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?

rod,

what occasion did he ruin please?

I do agree, this guy goes too far, and I would like to see public toilets remain just that, not a gay meeting place.

andy
the Church of England Synod. i have three good friends that i know are homosexual and they also think the guys antics are way too extreme and are having the opposite effect to that which he is trying to achieve. ie people like me will turn against peeps with lifestyles such as his. what goes on behind anyones closed doors is their business imo. we dont want to have it rammed down our throats every day ( if you see what i mean ) LOL

supperrod,

LOL! Unfortunate choice of words there!

Seriously though, I agree with you totally.

I have seen this guy on TV in the past, and he's a nutcase, IMHO.

maybe david icke re-incarnate. honestly dont understand what the guy hopes to achieve by his antics. i assume homosexuals dont choose to be so....ergo no blame can be attached. not my fault i fancy women is it? so WHY does tatchell think its his duty to "out" anyone he fancies ( sorry "wants"). their life, their business. just keep it behind aforementioned closed doors.

There was a hilarious "interview" this morning on Radio 4 with a male hairdresser who had come out as, er, heterosexual. He claimed it did not make him a poorer hairdresser.

lol!

Not LC, surely??

:-)

Reasonable tolerant people.What you frightned of?
I wonder:-(

Odd thread-
Superr-odd in fact

wondered when youd turn up olie

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.