to join anyway personally-honest.

What is bigotry and what is not is just fashion, where you are and PC. It doesn't mean a lot. I wonder how many Arabs are members of Israeli golf clubs - not a lot I would guess. It only becomes a problem if you are one of the monorities that has been legislated in favour of. You cannot exclude Jews, Blacks, Scots, Welsh, Women etc. from your club, but you could probably exclude Hells Angels, Skinheads, Psychotics, Paranoid Schizophrenics, very ugly people, smelly people, people with a bad dress sense wearing flaired trousers and kipper ties. If you were Scots and wore a very flowery tie then you might not get in though. I doubt that he wanted to be a member of a golf club anyway.

the point i am making is why should tatchell rain on everbody elses parade? the rest of us dont bang on about being straight or bent......we just DO it in the bedroom.

or in the kitchen, on the stairs, in the wardrobe (oops!).

Haystack:

Oh no, your old wardrobe fetish has come out of the closet.

Haystack:

Oh no, your old wardrobe fetish has come out of the closet.