HAVE YOUR SAY: Marriage helps to make society work (From News Shopper)
Get involved: Send pictures, video, news and views - text NEWS SHOPPER to 80360 or email us
HAVE YOUR SAY: Marriage helps to make society work
2:50pm Friday 27th August 2010 in
PUBLICATION of this letter in the Lewisham and Greenwich editions of News Shopper and award of the Star Letter prize have caused controversy. Read it for yourself and have your say.
YOUR newspaper dropped in our letterbox and I was shocked by the headline Hospital On Sex Website (News Shopper, August 11).
This is meant to be a family newspaper and not some sleazy sex advertiser for the perverted.
Marriage is the thing which makes society work.
This is why we have the holy family of Jesus, Mary and Joseph — to show us man, woman and child is what God asks us to follow.
God gave homosexuals up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonouring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the creator.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions.
Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another.
If we promote anything other than marriage then we shall answer on Judgment Day for it.
Please stop advertising lesbian, gay and bisexual clubs.
You are giving our young teenagers the wrong message and promoting perversity.
Just before you mention equality there is no equality today due to everything being biased towards homosexuality.
Let’s now tell the truth and stop lying to all and sundry.
Letter written by Mrs S Fitzsimons, South Park Crescent, Lewisham
What do you think? Add your comments below.
Comments(126)
HelenWilson
says...
4:23pm Fri 27 Aug 10
Maybe Mrs Fitzsimons should be asking her non existent sky fairies to change the hearts of the men of Lewisham, oh I forgot the christian faith encourages domestic violence.
1 in 10 people are LGBT we have just as much right to advertise as anybody else. If a paper like this one refused then they would be committing a criminal offence.
The homophobic bigotry displayed by Mrs Fitzsimons in the name of her God is her problem not ours (LGBT).
I just hope Mrs Fitzsimons never sleeps in the same house as her husband when she is on her period or wears mixed fibres and eats shell fish. As the these are the other things Leviticus tells her not to do.
steve_se
says...
5:25pm Fri 27 Aug 10
The author is clearly deluded woman, attempting to conceal bile and hatred under a twisted interpretation of the Bible.
Religion is a lifestyle choice, homosexuality is not. Who will Ms Fitzsimon's vent her anger on next? The left handed, the disabled, the blind? After all Leviticus was very clear on the fate of those with imperfect vision.
Nothing in the Bible suggests that Ms Fitzsimon's views would be endorsed by Jesus, or God himself. She could scarecly be less Godly, and it is a confort to me that there will be a place in Hell for charlatans like her
vicki bromley
says...
7:16pm Fri 27 Aug 10
xray72
says...
7:38pm Fri 27 Aug 10
AdamSQG
says...
8:15pm Fri 27 Aug 10
It's people like Mrs. Fitzsimons who give all Christians a bad name. Not everybody who is Christian shares the views that homosexuality is wrong. Unfortunately, I do feel that sometimes, parts of the LGBT community is quick to tar all Christians - and to a certain extent all people who follow a religion -with the same brush.
My friends and family accept me for who I am. I may be gay, but that's not the be-all and end-all. Sometimes, though, people cannot look past one aspect of a person. In some ways, it's like outcasting somebody because they were born with ginger hair, or born with a monobrow. Neither of those things hinder somebody's daily life - nor does being gay.
This is a family newspaper, and I agree that no sexual content should be advertised. However, a LGBT club is not sexual. It's not as if an LGBT club is a place where we all meet up and have sex. Mrs. Fitzsimons appears believe that LGBT people are all sex-obsessed people who are at it like rabbits all the time.
I know some people will probably accuse me of being just as bad as Mrs. Fitzsimons because I am arguing against her views, and because I think her views are wrong. As Steve said, religion is a lifestyle choice. People can choose to follow a religion, or they can choose to be agnostic / athiest. People cannot choose their sexual orientation. I am questioning her choices, and her outdated views.
As for the pen: That all depends on your interpretation of what a star letter is. In some ways, this letter is a star letter - it's sparked a debate, it's created controversy, and it's generated an awful lot of advertising revenue for this website. So in that respect, it is a star letter.
However, rewarding Mrs. Fitzsimons with a pen can be viewed as endorsing her views, and giving such a prominent platform for her bigotry cannot be a good thing for this paper's image and reputation. As I see things, this letter's sparked an unprecedented response. This debate has gone much further than the News Shopper's region. It's gone all around the UK.
BrockleyMum
says...
11:28am Sat 28 Aug 10
CatfordCat
says...
2:01pm Sat 28 Aug 10
Firstly, the story a week or two back about 'cottaging' was not an 'advertisement'. It was a disgraceful piece of so-called journalism that serves no useful purpose other than encouraging queer-bashing.
As others have said, the level of divorce and domestic violence are hardly a great advert for heterosexual marriage. Or will the religious loons try to blame this on the existence of homosexuality? Or on women for not shutting up and accepting the authority of men in all things?
And the "no equality - everything being biased towards homosexuality" - beg pardon?
if by "equality" this writer means "expecting to be at the front of the queue by virtue of being white, heterosexual, able bodied and middle class and expecting everyone else to shut up and accept the left-overs" and "bias" means that there are some attempts genuinely to offer equality, then that strikes me as a good thing.
How many people get attacked, murdered, sacked from jobs or hounded out of their homes for being heterosexual? I suspect very very few...
As for publishing this, I suppose the press has a duty to allow all opinions, even those of loons, to be published.
But making it "star letter"? That does imply a certain degree of approval of the content, or is it merely awarded for neatest handwriting, or something?
As for the defence put forward on Twitter that the NS wouldn't have published a similar rant against ethnic minorities on the grounds that would probably be illegal - you might want to get a new lawyer - "inciting hatred on the ground of sexual orientation" has been an offence in the UK since 2008.
And While I accept that Parkers Pen Shop probably did not have any involvement in choosing the "star letter" I hope they distance themselves from what is increasingly becoming a rancid, homophobic rag of a paper.
And as an Atheist, I'm somewhat ambivalent about the teachings of the Bible, but the writer might like to consider: "Judge not, that ye be not judged." (Matthew 7:1) as well as comments about casting the first stone, and first getting rid of the log in your own eye.
beanie59
says...
3:06pm Sat 28 Aug 10
higgstheboson
says...
5:05pm Sat 28 Aug 10
annam85
says...
7:51am Sun 29 Aug 10
hsmall
says...
2:54pm Sun 29 Aug 10
JamesFashina
says...
6:19pm Sun 29 Aug 10
Can't wait for the this rag to drop through my door next week with some numptie extolling the worth of the Old Testament take on slavery, with a lovely Websters pen as a reward.
How and why Websters haven't torn up any sponsorship contract I just do not understand. They can kiss my business goodbye until they do.
Clearly this newspaper thinks spouting prejudice,hate and lies should be rewarded. I'm surprised they didn't give her a gun rather than a pen.
Tonio
says...
12:39pm Mon 30 Aug 10
susanfitzs
says...
10:29pm Mon 30 Aug 10
These are not my words, they come from The Bible: Leviticus 20 13-14, Romans 1 24-28. This was not an anti gay rant as some suggest but an assertion of the Christian position on the place of human sexuality. According to Christian teaching the only permitted physical expression of sexuality is within marriage. Even then certain other restrictions may apply depending on your particular branch of Christianity. According to the laws of our country a Marriage may only be contracted between a man and a woman. Christianity sees any sexual activity between two people who are not married to each other as wrong. I've not suggested anybody treat gay people any less favourably than anyone else. If you are entitled to disagree with me, and say so publicly without being accused of hate crime then please, in the name of equality, accord me the same privilege.
In reply to Catford Cat - If one says they are atheist - how come next minute we are quoting from The Bible - a bit confused surely!
In reply to beanie59, Bromley - Jesus's teaching is the same, yesterday, to-day and to-morrow, we can not adapt it to suit so called "Modern Times" which in fact is a time of Darkness and lies.
redfragglerock
says...
3:43am Tue 31 Aug 10
susanfitzs wrote:"a time of darkness and lies" - yes, I agree. Selecting parts of book that you claim to live by, for your own purpose, is a disgrace to the book and to the others of your tribe.
In reply to AdamSQG, MANCHESTER, We are Temples of God - see The First Letter of Paul to The Corinthians i.e. 1 Corinthians 6 : Verses 9 - 20 also please read The Letter of Paul to Titus 2.
These are not my words, they come from The Bible: Leviticus 20 13-14, Romans 1 24-28. This was not an anti gay rant as some suggest but an assertion of the Christian position on the place of human sexuality. According to Christian teaching the only permitted physical expression of sexuality is within marriage. Even then certain other restrictions may apply depending on your particular branch of Christianity. According to the laws of our country a Marriage may only be contracted between a man and a woman. Christianity sees any sexual activity between two people who are not married to each other as wrong. I've not suggested anybody treat gay people any less favourably than anyone else. If you are entitled to disagree with me, and say so publicly without being accused of hate crime then please, in the name of equality, accord me the same privilege.
In reply to Catford Cat - If one says they are atheist - how come next minute we are quoting from The Bible - a bit confused surely!
In reply to beanie59, Bromley - Jesus's teaching is the same, yesterday, to-day and to-morrow, we can not adapt it to suit so called "Modern Times" which in fact is a time of Darkness and lies.
How can you discriminate against people based on miss-matched passages and your vague and twisted interpretation, then completely ignore others that require no interpretation at all?
"If however the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death..." Deuteronomy 22:13-21.
Once I see you giving that a go, I will gladly discuss your right to discriminate in these "Modern Times".
SE9,10,18
says...
12:25pm Tue 31 Aug 10
maskedgrappler
says...
2:22pm Tue 31 Aug 10
This cartoon sums up quite clearly why religion is no authority on morals.
http://www.jesusandm
o.net/2008/11/21/thi
nk/
porkpie
says...
3:53pm Tue 31 Aug 10
susanfitzs wrote:You can half write some rubbish.
In reply to AdamSQG, MANCHESTER, We are Temples of God - see The First Letter of Paul to The Corinthians i.e. 1 Corinthians 6 : Verses 9 - 20 also please read The Letter of Paul to Titus 2. These are not my words, they come from The Bible: Leviticus 20 13-14, Romans 1 24-28. This was not an anti gay rant as some suggest but an assertion of the Christian position on the place of human sexuality. According to Christian teaching the only permitted physical expression of sexuality is within marriage. Even then certain other restrictions may apply depending on your particular branch of Christianity. According to the laws of our country a Marriage may only be contracted between a man and a woman. Christianity sees any sexual activity between two people who are not married to each other as wrong. I've not suggested anybody treat gay people any less favourably than anyone else. If you are entitled to disagree with me, and say so publicly without being accused of hate crime then please, in the name of equality, accord me the same privilege. In reply to Catford Cat - If one says they are atheist - how come next minute we are quoting from The Bible - a bit confused surely! In reply to beanie59, Bromley - Jesus's teaching is the same, yesterday, to-day and to-morrow, we can not adapt it to suit so called "Modern Times" which in fact is a time of Darkness and lies.
Gypo
says...
4:29pm Tue 31 Aug 10
AdamSQG
says...
3:03am Wed 1 Sep 10
If - as your backtracking response suggests - your letter was not written with the aim of ostracising homosexuals from mainstream society; why did you bring up the subject of homosexuality several times in your letter?
I believe everybody is entitled to their own opinion. If you think homosexuality is wrong and immoral, that's your point of view. I'm not going to try and change it. It's none of my business. However, you have made it a lot of people's business by writing this letter trying to impose your point of view on other people. I have my own beliefs about the bible. I believe from a literary point of view, it is a very good book and in places, it does have some morals which people should choose to live by. However, times have changed, and we have learned more about the world we live in. The points of view represented in the bible are historical points of view which were based on the information we had at the time.
A lot of the rules in many holy books were practical in the time and place they were written. Eating shellfish, for example. In the middle-east, there is a hot climate, and shellfish would not be able to last long enough in the heat before being able to eat them without becoming potentially lethal. So, by banning shellfish from the diet, people are not put at risk.
My view on why some people interpret the bible to be against homosexual acts is this: There are a lot of sexually transmitted diseases, and cases of STDs can be high amongst the homosexual population compared to the heterosexual population. At the time the bible was written, nobody would know why people endulging in acts of a homosexual nature were falling ill and dying, so in some people's eyes, it was banned.
Whilst I disagree that sex before marriage is wrong, I do believe that as a nation, some of the younger people are far too promiscuous. There is a culture forming where sex is a casual thing. In my opinion, sex is something which is a big deal, and I waited until I found the right person. I have been in a relationship for three years now, we're happy together, and I believe the love between two people - regardless of gender - is far greater than anything written in a book.
If you believe gay people should be treated in the same way as straight people, do you think marriage should be extended to include both same gender and opposite gender unions?
I believe athiests quote from the bible to show where outdated points of view have been pushed to one side and ignored. If you ignore one part of a book teaching you values and a way of life, you should ignore all of it.
I still think the reason for a lot of people's reluctance to accept homosexuality is natural is their lack of understanding. It can be hard for some heterosexual people to understand how anybody can be attracted to somebody of the same gender. It's human nature to fear something we don't understand.
Whilst I completely disagree with nearly everything Mrs. Fitzsimons has both quoted and written, I also disagree with childish insults and slurs being directed at her. Her point of view may be the complete opposite to mine, but there's no need to turn this into a mud-slinging match.
tomtom70
says...
10:57am Wed 1 Sep 10
redfragglerock
says...
1:25pm Wed 1 Sep 10
People did fight wars for freedom - the freedom of humanity, not just bigots like you. If you understood a fraction about love, you would understand the fight was not just for you.
Locked and Loaded
says...
1:45pm Wed 1 Sep 10
What have you got to say about that Mrs Fitz ?
People fought for freedom for ALL, not just you religious hypocrites.
Mr Orange
says...
4:09pm Wed 1 Sep 10
Liam Curran
says...
5:29pm Wed 1 Sep 10
tomtom70
says...
5:22am Thu 2 Sep 10
Here Margaret Smith, a researcher on the report itself, clarifies a few points. Presumably she understands the reports findings more than your average bigoted fact twister
"while research shows that most US victims were teenage boys, that is thought to be because this was the group to which priests had most access. "The vast majority of child abuse both male and female is carried out by men who are heterosexual, and many of whom are married," notes Ms Smith.
She said she had been asked by a bishop whether there was a greater risk of abuse from homosexual candidates for the priesthood entering the seminary today. "I said 'no, our research does not sustain that.'
Just thought this may help Mr Orange actually understand what he had "read" in the report
Mr Orange
says...
11:10am Thu 2 Sep 10
Locked and Loaded
says...
12:34pm Thu 2 Sep 10
There is a difference between a homosexual and a pedophile. Not that I expect a bigoted troll like you to know the difference.
AdrianT
says...
1:23pm Thu 2 Sep 10
But when the evidence overwhelmingly supports one side of an argument, there is no point having a debate about it. We don’t pay serious attention to those who deny Evolution or the Holocaust happened, for instance. It’s the same with homosexuality: there’s an avalanche of peer-reviewed scientific research showing this to be a natural, harmless trait - a means by which a small minority of the population express love.
It’s highly likely that our sexual orientation is hardwired before we are born, by both a combination of genes, and hormone levels in the womb. Homosexuality is found in hundreds of animal species, too, from fruit flies to giraffes.
Still, Mrs. Fitzsimons says she has better information than all the medical and psychological institutions. And in the name of equality, it’s only fair that the same scrutiny is applied to her opinions as any one else’s. Unfortunately, she makes three bold claims, about which she is certain, yet humankind has so far been unable to resolve.
The first is knowing a god exists at all. Despite all the efforts by NASA, CERN, and even great religious thinkers like Thomas Aquinas, nobody has been able to prove this. Today, Stephen Hawkin, renowned physicist, says no god is needed for the Big Bang!
But having magically jumped that hurdle, Mrs Fitz then claims to know which god is busy in our cosmos. Thousands have been believed in, and fought over, through the millennia, yet we are none the wiser. As far as over a billion Muslims are concerned for instance, Mrs Fitzsimons is as destined for hell-fire for her unbelief, as the homosexual targets of her holy wrath.
But these claims pale in comparison to the third, which is to pretend to be on such intimate terms with the mind of god, she even knows his opinion on who we should sleep with, and - no doubt - in which position! What a wonderful, happy, safer world it would be, if everyone accepted that such information is beyond the limits of human brain power. Especially as the same claim is made by those who, in the name of God, fly jet airliners into skyscrapers, deny blood transfusions to dying relatives, or ban contraception in AIDS-ridden Africa.
If god answers her prayers, then why not the many who die of disease, or poverty, or stranded at the top of the World Trade Center, or in death camps like Auschwitz?
(I won’t exclude the possibility that Mrs. Fitzsimons may be right. The standards of evidence would be quite high though, so rather than a personal revelation, I’d look for something like the televised appearance of Jesus Christ at Selhurst Park before I consider changing my wicked ways. Realistically though – and I suspect she might even agree, for all the wrong reasons - a Virgin Birth is as likely.)
Mrs Fitzsimons rests her case on the Bible, but she cannot verify the truth of its contents, the intentions of its authors, or the accuracy of its translators and editors. For St Paul, the wheelbarrow would have been the cutting edge of innovation, but with no understanding of the natural world, he at least had an excuse for his ignorance. Mrs Fitzsimons, living centuries after Galileo, Newton, Darwin and Einstein, does not.
She is welcome to her ridiculous opinions, and so long as the rest of society has the freedom from them, that's fine by me. She doesn't deserve hatred, but plenty of mockery and ridicule, as predicted in Matthew 10:22.
And that is why enlightened minds should politely but firmly dismiss these criticisms, and support everyone, gay or straight, in their search for love, happiness and acceptance. Focusing on what unites, rather than divides us, makes us a stronger community.
porkpie
says...
4:49pm Thu 2 Sep 10
Mr Orange wrote:You need help if you belive that.
Most right minded people can see that a male attacking another male of the same sex is an unhealthy immoral homosexual act. 81% homosexual abuse of children is a disgusting figure for which the gay community should be ashamed!
AdamSQG
says...
4:21am Fri 3 Sep 10
Nobody is proud of child abusers. Nobody is patting them on the back and saying "Well done.". They are disgusting excuses for human beings who should not be allowed freedom in our society. However, the LGBT community shouldn't have to take collective responsibility for a small minority of people. The heterosexual community doesn't take responsibility for their actions. I'd like to see some sources for Mr. Orange's figures too. However, I have a feeling they were plucked out of the air - much like 93% of statistics found on the internet.
There's one word which Mr. Orange and Mrs. Fitzsimons both used - or alluded to - unnatural. Heterosexual desires and acts are completely unnatural and alien to me. One could say that a straight man attracted to female breasts is unnatural - the breasts' primary function is to lactate milk for breast feeding. Their primary function isn't to get some men excited.
There's another misconception that all gay people are sex mad perverts. Not true. Whilst some people have a very high libido, other people have a very low one. You just have to tune into any of these talk shows to see that it's not just gay people who can be at it like rabbits, so to speak.
I don't mind people criticising my way of life, just don't try and judge me for the things I do in private. Yes, if I was doing it in public, then you'd have a case. However, what happens between my boyfriend and I stays in private. Just like the vast majority of relationships - both heterosexual and homosexual.
Getting back to the point of the letter: I believe that by advertising LGBT clubs, this newspaper is sending out the right message. These aren't clubs where we all meet up and have a bit of fun.. they're more like common interest groups. By advertising these clubs, this paper is helping teenagers who are coming to terms with their sexuality know that there is NOTHING wrong with being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered. There is nothing perverse about it, and it is one tiny aspect of somebody's personality. Contrary to some people's belief, most gay people don't shag every male in sight.
Whilst I would never cheat on my boyfriend, I believe that monogamy and marriage are two very modern and very human concepts. No other species have marriage ceremonies, and very few other species are monogamous. Are all these species who mate with different partners every mating season unnatural? Or could it possibly be that marriage and monogamy are two very unnatural things? I could be swayed either way with monogamy, but marriage is definitely a human creation.
Yes, I am biased, but I didn't choose to like other guys. Mrs Fitzsimons chooses to follow a way of life devoted to - in my opinion, and I'm not judging her for following this way of life - an imaginary ruler in the sky.
tomtom70
says...
8:04am Fri 3 Sep 10
Homosexuality is the attraction of a man or woman to a person of the same gender
Pedophilia (or paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 and older) characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children
Might be worth getting your head around these concepts before you pen any more letters. That said, I'm surprised News Shopper hasn't awarded you the star letter prize for this weeks display of ignorance and bigotry
Mervyn58
says...
11:33am Fri 3 Sep 10
Mr Orange
says...
6:31pm Fri 3 Sep 10
Locked and Loaded
says...
8:46pm Fri 3 Sep 10
JamesKent
says...
9:10pm Sat 4 Sep 10
Following this indoctrination I've grown up and studied things for myself and I've reached the conclusion that I don't think God exists other than in our imagination. What's more, I think science gives us a far more credible explanation for the universe - even if it isn't 100% complete.
I'm gay and I also live my life now as a humanist. As a humanist I believe that we can all live good lives without the need of a God. I think it's lazy and dangerous to allow books like The Bible to guide us through life. And I also think it's an insult to our own ability to reason to let ancient texts dictate things like morality. Personally I think the world would be a better place if we all just think for ourselves. For example, I try and live my life forever mindful of the fact that I need to co-exist and live together with the rest of the world happily, and I adjust what I do accordingly. But I'm disappointed that any progress we make in the world towards peace, love and understanding is continually spoiled by the mere presence of religious beliefs like yours.
Naturally, I'm happy for people to have opinions which differ to mine just as long as those beliefs and consequential actions don't interfere with other peoples lives in a negative way. We shouldn't forget, religion has a very long history of unpleasantness so it needs keeping in check.
I find it astounding - almost hilarious at this preoccupation people like you have with homosexuality. I guess if you applied the same level of ferocity to all of the supposed 'sinners' you encounter on a day to day basis - at least we could say you are consistent and fair in your decision to behave so unpleasantly. But as is typical of hardcore of Christian fundamentalists; homosexuality is seemingly the only sin they acknowledge and fight so vigorously to defeat. Forget the Ten Commandments and all other religious imperatives - you're transfixed with gays!
JamesKent
says...
9:29pm Sat 4 Sep 10
In the wider world, statistics show that the majority of child abuse is in fact heterosexual in nature and committed by members of the family. By your methodology child abuse is in fact a straight family problem.
Furthermore how disrespectful of you to say that the mental illness of paedophilia is in anyway connected with a loving homosexual relationship between two consenting adults.
JamesKent
says...
9:35pm Sat 4 Sep 10
Mr Orange wrote:I'd suggest religious fundamentalism is a far greater threat to society.
Homosexuality and paedophilia share a common theme in that they are both a mental illness that undermines the moral values of society. The linkage between the two conditions is illustrated more closely in the Jay report of 2004 that showed 81% of the child abuse in the Catholic church was perpetrated by homosexuals. Some achievement given that the disorder is only attributed to 10% of the population! Given this clear linkage I think we should now be pushing for much greater monitoring of homosexuals in society as we do with paedophiles. Collecting their deatails on the sex offenders register would be a good start!
Richard Dawkings hits the nail on the head....
"I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate. Faith, being belief that isn't based on evidence, is the principal vice of any religion. And who, looking at Northern Ireland or the Middle East, can be confident that the brain virus of faith is not exceedingly dangerous?"
JamesKent
says...
9:11am Sun 5 Sep 10
Mervyn58 wrote:Mervyn, the vast majority of the population who don't worship a god wouldn't share your views re: immoral depravity. And how lazy minded and dangerous of you to ignore your own ability to think and reason and simply take your moral blueprint from a story book hundreds of years old.
well done to Mrs S Fitzsimons - you represent the opinion of thousands of Christians who where subjected to the moralless article living in the boroughs. Re-reading the article was more offensive the second time round - school boy journalism! We want to know the positive things that are going on in the local boroughs - not the immoral depravity. And to think this was good enough "news" to make front page is a gross misjudgement by the editor who should question his/her ability to know what we want to read. This is not just a Christian issue. NewsShopper, I appeal to you to promote good positive values - I'm sure even you could have found some really great news about the QE hospital eg about the volunteers work force, or how stretched the A&E is on a Friday night or about the day in the life of a paramedics. Come on!! No more ****.
The real threat to peace and love in the world is certainly not what two consenting adults do in bed but more like the rise in religious fundamentalism which has proven time and time again to be the biggest challenge the world faces today. I'd try and forget your preoccupation with sex and concentrate on something more important. Why for example don't we see you decrying the Newshopper for printing stories on thieves or killers - according to the bible, these are imperatives, surely?
JamesKent
says...
10:14am Sun 5 Sep 10
Mr Orange
says...
3:42pm Sun 5 Sep 10
JamesKent
says...
5:16pm Sun 5 Sep 10
Mr Orange wrote:Perhaps you'd like to actually try and have a conversation and reply to other peoples messages rather than this continual stream of hatred.
Homosexuality is indeed a mental illness like paedophilia! You might as well say 'why should it not be acceptable for a man to have a loving relationship with a young boy?' Most homosexuals are perverts and I'm sure once they have established rights for homosexuality, Peter Tactchell and his ilk will be campaigning for rights for paedophiles!
For example, it would be more enlightening if you'd explain why - in your ever so strange mind - you think there's a connection between paedophilia and being gay, also why you think 'most homosexuals are perverts'.
Of course, having an opinion, no matter how disagreeable, shouldn’t get someone diagnosed with a mental disorder. However, you seem to have such a pathological hatred for gay people, one could reach the conclusion that you have some kind of issue.
Chris_Garghan
says...
6:21pm Sun 5 Sep 10
If you are looking for Biblical support for the ideal model of the family it should be noted that Mary was a 'young woman' in the Bible when she was pregnant. When we consider that historically the age of pregnancy was, on average, much lower than today for the simple fact that most people could expect to have a life expectancy of about 30-40 years it must mean that she became pregnant in her early-to-mid teens. Would the original author of the letter really endorse teen pregnancy by someone other than the husband as the ideal family unit?
Or perhaps God had Mary give birth in a stable to demonstrate that agricultural births are the ideal way to give birth? Obviously I'm being facetious but I hope you can see the absurdity of emphasising one aspect of 'Christ's Family' above others to make a moral point?
According to Christian faith, God is Love. These men and women in homosexual relationships are expressing their love as their minds and hearts ask them to--to deny them that love is to deny them the very essence of the Christian God.
In the meantime I'm sure you will come down with similar rage against those who have the audacity to wear mixed-fibre clothing despite the clear warning in Leviticus(19:19)
JamesKent
says...
8:51pm Sun 5 Sep 10
I agree, equality is sadly lacking in many areas of life, however the only thing curtailing progress is blind faith. As much as I'd love to live in a world with full equality, love, peace and understanding - the very presence of religious belief shatters all of them dreams. We should not forget, religion has a very very very long history of unpleasantness and it continues on this thread.
Mr Orange
says...
3:05am Mon 6 Sep 10
JamesKent
says...
7:15am Mon 6 Sep 10
Mr Orange wrote:Oh my, you do seem to have a massive preoccupation with sex don't you. I think society would benefit far more by rounding up the Mr Oranges of this world and placing them in secure care. They represent a far greater threat to our children with their religious indoctrination and hatred.
The Catholic church has rightly started using methods to actively screen out homosexuals from joining the priesthood and unsurprisingly has seen a dramatic reduction in cases of paedophilia! Proof if it were ever needed of the link between the illnesses of homosexuality and paedophilia. However as a caring society I think we should do more for homosexuals. We need secure accomodation and treatment centres like those for paedophiles. Mental illness is a sadly neglected area of healthcare system in this country.
Chris_Garghan
says...
1:55pm Mon 6 Sep 10
Mr Orange wrote:Firstly, do you have the source to back up this claim including the methods used, how paedophillia has been and continues to be monitored and the raw numerical data? Without this ,your comment is merely hearsay and conjecture.
The Catholic church has rightly started using methods to actively screen out homosexuals from joining the priesthood and unsurprisingly has seen a dramatic reduction in cases of paedophilia! Proof if it were ever needed of the link between the illnesses of homosexuality and paedophilia. However as a caring society I think we should do more for homosexuals. We need secure accomodation and treatment centres like those for paedophiles. Mental illness is a sadly neglected area of healthcare system in this country.
Secondly, have you ever heard of the fallacy of correlation not being causation?
It may be that if the church is running a screen on any male then the number of paedophiles will decrease, this stands to reason. If you screened men for having red hair then if one in a hundred red haired men were paedophiles then you'll reduce the numbers by one for every hundred you bar from the clergy.
If the screen is searching for sexually highly active males then I would expect the numbers to decrease further, whether the screened were homo/hetero/bi/pan/z
oo/sexual males.
I do, however, agree that we need more treatment for mental illnesses.
Mr Orange
says...
9:04pm Mon 6 Sep 10
Chris_Garghan wrote:There are 5,600 Catholic priests in Great Britain. In 2009 one of these priests was convicted of child abuse, and another priest was cautioned by police.
Mr Orange wrote: The Catholic church has rightly started using methods to actively screen out homosexuals from joining the priesthood and unsurprisingly has seen a dramatic reduction in cases of paedophilia! Proof if it were ever needed of the link between the illnesses of homosexuality and paedophilia. However as a caring society I think we should do more for homosexuals. We need secure accomodation and treatment centres like those for paedophiles. Mental illness is a sadly neglected area of healthcare system in this country.Firstly, do you have the source to back up this claim including the methods used, how paedophillia has been and continues to be monitored and the raw numerical data? Without this ,your comment is merely hearsay and conjecture. Secondly, have you ever heard of the fallacy of correlation not being causation? It may be that if the church is running a screen on any male then the number of paedophiles will decrease, this stands to reason. If you screened men for having red hair then if one in a hundred red haired men were paedophiles then you'll reduce the numbers by one for every hundred you bar from the clergy. If the screen is searching for sexually highly active males then I would expect the numbers to decrease further, whether the screened were homo/hetero/bi/pan/z oo/sexual males. I do, however, agree that we need more treatment for mental illnesses.
Proof it were needed that psycholigical screening out of homosexuals by the Catholic church is an effective method to eliminate paedophilia. Let's hope those mentally ill homosexuals that were rejected recieved treatment!
Chris_Garghan
says...
9:55pm Mon 6 Sep 10
Proof it were needed that psycholigical screening out of homosexuals by the Catholic church is an effective method to eliminate paedophilia. Let's hope those mentally ill homosexuals that were rejected recieved treatment!"
Hardly solid evidence, in the three years between '96 and '99 there were a mere six convictions of priests of child abuse http://news.bbc.co.u
k/1/hi/uk/292536.stm and the screenings, as far as I can tell started to come into effect in roughly 2005.
Not to mention, the screen seems to be a more general test of sexual activity, rather than for homosexuality such as asking people “Do you like ****?” http://www.nytimes.c
om/2010/05/31/nyregi
on/31gay.html which I already explained would lead to an expected reduction in the number of cases of paedophilia, independent of the number of gays excluded.
it is interesting to note the amount of peer-reviewed papers utterly refuting your assertions, for example: La Fontaine, 1990 shows that the majority of paedophile victims are girls; Gebhard et al., 1965 shows that the majority of paedophile offenders were married at the time of their offense
or take this from (Groth and Birnbaum, 1978, pp. 180-181) "There were no peer-oriented homosexual males in our sample who regressed to children. Homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia are not synonymous. In fact, it may be that these two orientations are mutually exclusive, the reason being that the homosexual male is sexually attracted to masculine qualities whereas the heterosexual male is sexually attracted to feminine characteristics, and the sexually immature child's qualities are more feminine than masculine ... It appears, therefore, that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater sexual risk to underage children than does the adult homosexual male."
Your assertions about homosexuals are simply not supported by any concrete evidence or indeed, a simple understanding of adult sexuality.
AdrianT
says...
11:26pm Mon 6 Sep 10
So, unless you have a real reason for having better information than all the experts on this matter, my suggestion is that you buzz off, and find something better to obsess your tiny little mind with.
The argument on sexual orientation has been over for about 50 years now.
It's been explained to you about three times now that paedophilia and homosexuality are different things. Paedophilia is child abuse. Paedophiles go for undeveloped children who are not adults. Gay people are attracted to adults, who are physically well developed. Are you able to understand this, or are you intentionally being a moron?
With your comments above, it is clear you cannot tell the difference between that Austrian psycopath, Fritzl, and for instance two young guys who love each other. (Could you imagine saying that to Fritzl's victims?) That is actually what you are saying. It shows that you are actually the one who needs treatment, and keeping out of the way of children. Seriously, you need help.
Mr Orange
says...
12:38am Wed 8 Sep 10
Researchers say that rising rates of syphilis along HIV among young gay men suggests risky sexual behaviour was to blame
The Guardian, Tuesday 7 September 2010
http://www.guardian.
co.uk/society/2010/s
ep/07/young-gay-men-
hiv-epidemic
Chris_Garghan
says...
9:10am Wed 8 Sep 10
JamesKent
says...
2:00pm Wed 8 Sep 10
Mr Orange wrote:Yet another pronouncement from Mr Orange with no intention of answering anyone's previous points. And what exactly are your statistics there trying to prove?
Young gay men fuelling HIV epidemic, study warns
Researchers say that rising rates of syphilis along HIV among young gay men suggests risky sexual behaviour was to blame
The Guardian, Tuesday 7 September 2010
http://www.guardian.
co.uk/society/2010/s
ep/07/young-gay-men-
hiv-epidemic
Similarly I could throw figures at you to highlight an upwards trend in the number of sexually transmitted infections amongst heterosexuals. I mean look at how many young straight girls have Chlamydia for example. But these kind of statistics don't fit with your homophobic stance do they. And it's pointless having these discussion with you because as soon as your diatribes are countered - you move on to something else.
A more accurate snapshot of sexually transmitted diseases is that infections are rising for all sexual groups not just gays so once again, your selective reporting just to try and justify your clear homophobia, discredits you entirely.
Mr Orange
says...
2:24pm Wed 8 Sep 10
traust
says...
2:52pm Wed 8 Sep 10
In Lewisham I have witnessed an increase in vocalised backward homophobic evangelical attitudes from immigrants originating from Jamaica and some African countries.
I would also be interested to know where Fitzsimons is from.
Chris_Garghan
says...
2:53pm Wed 8 Sep 10
Chris_Garghan
says...
2:53pm Wed 8 Sep 10
traust
says...
3:38pm Wed 8 Sep 10
Secondly, the article does not imply that the problem is because of homosexuality, but implies that the gay community may have been let down in recent years, because the 'safe sex message' has been predominately targeting heterosexuals, due to the substantial rise in syphilis and chlamydia in young heterosexuals.
Reports also suggest that HIV has increased in the UK due to immigration from religious countries such as India and Africa, where HIV is of epidemic proportions.
Religion will not have any impact on STD's, only safe sex education will help.
traust
says...
5:06pm Wed 8 Sep 10
Religion does not make a person good, but does provide an excellent hiding place for the bad.
JamesKent
says...
8:41pm Wed 8 Sep 10
Mr Orange wrote:Once again, selective quoting. What you failed to mention from the very same article is the paragraph "Just under half of all new diagnoses were among men who had sex with men". That's UNDER half Mr Orange. I wonder who the other OVER half could be if they are not the gays? I know the answer but I'm sure you won't acknowledge that.
If a paper as left wing as the Guardian are saying "Young gay men fuelling HIV epidemic" then trust me it must be a major issue!
Mr Orange
says...
10:30pm Wed 8 Sep 10
Mervyn58
says...
10:35am Thu 9 Sep 10
I'm not "lazy minded" as you suggest - you simply dont understand the difference between the Kingdom of God V the Kingdom of this world. Or the Lambs Book of Life V Judgement Day.
Imagine this: An 80m hurdle race - the runners line up, the pistol shoots, the runners run there fastest and in 12 seconds its all over, and we have a winner. But whats this, the judge has disqualified the runner in the first lane because he chose to run outside the hurdles! He argues his case but everyone looks at him in dismay - what is he on!!! This is the meaning of life - follow Gods precepts or be disqualified from the Kingdom of God. Its not a difficult. At the end of the day you can choose to bother to find out if this faith is for real - you have nothing to loose just asking questions. You have everything to loose by not asking questions. And thats your free will.
traust
says...
10:56am Thu 9 Sep 10
Mr Orange has obviously cloaked himself in religion as a cover for all of his own crimes and misdemeanour's. Ancient and modern history show us time and time again, that those who shout their indoctrinated hatred and bile the loudest are too frequently the perpetrators of gross unsavoury criminal acts. This also applies to that awful Fitzsimons woman.
traust
says...
11:58am Thu 9 Sep 10
Biblical ironies:
The bible clearly implies that Jesus preferred the company of other men and showed no sexual interest in women - it is then fair to suggest that Jesus himself was gay!
Jesus only female friend was known to be a prostitute.
Jesus own mother was pregnant by another man. Only a fool would be stupid enough to believe in the 'immaculate conception'. Mary's mother made all that up because the truth would have resulted in her being stoned to death. Mary- a quick thinking and quick witted woman, possibly. Mary - the mother of a child of a non existent deity - absolutely not!
History also shows us that crucifixion was not a punishment ever used by the Romans. In fact outside of the biblical text it never existed!
JamesKent
says...
12:03pm Thu 9 Sep 10
Mervyn58 wrote:Mervyn, just to fill you in... I was raised in an intensely religious household and I was baptised at around 12 years old.
Thank you James Kent for reading my pounds worth! We can disagree til the cows come home as to weather sex in a public venue is "immoral depravity" and if the rest of the nation agrees that it is or isn't. The original issue was that this was considered good press for the front page of a free newspaper that is put through everyones front door in the area. And in my opinion if I thought this kind of **** article was to reoccur, then I would put a notice on my door saying "No junk newspapers - specifically the News Shopper". But as it is I regard the paper highly and consider this a minor hicup by the editor.
I'm not "lazy minded" as you suggest - you simply dont understand the difference between the Kingdom of God V the Kingdom of this world. Or the Lambs Book of Life V Judgement Day.
Imagine this: An 80m hurdle race - the runners line up, the pistol shoots, the runners run there fastest and in 12 seconds its all over, and we have a winner. But whats this, the judge has disqualified the runner in the first lane because he chose to run outside the hurdles! He argues his case but everyone looks at him in dismay - what is he on!!! This is the meaning of life - follow Gods precepts or be disqualified from the Kingdom of God. Its not a difficult. At the end of the day you can choose to bother to find out if this faith is for real - you have nothing to loose just asking questions. You have everything to loose by not asking questions. And thats your free will.
I enjoyed religious education at school and I continued to enjoy theology when I left. I spent a year or so going to regular bible study classes with Jehovah's Witnesses and my interest in faith even took me to Wembley Stadium to see Billy Graham, the famous American Christian evangelist.
These days I still enjoy faith issues - and I really enjoy going to religious debates or talks in London. However, after years of interest and study, I've reached the conclusion that I don't think God exists other than in our imagination. What's more, I think science gives us a far more credible explanation for the universe - even if it isn't 100% complete.
I live my life now as a humanist. As a humanist I believe that we can all live good lives without the need of a God. I think it's lazy and dangerous to allow books like The Bible to guide us through life. And I also think it's an insult to our own ability to reason to let ancient texts dictate things like morality. Personally I think the world would be a better place if we all just think for ourselves.
I try and live my life forever mindful of the fact that I need to co-exist and live together with the rest of the world happily, and I adjust what I do accordingly. But I'm disappointed that any progress we make in the world towards peace, love and understanding is continually spoiled by the mere presence of religious belief - as witnesses first hand on this thread here.
Naturally, I'm happy for people to have beliefs which differ to mine just as long as those beliefs and consequential actions don't interfere with other peoples lives in a negative way. We shouldn't forget, religion has a very long history of unpleasantness so it needs keeping in check.
I agree with you regarding the original News Shopper front page which was more akin to dumbed down tabloid reporting than the higher standard of reporting more characteristic of the News Shopper. I hope this wasn't a sign of things to come. However, the subsequent letter from Mrs Fitzsimons needed addressing not least for that fact that homophobia is a dangerous and unpleasant thing - and the very last people you'd expect to perpetuate this notion that gay people are disgusting and perverted are those who claim to have God on their side.
Mervyn58
says...
12:49pm Thu 9 Sep 10
She does not give a personal disgust but a request that the paper does not promote that which is effectively a lie by contradicting the Bible.
As for homophobia, apart from people disagreeing as to what the word actually means(!!), if a Christian truely follows the teachings of Jesus as setout in the beatitudes, then the hatred of a person because of their sexuality will be far from their thinking or actions. A true Christian will accept everyone for who they are as a human, but will direct them to what the Bible teaches in regard to their life. If your leg or hand causes you to sin, cut it off!! if your eye causes you to sin then gauge it out!! If your PC causes you to sin smash it to smithereens!!
As for the Bible, I admire the faith of the person that believes in evolution from a "big bang". It never fails to suprise me when I look at someones face how complex the head is, what it does etc etc. The eyes, the nose, the ears, the mouth, the brain. Just thinking about any one of these aspects tells me there was a designer. The eye is so complex and it does so much for us - we may understand how it works but how on earth did this evolve? No, it was designed. The carbon cycle - designed or evolved? I can think of many many things which talk of a designer not evolution (my favourite being tropical fish!)- and this is the start of the argument really - is there a designer? if so, who is he? what is his plan? hence the Bible gives God's plan and points us towards Jesus and our free will to choose to follow His teachings or not. I'll say it again, If I'm wrong and you are right then ha-ho! But if I'm right and your wrong ... then the least you can do is double check that you are right.
traust
says...
2:06pm Thu 9 Sep 10
JamesKent
says...
2:08pm Thu 9 Sep 10
On the other hand I'll rest assured I'm a kind and loving person and I live my life via my heart and feelings for fellow human beings - not by instruction from a centuries old book.
As Richard Dawkins said - What has 'theology' ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has 'theology' ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious?
JamesKent
says...
2:13pm Thu 9 Sep 10
I agree entirely.
This sums things up pretty well doesn't it.
I" think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate. Faith, being belief that isn't based on evidence, is the principal vice of any religion. And who, looking at Northern Ireland or the Middle East, can be confident that the brain virus of faith is not exceedingly dangerous? - RICHARD DAWKINGS
traust
says...
3:31pm Thu 9 Sep 10
traust
says...
3:43pm Thu 9 Sep 10
traust
says...
3:44pm Thu 9 Sep 10
traust
says...
3:45pm Thu 9 Sep 10
traust
says...
3:46pm Thu 9 Sep 10
traust
says...
3:47pm Thu 9 Sep 10
traust
says...
3:48pm Thu 9 Sep 10
traust
says...
3:49pm Thu 9 Sep 10
traust
says...
3:51pm Thu 9 Sep 10
traust
says...
3:53pm Thu 9 Sep 10
traust
says...
3:57pm Thu 9 Sep 10
traust
says...
3:58pm Thu 9 Sep 10
traust
says...
5:14pm Thu 9 Sep 10
traust
says...
5:16pm Thu 9 Sep 10
traust
says...
5:17pm Thu 9 Sep 10
traust
says...
5:18pm Thu 9 Sep 10
traust
says...
5:19pm Thu 9 Sep 10
traust
says...
5:19pm Thu 9 Sep 10
traust
says...
5:21pm Thu 9 Sep 10
traust
says...
5:23pm Thu 9 Sep 10
traust
says...
5:24pm Thu 9 Sep 10
traust
says...
5:25pm Thu 9 Sep 10
traust
says...
5:26pm Thu 9 Sep 10
traust
says...
5:29pm Thu 9 Sep 10
traust
says...
10:03am Fri 10 Sep 10
traust
says...
11:36am Fri 10 Sep 10
The Church says the Earth is flat. But I know that it is round. For I have seen the shadow on the Moon. And I have more faith in a shadow than in the Church. --Robert Ingersoll
traust
says...
11:39am Fri 10 Sep 10
A fanatic is someone who cannot change his mind and will not change the subject.—Sir Winston Churchill
traust
says...
11:44am Fri 10 Sep 10
Mervyn58
says...
12:09am Sat 11 Sep 10
I do take it as a compliment to be called a "fanatic"! You on the other hand are a bigot!! and there was you thinking the word was reserved for offending Christians. I hope you are not offended by being refered to as a bigot but the good ole English Dictionary does clearly state "a narrow minded person who is intolerant of other creeds, opinions, races etc". That is you - intolerant of Christians.
So as you can see calling people names has no effect on winning over peoples minds. You cannot debate an issue by insults or simply quoting other people without putting two thoughts together of your own. If you want to debate then debate - otherwise wind your neck back in.
AdamSQG
says...
6:51am Sat 11 Sep 10
Fortunately, I'm not a bigot. I have no problems with people practising any religion, as long as they don't shove it in my face. I'm intolerant of people telling me that my sexual orientation is wrong, it's imorral, it's perverse. I'm not tolerant of people coming up to me in the street telling me that judgement day is soon to be upon us. I'm even more intolerant of people knocking on my door - even though I have a sign (biggest waste of money ever) saying "No religious groups" and still proceeding to tell me that we're all going to die and the sinners will be left on earth.. or something like that.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't wave my thing in your face and tell you that I'm gay, so don't wave your leaflets in my face telling me that I'm going to hell for not being Christian, and heaven forbid, for being a gay man in the 21st Century.
Mervyn58
says...
9:47am Sat 11 Sep 10
I dont like stuff shoved in my face and the only reason I bothered to respond on this website was due to the paper being shoved through my door with a front page article which I didn't agree with. And more so, I did agree with the sentiment of the ladies letter. I wont tell you its wrong to be gay - if you ask what the Bible says I will tell you. And I will do the same for anyone that practices sex outside of marriage IF they ask. I will do the same for anyone doing any "sin".
A freebee newspaper cannot expect its popularity to continue within the Christian community if it continues to offend us. Jesus' approach to telling people the truth was to let them come to Him. He put himself in a place where a crowd would gather to listen to Him. And thats the approach that works.
I "rant" on here because some people choose to make bold statements without backing them up. They choose to throw insults but run from real dialogue. They choose to mock people they dont know and assume we have never considered evolution.
pandyandy
says...
5:40pm Sun 12 Sep 10
@traust: I’m less interested in where Mrs Fitzsimons is from than where her views come from; they’re the same ones you can hear recycled by any number of two-bit religious hate preachers in the fundamentalist churches’ we have littering London these days.
Mervyn58
says...
8:15pm Sun 12 Sep 10
I think your final comment to Traust was a bit unnecessary.
JamesKent
says...
11:29pm Sun 12 Sep 10
JamesKent
says...
11:49pm Sun 12 Sep 10
Mervyn58 wrote:Ah, so 'debauchery' is the sole vice of gay people is it?
Hi PandyAndy, hope you dont mind me butting in your not-so-private dialogue with the good lady! Perfectly reasonable question you are asking there which cannot be answered!! In the contect that she is writing, I am assuming that she would rather the NewsPaper be more socially responsible in promoting "family" and "marriage" rather then promoting debauchery in a cheap attempt at humour. It still troubles me what on earth the editor was thinking in printing the original letter upon the front cover.
I think your final comment to Traust was a bit unnecessary.
What of all the failed heterosexual marriages (we're told around 50% end in disaster)? One feels this isn't such a wonderful institution to promote after all.
JamesKent
says...
11:54pm Sun 12 Sep 10
The posts in question have been deleted and no sign of Mr Orange.
These people really do foolishly think that 'what they believe' trumps secular law.
c6h12o6
says...
9:52am Mon 13 Sep 10
I also think some gay people just look for every reason to be offended by any remarks. The opening poster is from Manchester? Do people go looking for these sort of articles just to say "look at me, i'm gay, i'm so offended".
For the record, i'm gay, and i couldnt give 2 monkeys what Mrs Fitzsimmons thinks.
There is no need to start attacking religion either, i know many religious people who are gay-friendly. The majority couldnt care less.
Mervyn58
says...
11:25am Mon 13 Sep 10
Failed marriages in the UK are a product of the liberalisation of the ethics of this country. Every rule or law that is the foundation of the success of the country is being undermined hence it is destined to crumble.
Going back to AdrianT's comments above, are you saying that just because mr Hawkins says there is no god that you have to belive that because he is 100% right? Work it out for yourself! We exist only because there is a God. Is seems there are millions of coincidence that needed to occur for us to get to where we are today IF there was a big bang. Every planet on our solar system defies the idea of a big bang - and what made this big bang? nothing plus nothing equals nothing!! 0+0=0 its not that difficult. If the planet was closer to the sun we would fry - if it was further away we would freeze. If the moon was closer then our tides would wipe out most of the habitable surface of the planet. If we had no carbon cycle we would all be dead. Watch the David Attenborough documentaries and tell me these beautiful creatures are all a product of a big bang - they have design - they are pleasing to the eye. They are not here evolving from zero. There is a designer!
Lets look at humour - another great product of the Big Bang. The mind conceives a though, it passes the thought to the mouth, the mouth speaks it and sounds are made, the sounds travel through the atmosphere, the sounds go into another persons ears, the brain interpretes what it has heard and then sends signals to the mouth to smile, and sometimes the eyes to cry. This is designed - not an evolution. (having said that I do think Traust's humour is a product of the Big Bang!!), but PandyAndys humour is a product of a designer. AdrianTs humour is 50:50 but mine is definately a product of a designer!! (please dont be offended Traust - you may well be a funny person).
If you want some homework to do, study H20 or salt and work out where we would be without these and what a wonderful creation these are. These are not products of evolution - they were designed.
JamesKent
says...
1:55pm Mon 13 Sep 10
c6h12o6 wrote:The overwhelming majority of homophobia stems from faith. People just wouldn't have these views about gays being an abomination if they weren't perpetuated by all the main faith groups. I therefore feel it's essential to question other peoples beliefs when they affect us all - often is such a negative light.
First off i'd like to say everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Mrs Fitzsimmons has probably been brought up with her views and it would be very hard for someone who is religious and brought up with these values to change them. You have to remember, it was not so long ago that homosexuals were accepted in most of todays society.
I also think some gay people just look for every reason to be offended by any remarks. The opening poster is from Manchester? Do people go looking for these sort of articles just to say "look at me, i'm gay, i'm so offended".
For the record, i'm gay, and i couldnt give 2 monkeys what Mrs Fitzsimmons thinks.
There is no need to start attacking religion either, i know many religious people who are gay-friendly. The majority couldnt care less.
I also know many religious people who are not only gay friendly but are also gay. But I'm afraid they are the minority. When the head of the catholic church - one of the most respected people in the world today, describe us as being disordered then we do have a probelm we can't ignore.
I do care very much what people like Fitzsimmons say when it's so filled with hate and nastiness. Furthermore, young vulnerable people read this paper and could take the view that this lady represents Christianity - with her homophobia and bile. This could have sparked yet more homophobia is our up and coming generations.
JamesKent
says...
2:16pm Mon 13 Sep 10
Not at all.
It's not something I'd want to do, but on the grand scale of things it's way down low on my list of things to get worked up about.
Bigoted, religious cranks are far more dangerous to the stability of world peace than a few consenting adults having sex in a toilet.
And just for your information, this kind of thing happens with heterosexuals as well. You'll find plenty of men who have have sex with woman in nightclubs, parks, car-parks etc - it's not exclusive to the gay couples.
traust
says...
3:36pm Mon 13 Sep 10
pandyandy wrote:pandyandy, In Lewisham in particular it seems that a fundamental homophobic attitude has become ingrained within a religious immigrant sub culture. Christian Evangelism is a negative hateful cult with strong routes in Africa, Jamaica and the southern states of America. I am unfortunate now to have one of these fundamental evangelical churches down the road from where I live and they frequently stand along the street during evening rush hour peddling their hate messages. They have a tactic; they stand in pairs all the way up the street - each pair approx 20 feet or so apart - they stand almost obstructing the path so that you cannot easily walk through or around them and preach their foul rhetoric. On two separate occasions I have actually been grabbed on the arm by them because I said "No, thank you" and tried to walk by.They were attempting to turn me around so that they could engage me.
Will the elusive Mrs F substantiate her notion that ‘Marriage is the thing which makes society work’ – in what way? What percentage of people need be married before society doesn’t work? And how would we measure that society isn’t working? Is it not working now? Would she say there was a time (presumably before LGBTs were ‘invented’) when it worked perfectly and it has all gone downhill since then?
@traust: I’m less interested in where Mrs Fitzsimons is from than where her views come from; they’re the same ones you can hear recycled by any number of two-bit religious hate preachers in the fundamentalist churches’ we have littering London these days.
traust
says...
4:05pm Mon 13 Sep 10
Mervyn58 wrote:Mervyn58, There is no evidence that marriage is better for society. Being married does not make you less likely to be a violent criminal, bank robber, mugger, drug addict, alcoholic, rapist, shop lifter, binge drinker, lazy parent, unemployed etc. The decline of marriage has no negative repercussions for society. Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with religion, humans were doing this for thousands of years before christianity decimated the world.
Hi James Kent, I thought you didn't have time for me! "debauchery" isn't a word I use lightly - it is referring specifically to the article on the front page of the News Shopper - NOT homeosexuals in general. Do you think cottaging is or is not debauchery?
Failed marriages in the UK are a product of the liberalisation of the ethics of this country. Every rule or law that is the foundation of the success of the country is being undermined hence it is destined to crumble.
Going back to AdrianT's comments above, are you saying that just because mr Hawkins says there is no god that you have to belive that because he is 100% right? Work it out for yourself! We exist only because there is a God. Is seems there are millions of coincidence that needed to occur for us to get to where we are today IF there was a big bang. Every planet on our solar system defies the idea of a big bang - and what made this big bang? nothing plus nothing equals nothing!! 0+0=0 its not that difficult. If the planet was closer to the sun we would fry - if it was further away we would freeze. If the moon was closer then our tides would wipe out most of the habitable surface of the planet. If we had no carbon cycle we would all be dead. Watch the David Attenborough documentaries and tell me these beautiful creatures are all a product of a big bang - they have design - they are pleasing to the eye. They are not here evolving from zero. There is a designer!
Lets look at humour - another great product of the Big Bang. The mind conceives a though, it passes the thought to the mouth, the mouth speaks it and sounds are made, the sounds travel through the atmosphere, the sounds go into another persons ears, the brain interpretes what it has heard and then sends signals to the mouth to smile, and sometimes the eyes to cry. This is designed - not an evolution. (having said that I do think Traust's humour is a product of the Big Bang!!), but PandyAndys humour is a product of a designer. AdrianTs humour is 50:50 but mine is definately a product of a designer!! (please dont be offended Traust - you may well be a funny person).
If you want some homework to do, study H20 or salt and work out where we would be without these and what a wonderful creation these are. These are not products of evolution - they were designed.
Mervyn58 your design theory examples proffer no evidence of a designer. However, all can be explained through science and evolutionary theories.
Mervyn, it appears that you are hanging onto some very desperate theological theories there. There is not and never has been a shred of evidence to even suggest the existence of a god let alone prove it. Islam and christianity must be the oldest game of Chinese whispers in the world.
Mervyn58
says...
4:48pm Mon 13 Sep 10
Mervyn58
says...
4:58pm Mon 13 Sep 10
I agree with everything you said except I consider cottaging IS debauchery. I'm not questioning about what sexual immorality hetrosexuals do - I'm simply asking you if you thought the original front page article was appropriate for a newpaper that is pushed through our front doors.
Do you think cottaging is debauchery?
JamesKent
says...
11:01am Tue 14 Sep 10
Mervyn58 wrote:Do you think cottaging is debauchery?
Hi James Kent, at 2:16 - you dont need to justify your answer - oh you didn't!!
I agree with everything you said except I consider cottaging IS debauchery. I'm not questioning about what sexual immorality hetrosexuals do - I'm simply asking you if you thought the original front page article was appropriate for a newpaper that is pushed through our front doors.
Do you think cottaging is debauchery?
I already answered that.
My answer was no. Whilst it's not something I'd ever want to do, what other consenting adults do doesn't concern me.
What two consenting adults do together is very low down on my list of things to get worked up about. I'd suggest religious bigots are far more dangerous and a threat to peace and love in the world and their bile is far more harmful to our up and coming generations than love and sex can ever be.
However, I suggest the editor was ill-advised to cover that on the front page - if at all.
JamesKent
says...
11:16am Tue 14 Sep 10
Mervyn58 wrote:You don't need me to justify what I say. There’s a wealth of scientific information and observation available – including our very own ability to reason – which brings most of us to the conclusion that God doesn’t exist outside of peoples minds.
Hi James Kent, at 2:16 - you dont need to justify your answer - oh you didn't!!
I agree with everything you said except I consider cottaging IS debauchery. I'm not questioning about what sexual immorality hetrosexuals do - I'm simply asking you if you thought the original front page article was appropriate for a newpaper that is pushed through our front doors.
Do you think cottaging is debauchery?
Theists like you on the other hand don’t think their faith is questionable at all because ‘it just is’, according to them. I therefore find your comments asking me to justify what I say as staggeringly arrogant – especially bearing in mind someone seemingly so interested in how we got here seems to have bypassed all the great work these scientists have been doing.
However, I'm not here to convert anyone to atheism: you believe what you want to believe. I'm here primarily in response to an unpleasant and hateful letter and I would have been here to comment on it if it had be written by anyone. See, I'm keen to see peace and love in the world and that involves not being discriminatory. Mrs Fitz on the other hand was nasty and bigoted: I'm sure she wasn't born like that, it a lifestyle she's chosen herself.
JamesKent
says...
12:54pm Tue 14 Sep 10
I'd particularly like to hear about your assertion that 'marriage is the thing which makes society work' because I'd suggest it's actually love that makes society work Mrs Fitzsimons - something which is sadly lacking in your diatribe of unpleasantness.
JamesKent
says...
1:04pm Tue 14 Sep 10
Mervyn58 wrote:The audacity! The sheer arrogance!
Hi Traust, I still want to hear your personal version of the big bang theory and evolution with a time line (not a cut-n-paste from someone elses website). Is it that clear in your mind? Does it all really add up? Is there absolutely no chance there was a designer involved? I had your view once and after much personal research I concluded I was wrong. Dont just agree with Hawkins & Co. - double check for yourself (and I'll pray for you - ONLY JOKING!!)
You live your life solely via a book written thousands of years ago and you have the cheek to suggest that the wealth of scientific information and study is questionable!
Mervyn58
says...
2:09pm Tue 14 Sep 10
JamesKent
says...
3:27pm Tue 14 Sep 10
Mervyn58 wrote:Like many other Christians, you seem to ignore the religious and moral imperatives and you cling very hard to a little tiny bit of Leviticus until your fingertips no doubt bleed.
"The audacity! the sheer arrogance!" - nice one James Kent!! Come on, am I not allowed to encourage the gray-matter into a debate? Is it acceptable to sit back on someone elses argument? Maybe you can signpost me to some solid scientific evidence. This 2000 year old book is followed by over 2 billion people today - maybe we are all wrong!! Not sure if being referred to as a "theist" is a compliment or not - I'll have to look that one up. But I do question everything in the Bible especially bits lost in translation. But ther is a wealth of non-biblical documentation that backs up historical timelines in the Bible. Its not a book of fantasy as Traust would suggest - it has credibility. I really really want to see and read some solid evidence that proves without a doubt that we exist because of a "Big Bang" which did not involve God. I do hope you dont take anything I say as "diatribe" - I'm trying to give reason, have a debate - be light-hearted at times and challenge anyone that reads the dialogue to question their belief.
I doubt Mrs Fitz has ever written to a paper before decrying a murder story, a theft or a divorce. It's always sex which gets you peoples knickers in a twist.
As I say, I've studied the bible. My history is that I was raised in an intensely religious household and I was baptised at around 12 years old.
I enjoyed religious education at school and I continued to enjoy theology when I left. I spent a year or so going to regular bible study classes with Jehovah's Witnesses in Orpington and my interest in faith even took me to Wembley Stadium to see Billy Graham, the famous American Christian evangelist.
These days I still enjoy faith issues - and I really enjoy going to religious debates or talks in London. However, after years of interest and study, I've reached the conclusion that I don't think God exists other than in our imagination.
Can you say you've studied science in the same light. And are you willing to read compelling rebuffs to some of your statements?
For example you could start by buying a copy of this book.
http://www.amazon.co
m/What-Bible-Really-
About-Homosexuality/
dp/188636009X
Mervyn58
says...
7:41pm Tue 14 Sep 10
Lets discuss evolution and the big bang - in your own words. If I'm persuaded there is no god then I'll leave you alone!!!!!!!!
Levitical law is an interesting study - God does say that the act is "detestable" 18:22 as you are well aware and this is endorsed in 1 Cor 6:9. BUT both are reference to believers - to Jews and then to Christians. Read above - my argument is not regarding your sexuality - its about the promotion of debauchery on the front cover of a free news paper of which I have a right to disagree with. My agreement is with the sentiment of the so called "offensive" letter which gets interpretted to your own advantage. And my dialogue with yourself is to conclude Big-Bang V Designer. Your last text explains how you have studied God and conclude he doesn't exist and I assume you came to that conclusion because you read the book you suggest I read. Two different matters? You cannot conclude God doesn't exist because you think He doesn't like you because you are homosexual. Not the God I know.
JamesKent
says...
11:46pm Tue 14 Sep 10
Since I have no desire to try and convert you to atheism and I'm happy for you to believe what you want to believe at how we got here, maybe we can stick to the point of this thread. Consider it conversation management to avoid muddle, as opposed to sidestepping.
JamesKent
says...
11:50pm Tue 14 Sep 10
pandyandy
says...
5:11pm Thu 16 Sep 10
Mervyn58
says...
11:10pm Thu 16 Sep 10
Mervyn58
says...
9:47am Fri 17 Sep 10
Your arguments for the abandonment of Christianity is flawed! There are more athiest criminals in prison then Christians in prison - so to abandon athiesm would make the world a safer place!!!
More News stories
- Eleven in court over Valentine’s Day immigration protest
- No charges yet in Lewisham brothel murder
- Murder accused high on crack during frenzied attack, court hears
- Stabbed Lewisham Sainsbury's security guard released from hospital
- Murder accused feared she was the last person to see pensioner alive, jury hears
- Ladywell gypsy and traveller site rejected by mayor
- Domino's Honor Oak appeal panned by planning inspector
- No Sydenham International Music Festival this year
- Hunt on for London elections teens
- Families 'on the brink of poverty', survey says
Most popular
When news happens – email newsdesk, call 01689 885703 or text keyword NEWS SHOPPER along with your news, pictures and videos to 80360.
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
AdamSQG says...
3:22pm Fri 27 Aug 10
I am very shocked by your letter. It surprises me how closed minded you are.
It was my belief that Christianity teaches acceptance, and that God will judge people. Surely, by making homophobic comments like you are doing here, you are judging homosexual people.
I am gay. I didn't choose to be gay. I didn't wake up one morning and think "I'm not going to like girls, I'm going to like guys."; I didn't think "I'm going to make myself as different as possible.". No, I realised over time that I wasn't like everybody else, and had urges and desires which felt completely natural to me.
By stating that homosexuality is unnatural, you are implying that homosexuality is a choice. I can categorically state that in the majority of cases, people do not choose to be homosexual. Who would choose to be gay in a society which still has so many homophobic undertones?
You talk about equality, and claim that everything is biased towards homosexuality. I dispute that claim. There has been progress towards equality for homosexuality, but there is still a long way to go. There are still people who go out and attack people just because they're gay. How is that different to someone attacking another person because they're a different race? People cannot choose their race, and people cannot choose their sexual orientation.
I believe that schools still do touch upon the subject of homosexuality, or if they do, it's only very briefly. I would like to see a system where people are told it's okay to be gay, and where acceptance is given from a young age. I've been there, I've been in a place where I was struggling to accept who I am, I've had to struggle with being a social outcast in some instances, but I am a better person for it.
Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it wrong. I don't understand any form of religion. I don't believe in worshipping anyone or anything. I believe that the human race has evolved over millions of years, and that we are all here by chance. But, I don't judge people who believe in their holy book. Why? Because I believe everybody has a right to live a happy life, and if religion makes somebody happy, then I should not do anything to stop them practising something they enjoy.
Adam, 19, Manchester.