The sadness is that I doubt the populace will actually read this even though they need to both here and in the UK.

This indicment of Western society is the more chilling in that it is not dramatised in any way and is true.

Everything we hold Dear is on the brink and we ignore this at our peril.

Thank you Meklanie for an excellent article.
Mike NZ

Absolutely bang on, Melanie. One issue for you to explore further is where are our Parliamentarians in all this?

Where are the libertarians at Westminster, why are they not actually doing something to defend the allegedly intrinsic rights of free speech and association that are supposedly the birth rights of the British?

Why, to put it bluntly, is the Tory party so gutless when it comes to making the proactive case against the hideous new world of surveillance cameras, prejudice police and needless, useless identity cards?

Don't look to the Tory Party for help on this issue. The "modernising" wing of the Tory Party (Portillo, Bercow, Maude et al) has shown itself only too willing to endorse the authoritarian excesses of the politically correct.

As for the judiciary, don't count on them either. This country was a Protestant police state for the best part of three centuries and many of the most learned judges in the land were only too happy to operate the apparatus of repression.

David
____________________

I'm waiting David!

Let's roll the victimology carpet out.

Come on!

And the incorporation of the word 'phobia' initially by the homosexuals in 'homophobia' suggests subliminally that their opponents are mentally ill, thus undermining the very basis of an informed case being made by opponents of their lifestyle or their part in the destruction of society.

I found most of Melanie's article to be quite confused: jumping from one example from the gay rights "lobby" to one from the ethnic minority "lobby" to an attack on anti-globalisation protesters.

She hit the nail on the head at one point, however:

"The crux of the current confusion is the meaning of the word ‘prejudice’. Criticisms based on facts or evidence are not prejudice. Real prejudice is dislike of people based on beliefs that are irrational or untrue."

Absolutely correct. There is no facts or evidence that supports dislike or hatred towards homosexuals or homosexuality. It is indeed prejudice.

Many thanks for this article Melanie, most of which I would agree with.

I wonder if R K-S should have quoted chapter and verse, to support his remarks:

In the Quran, Yusuf Ali's translation, Sura 5:33 states:

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter."

Presumably anyone could be regarded as warring against Allah, if he/she believes the statement "God was manifest in the flesh" 1 Timothy 3:16a. Certainly no muslim believes that and therefore such a belief can only be "mischief through the land".

Melanie,

It would be wonderful to read an article from you one day about the many victims of lack of freedom of expression in totalitarian regimes rather than one in which you highlight two high-profile media 'victims'....

David,

I couldn't agree more. Though I would hardly say they were "high-profile". On the whole, the story of them being "victims" isn't carried anywhere apart from the rabidly right-wing, rent-a-mob press.

Thankfully.

Beef

Beef,

Yes...incredible how, although Melanie disdains the use of victimhood she is very quick to apply it to two people who are certainly not my idea of victims in any sense of the word except in the strange world of the tabloids. I guess this is about the tabloid journalist 'class' (for want of a better word) protecting it's own and protecting its (vigorously used) freedom of expression....I guess this vicarious sense of victimhood appeals to some of the readership (particularly a certain kind of man in relation to 'gay lifestyles' - you know the types...golfers exclaiming at the 19th Hole, over G&Ts..."We're being taken over by damned buggers!"...and then, "Of course, you can't SAY that anymore!" (having just said it loudly)....;-)

Frisbee!!

Where have you been? Me? A victim? Never!

BTW, I've missed your dulcet tones (now I must be some kind of a pervert to say that...)

It has been reported that BBC1's ratings went up when they replaced Robert Kilroy-Silk's show with alternative programmes. His fate is sealed.

The manner of his departure ensures that he will never be short of work as a controversial, principled commentator. Should his income from the Daily Express prove inadequate, he can always supplement it by becoming the political commentator for the other titles in the Express stable - Nude Readers' Wives, Asian Babes, Horny Housewives, and Bouncy Over-Forties.

Reading the posts on this and other threads we stumble again and again over issues that ought to concern us all as members of our society in the UK being hijacked by some who persist in seeing them as battlefields for the advancement of special interests. With the collapse of a single community based upon a common set of values working for collective benefit we are left with a scramble of single-issue groups using victimhood to draw attention to their own claims.

Alas, they have been very successful at it and have seized the reins of power and are using them to persecute the wider community to demand 'respect' and all the other elements that the narcissistic and inadequate need to prove to themselves that they really are at least as good as (but preferably better than) other people, regardless of the cost to the wider interest.

I suspect that the silent majority just wishes that they would all shut up. Insofar as there have been valid grievances these have been more than rectified.

Let's have no more 'what about me' breast-beating and get back to the core issue of how to repair the fractures in our society before they become terminal.

Michael,

But there is no turning back the clock...and, remember, it was Mrs Thatcher who declared that there is no such thing as society...

Prejudice is, indeed, an ugly human characteristic but I defy any government to eliminate it from the human psyche. It would be a vain effort to attempt to make it unlawful; better to retain what has always been the case: deal with the unlawful manifestations.

"lifestyle groups that transgress western moral norms"

Is this code for homosexuals? If so, the choice of words doesn't suit the argument very well.

Western moral norms used to make a woman her husband's chattel. An Englishman could rape his wife, with legal impunity, until only 13 years ago.

Norms change. Thank God.

I guess it is time for laws and criticism of pedophilia and bestiality to be banned. After all, “there is no turning back the clock.”

Hq,

"I guess it is time for laws and criticism of pedophilia and bestiality to be banned. After all, “there is no turning back the clock.”"

No, I wouldn't agree with you there. Paedophilia is fortunately an illegal activity and incitement to commit a crime is also illegal. "There is no turning back the clock" means "it is never possible for any society to return exactly to a previous stage of socio-economic development"...It is not the same as saying "the future trajectory of a society will be just a further development of its recent socio-economic trends" as you seem to infer

If Kilroy had made similar comments about Jews it is certain that he would have been sacked. Also, I sincerely doubt whether Melanie Phillips would have been defending his right to say these things and lamenting the demise of free speech.

The BBC, as a publicly-owned broadcaster, surely has a responsibility not to promote outright hatred towards any group. After all, everyone is forced to fund the BBC whether they want to or not. I would defend the right of Kilroy to make comments like these in a privately run forum. No-one is stopping him from saying what he wants, only from using public funds in order to promote his views.

Nick,

Just for the sake of accuracy - he actually made them in his column in The Express and not on the BBC.

The UK's Press Complaints Commission (Article 13 i) - states that: "the press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to a person's race, colour, religion, sex or sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability"

Clearly some journalists working for the UK press appear to have 'forgotten' about Article 13 i.

Perhaps it is time for someone to remind particular journalists ...by issuing a complaint.

An excellent analysis of the creeping cancer of the PC world. Strangely by using the fact that PC exists now also by implication makes one prejudice irrespective of the topic if it involves minorities. The truth may well 'be out there' but it is becoming more and more difficult to tell it.

Michael, it's quite untrue to state that the valid grievances of minorities have been "more than rectified". As far as the gay community is concerned, yes, we've come a long way towards fair and equal treatment, but we're not quite there yet!

Kilroy-Silk had an anodyne programme and wrote an article in the Express worthy of a low-grade GCSE pupil.....I read it...it was crude, and probably fitted in well with the mood after 9/11....but like most of those mood articles it did not merit repetition.

IT is hardly worth getting upset about, and I don't think Abu Hamza will lose any sleep over it, nor will he lose his hook. The BBC says much worse stuff about Americans, Christians, Whites and even Jack Straw has been known to engage in raciial slurs against the English, so much as I should like Jack Straw and his buddy Trevor Phillips - the NUS Duo - fired - I don't think it will happen.

Anyone recall Denis Healey telling the Labour Left they were "out of their tiny Chinese minds "?

Romulus,

Good points. He exercised his freedom of expression. BBC over-reacted (for reasons possibly other than PC agenda). He is not a victim of thought police. The whole thing has been blown out of proportion by the usual suspects. End of story, surely...

David

"The UK's Press Complaints Commission (Article 13 i) - states that: "the press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to a person's race, colour, religion, sex or sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability"

Just what does the phrase "sexual orientation" mean? Running around in the woods using your dick as a compass? There are two genders, male and female. 'Sexual' congress implies congress between members of opposite sexes. Any other form of copulation is, to the vast majority of male and female members of the human race,inconceivable at it's best and depraved at it's worst. And certainly not sexual. The word homosexuality is an oxymoron and (as Reuben suggested, David) "normal homosexuality" is the oxymoron of all oxymorons. What those who are confused about their gender would like, no doubt, is for the vast majority to accept depravity as a 'life style'. Freedom of expression demands that the vast majority is entitled to refute that suggestion, politely or otherwise. So 'politically correct' passages in non-enforceable media regulatory 'suggestions' are neither here nor there, it seems to me. And Sections 12 and 13 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 still apply, even though they have been (pardon the expression) buggered about a bit.

John J,

"As far as the gay community is concerned, yes, we've come a long way towards fair and equal treatment, but we're not quite there yet!"

No member of an interest group is a reliable judge as to whether 'we are quite there' or not. That is a responsibility for the wider community. It is precisely because that wider community has been frustrated (read bamboozled and threatened) from carrying out its proper function that we find ourselves in today's unhappy and angry state.

The fact is that whether individually or in small groups we are bound to be - and should be - short of our aspirations if we are to be part of a larger community. One word (tax) sums it up. There is a common good that overrides selfish desires.

Frank, Michael,

You complain about the consequences of democracy!...I know it's burdensome living in a democracy in which there are constantly a range of different interests and views being expressed and promoted - and inevitably there is sometimes a little conflict - but that is democracy, chaps.

Please stop whining about it - if someone or something was directly interefering with your rights I would understand it...but, they aren't are they?

David, But they are! Democracy is commonly taken to be the majority deciding, but the whole thrust of the past decade or more is that the wishes of the majority have been subverted by the demands of minorities. The rights of the majority need to be vigorously asserted.

Frank,

"Running around in the woods using your dick as a compass?"

Personally, I've never tried that. Have you, as it is you who mentions it It sounds risky...particularly if you fell over ;-)

"Any other form of copulation is, to the vast majority of male and female members of the human race,inconceivable at it's best and depraved at it's worst".

I have no idea what people think about sex...it can all seem a little absurd at times, Frank...try to imagine yourself explaining sexual intercourse to a martian.

"Freedom of expression demands that the vast majority is entitled to refute that suggestion, politely or otherwise".

I agree! Don't infer that I don't...

"So 'politically correct' passages in non-enforceable media regulatory 'suggestions' are neither here nor there, it seems to me".

Professional codes of conduct exist for many organisations, trade associations, interest groups, etc etc. This one relating to the press is in existence partially to ensure that people in the press exercise some type of professional responsibility and du not unduly smear individuals in particular with unfounded lies or innuendos (laws of libel exist for similar reasons). I guess you miss the bad old days of the tabloids in full fury lying and maligning anyone who took their fancy and often getting away scott-free. Perhaps some reflection on the extent to which the tabloids contribute to the democratic deficit in Britain might be in order rather than arguing that they are the bastions of free expression....please!

Society is very much like a closed system. squeezed too much I am definitely starting to see signs of the majority going pop!

WATCH IT - Frank

Your winding David up too much!

Yes, the homosexual cause has advanced considerably of late and so has the incidence of HIV of which there was a twenty percent rise last year.

Talking about the BBC and discrimination - when are they going to stop insults to the Welsh?

David
________________________

I see your on about democracy now. We've put 'rights' to one side for the moment have we?

The crux(?) of the homosexual issue is about their abandoment of convenional behaviour with proper regard to sanitation.

Michael - I beg to differ. Members of an interest group are the people who are best placed to know whether they're receiving fair and equal treatment or not.

And the rights of the majority are not compromised by giving equivalent rights to minority groups.

Yes, Frisbee, there was a twenty percent rise in the incidence of HIV last year, but around two-thirds of new infections were amongst heterosexuals.

Not sure what you mean about sanitation though. Most of us gays have conventional indoor toilets like everyone else.

Frisbee,

Democracy entails rights.

Michael,

"David, But they are! Democracy is commonly taken to be the majority deciding"

Yes - majority voting to put a political party into power is an important but only one aspect of modern democracy.

"but the whole thrust of the past decade or more is that the wishes of the majority have been subverted by the demands of minorities".

How? When? what examples do you have? We have something called a representative democracy and it is on the basis of that system that Bills are voted on by MPs and pass into law. In a free society, anyone can organise a lobby in favour of or against issues which are being debated at any time and which may or may not become future policy. This is what individuals, interest groups, political parties, trade associations, businesses are doing on a regular basis: contributing their ideas on issues and future related policy. That is democracy at work, Michael, and you are free to join any number of organisations if you believe in something strongly.

"The rights of the majority need to be vigorously asserted".

To which rights specifically are you refering? Please be more concrete as this otherwise will continue to be an abstract discussion that will not properly not make sense!

Frisbee,

"WATCH IT - Frank

Your winding David up too much!"

Don't worry about relations between Frank and me...he is a harmless gentleman who believes in the 'good old days' when people (well, heterosexual men of a certain type) could 'call a spade a spade' even though, on some issues, like you, he can't seem to distinguish between an 'arse' from an 'elbow' let alone identify a 'spade'.

Mr Pulley, you are a dinosaur. The majority of people no longer disapproves of lesbians and gay men. Most people know out gay and lesbian people. People of my age no longer socialise in separate hetero/homosexual groups. Most families reach a quick acceptance of their lesbian and gay children. Well-adjusted heterosexuals don't obsess about what gay men do in bed. 'Sexual' means pertaining to gender, 'homo' is from the Greek meaning 'the same', therefore a homosexual act is a same-gender act. And if you are saying that same-sex sex isn't 'sexual', I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. And if you're saying it's not innate, but a life-style choice, then it must be much more enjoyable, by your argument, than heterosexual sex, or else why would people put up with all of the abuse from people like yourselves to do something that isn't?

mattB
______________________

Obviously another confused queer!

John J
_____________________

Ever heard of Gay Related Immune Defiency?

That's where hetersexuals directly or indirectly get the disease from.

In short, the origin of the disease is wholly gay related.

It is now responsible for the immature deaths of 30 million people world-wide, leaving some 14 million orphans in its wake.

That's what we can thank homosexuals for!

David
_________________

When you talk about democracy or your rights, just think of your responsibilty, either directly or indirectly, to the untimely death of some 30 million souls.

Don't you have a conscience?

Frisbee - gays didn't invent AIDS, and it's not a specifically gay disease. Isn't it supposed to have originated from chimpanzees in Africa?

Cheers frisbee, you lovely fella...

GRID was an early name for AIDS which was abandoned when it became clear that a virus was the cause and that it could be transmitted via sex whether gay or heterosexual, blood etc. And I agree with John, the disease came from somewhere else first, it didn't spontaneously appear in gay men. And it's transmitted by high-risk behavior, regardless of sexual orientation, including unprotected vaginal intercourse, as in Africa mainly.

John J
________________

You demonstrate a considerable degree of sheer ignorance!

I suggest you start doing a little independent research. There's plenty of material on the internet.

Go to it!

MattB
__________________________

You demonstrate a considerable degree of dangerous knowledge!

You assume, "...it didn't spontaneously appear in gay men."

Evidence Please?

David
________________________

Your last remark about Frank and I!

Resorting to snide remarks about our mental agility does not advance your cause, nor does it reflect well upon you as an intelligent man.

In one sense, however, I have come to accept such behaviour especially when you can't always get your own way in an argument.

Another thing, before I go! Are you not the one who is proccupied with ares's?

David
_______________

Unlike yours, mine is used as nature intended!

David

"I have no idea what people think about sex...it can all seem a little absurd at times, Frank...try to imagine yourself explaining sexual intercourse to a martian"

No, David, I don't believe in Martians. Though I must admit on the first couple of occasions that I disturbed a group of 6 sodomites in a urinal in Dansey Place performing a 'daisy chain' I did wonder whether we had been invaded by creatures from outer space.

"Professional codes of conduct exist for many organisations, trade associations, interest groups, etc etc. This one relating to the press is in existence partially to ensure that people in the press exercise some type of professional responsibility and du not unduly smear individuals in particular with unfounded lies or innuendos (laws of libel exist for similar reasons). I guess you miss the bad old days of the tabloids in full fury lying and maligning anyone who took their fancy and often getting away scott-free. Perhaps some reflection on the extent to which the tabloids contribute to the democratic deficit in Britain might be in order rather than arguing that they are the bastions of free expression....please!"

The 'tabloids' will never cause you as much pain as the haemorrhoids you get from sodomistic practices - ask your proctologist. So just keep taking the tabloids and behave yourself.

"Don't worry about relations between Frank and me...he is a harmless gentleman who believes in the 'good old days' when people (well, heterosexual men of a certain type) could 'call a spade a spade' even though, on some issues, like you, he can't seem to distinguish between an 'arse' from an 'elbow' let alone identify a 'spade'."

Now David! Talking about arses and elbows ... no, I'll leave someone else to whack that down the fairway, because I'm beginning to think that you enjoy my jokes so much that you teed that one up on purpose. Let's give someone else a chance.

But to more serious matters I refer you and MattB back to Sections 12 and 13 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956.
The amendments only allow dispensation from it's imperatives if buggery is committed IN PRIVATE which means just you and lover boy. If you invited someone else to watch or join in, you're in the s*** in more ways than one.

And incitement to contravene either section is still an offence. Like Gay Pride marches and allied activities, for instance. But the offences involved are hardly likely to to be prosecuted when a large contingent of the Met Police heads the march, wearing their pink nickers under the uniforms. Ye Gods!

Frisbee - actually it's you who is demonstrating inexcusable ignorance and needs to do more research! I can't see any point in continuing this discussion further, so will leave you to it.

Frisbee,

"When you talk about democracy or your rights, just think of your responsibilty, either directly or indirectly, to the untimely death of some 30 million souls".

What are you talking about now...?

I have no more responsibility for the deaths of other people than a happily married heterosexual man has for the deaths of young female prostitutes from AIDS as a result of the preference of some of their clients of paying pimps a premium for sex without condoms....

I suggest you make a trip to the FredPhelps 'GodHatesFags' websites with its pictures of dead homosexuals burning in hell...I'm sure it would appeal to you

Frank,

Doh! Again you miss the point...Listen carefully: read Melanie's article and attempt a considered response.

Michael,

"Reading the posts on this and other threads we stumble again and again over issues that ought to concern us all as members of our society in the UK being hijacked by some who persist in seeing them as battlefields for the advancement of special interests".

Yes, Frank...I think I know to whom you are referring...the ones who make offensive remarks about homosexuals without making any attempt whatsoever to provide any kind of considered response to the article by Melanie.

John J

“Not sure what you mean about sanitation though. Most of us gays have conventional indoor toilets like everyone else.”

If that is the case why so many of you spend so much time cruising public toilets

Frisbee, Frank,

Your total lack of interest in contibuting any kind of worthwhile response to the article written by Melanie - as opposed to using this thread purely to insult homosexuals - is well noted.

Having myself read many of Melanie's articles carefully - and having tried to respond to them in a variety of ways as I felt appropriate (and, having constantly had offensive remarks from your ilk to deal with or ignore in the process) - I do believe that it is the purely abusive comments that she does most dislikes. She is, on the contrary, fond of passionate debate.

Can you two do other posters a favour and try to aspire just occasionally to the latter?

As a serious writer, I would imagine that she finds even those comments that she does not agree with of interest if they at least try to address seriously the issues she raises.

Could you two pay her some respect at least by managaing to suppress now and again your oft-express dislike of homosexuals and homosexuality and at least try to engage with some of the serious points she makes?

You will have noted, perhaps, that Melanie herself never insults minoroty groups - or members of minority groups - per se, she is, rather, critical of the tactics of activists and the effect these have, in her opinion, had upon the nature of contemporary Britain.

Is it really necessary to lecture you on the fact that it is people using your tactics who are likely to undermine the level of debate on this site and that, if Melanie pulls the site in a few weeks (just as Peter Hitchens did this week because too many (male) idiots were behaving badly) because she is sick and tired of the nature of some of the unpleasant posts being made, that you may well have made a contribution to that process.

Whilst I have been no angel in some of my ad hominem comments, anyone who cares to read through the threads will note that it is only in response to offensive remarks made to me that I ever reply in an offensive way. Other than that, I try to engage all people with civility and on the basis of argument of concepts and facts.

So, please bear in mind that you are both actively contributing to making this site a less interesting and genuinely polemical site than it could be...please take a leaf out of Melanie's book and try to aspire to higher rather than lower standards of discourse.

Otherwise a medium which you may value - even if it is just so that you can insult homosexuals - may be gone in a few weeks.

Frisbee,

"Unlike yours, mine is used as nature intended!"...unlike your head, clearly...it's nearly bed time...now run along ('Children should be seen and not heard' is one Victorian princple that I think, if applied to you, would be a blessing indeed)

Frank,

Sorry! I should not have tarred you with the same brush as Frisbee, as your comments are more tongue in cheek than his and never descend to the same level.

John J,

"As far as the gay community is concerned, yes, we've come a long way towards fair and equal treatment, but we're not quite there yet!"

Well said mate! A good use of your freedom of expression, I might add...nothing offensive...a few others on here could learn from you!;-)

Matt,

"Mr Pulley, you are a dinosaur"

Carefull Matt! That might be seen as being offensive to dinosaurs...

Matt,

"Well-adjusted heterosexuals don't obsess about what gay men do in bed".

Well said!! It's true...they've got PROBLEMS these guys...but they just DON'T KNOW IT!;)

(Funny how there are no 'Angry' of (Weybride/Auckland/Cardiff - delete as appropriate) women on here isn't it? This adverse reaction to gay men is definitely a certain kind of male's thing, isn't it?

The righteous indignation has almost a sexual quality, one might argue...

They won't admit it, though, as 'introversion' is not their thing...

I must say, i've always felt that Littlejohn's obsession with the "gay lobby" betrays his own sexual leanings.

Also, Melanie seems to do herself no favours by twice (in the past week) identifying herself with such an egregious individual.

David

Your above several posts comprise an awful lot of waffle, I presume waffled just to avoid addressing the issue of the statutes that in 1956 clarified sexual offences. Some of those provisions have been somewhat diluted over time, as a powerful lobby of predatory buggers have had their way with the legislators. The latter eventually gave way in 1967 and passed an amendment, which gave dispensation for two consenting adults of the age of 21 or over to commit buggery IN PRIVATE. Any two that is, not just two of their mates. And it was specifically stated that if a third person was present, participating or otherwise, albeit behind closed doors, the privacy stipulation was breached.

Those of us who argued against any amendment at the time and who forecast the degradation that would ensue (and indeed has) if the amendment was made, were assured that it would be the only CONCESSION and that words CONSENTING ADULTS IN PRIVATE would obviate further corruptive developments, such as group buggery or other grossly indecent behaviour in public, or corruption of the young. The legislation proscribing the latter types of behaviour would remain intact. Until very recently it has.

As we now know the age of consent has now been lowered to a ridiculous level where sexual behaviour can be greatly influenced by those in powerful positions, such as priests, schoolmasters, scoutmasters and many other community posts that supervise youngsters. Grossly indecent behaviour, group buggery and sado-masochistic behaviour – all proscribed by the SO Act 1956 is depicted graphically on many TV channels. No prosecutions emanate from these flagrant breaches in the law. Clubs where the most outrageous behaviour takes place IN PUBLIC are allowed to carry on regardless. Despite, or may be because of the fact that senior police officers are reported to visit them on cruising expeditions. Hampstead Heath is now a rutting paddock for public buggery, as is Russell Square, Holland Park and many other locations in London.

Now you often refer to me a heterosexual man. That is a tautological phrase and is from the lexicon of psychobabble. I am a man; or male, if you wish to depersonalise it. Any other so called ‘sexual’ description is irrelevant. There are other pejorative nouns of a sexual nature that you might use to insult me, which I would accept in heated debates and smile. My wife is a woman, not a heterosexual woman. A woman. That is sufficient.

Now those of you who are confused about what you are and have to qualify the gender noun have a problem. Get help. Don’t impose the problem and it’s concomitant corruptive life styles on those that haven’t a problem with their sexual identity. You note I avoided the word ‘orientation’ as I already did that joke way above. Way above the head of the 'chap' who referred to it apparently.

Why am I raising these issues on this thread? I didn’t, you did. So far David, you and your ‘gay’ (a terrible corruption of a once very useful word) chums have insinuated the ‘gay’ agenda into almost every thread, regardless of the theme. That is what I have pointed out and it is happening in every walk of life. Your ilk were given a concession in 1967 and since then you have, as you admit, been on the move and are 'making progress'. And if you think that the ‘thought police’ (subject of this thread, Dai!) among the gay police will silence those who wish to insist that the laws of the land are enforced, then they won’t. So dream on, you creatures of indeterminate sex; take a look at your birth certificate – there’s a clue there. I’m not obsessed with your sex or lack of it, you are it seems, because you don’t know where to put the thing that determines it.

If you get on with what you want to do -- IN PRIVATE – then I and other men and women will leave you to do it, in peace. If you want to turn your deviance into a public spectacle and clamour for more concessions, then you will be opposed. By the way, your attempts to ingratiate yourself with the women who use this thread is wimpish and nauseating, stand up for yourself, man, don’t go snivelling to Mummy.

I’ve refrained from jokes this time as you insist that I take you seriously. Shame I have to though. “ Larf as orften as ya can, or you’ll go barmy in this job”, one of my old instructors told me at Hendon. It was good advice.

Matt, David and the rest of you disease spreaders.

“GRID was an early name for AIDS which was abandoned when it became clear that a virus was the cause and that it could be transmitted via sex whether gay or heterosexual, blood etc. And I agree with John, the disease came from somewhere else first, it didn't spontaneously appear in gay men. And it's transmitted by high-risk behavior, regardless of sexual orientation, including unprotected vaginal intercourse, as in Africa mainly”

The thing that gets many of us very angry is that the lies that you push on this list is putting innocent people lives at risk and that you will use any means possible to distort the truth. One of you homosexual activists immigrated to New Zealand and got himself a safe position on the Labour list with this homosexual friendly government. He is not a member of Parliament and spend s a disproportionate about of his time om homosexual issues.

This same government appointed a homosexual as the chief video censor. This militant homosexual abused his position. One of his first moves was to ban a couple of videos by a Christian organisation. They were titled “Gay Rights Special Rights – Inside the Homosexual Agenda” and “AIDS: What you Haven’t Been Told”. Neither of the videos were of the God hate fags variety. Some concerned members of the public had to donate money to challenge the censor’s abuse of power. New Zealand does not yet have hate speech laws. The Court of Appeal overturned his ruling and clearly stated that he exceeded his powers. Private individuals had to challenge the power of the state to obtain justice.

The second video explained why homosexuals were disproportionately infected with HIV, hepatitis and other STDs. It explained how homosexual were much more likely to be involved in high risk behaviour. When I hear of heterosexual bug chasers and “gift givers” I will be prepared to listen to what some of you have to say about HIV. There are some honest homosexuals, but not many. I would suggest any liberal heterosexuals on this blog read “Sexual Ecology – AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men” by Gabriel Rotello. He clearly explains why AIDS in the developed world is a homosexual disease and will continue to be so except for immigration.

The homosexual lobby in New Zealand has successfully lobbied to stop screening immigrants for HIV. These low life have done this for no other reason than to take the well disserved stigma off them.

The militant homosexuals are probably going to try and get around the court ruling by introducing hate speech legislation here.

If what homosexuals did only affected mature adult homosexuals I would not care. But, they want to go into the schools and teach impressionable adolescents about so called “safe sex”. Don’t tell me – I know no sex is safe. However, the chance of contracting HIV from homosexual sex is greater by factor of a least one hundred.

The extremely expensive drugs used to treat homosexuals for this self inflicted fatal illness mean cuts in other areas of health. Innocent people die on waiting lists.

Then there is the bi-sexual connection. Innocent women die because they do not realise they have married a bi-sexual. The scum that infect them should spend the rest of their miserable lives in prison and the money that would normally go for their drugs should be given to their victim.

HIV and AIDS are topics that homosexuals do not like to talk about especially with someone that knows what they are talking about.

The simple fact of the matter is if homosexuals on average reduced their number of partners to that of heterosexuals and immigrants were screened, HIV would cease to be a serious problem in the developed world.

What do you think are the chances of that happening and what are you doing to encourage homosexuals to behave more responsibly?

Frank,

"you and your ‘gay’ (a terrible corruption of a once very useful word) chums have insinuated the ‘gay’ agenda into almost every thread, regardless of the theme."

That is comletely incorrect in my case. I have inserted comments about homosexuality only into those threads which relate directly to references made by Melanie to it. Occasionally, on other threads which are not related, I have been deep in discussion about other issues, until you or one of your fellow self-appointed 'inquisitors' arrives on the thread to make some kind of public insinuation to other posters about my sexuality...

Seems like a few intelligent criticisms are enough to throw the real agenda of "Frank Pulley" and his venimous ilk into relief.

Nothing but utterly ignorant bigotry and prejudice.

Case closed.

Chuck,

I challenge you to point to one sentence in the whole of this site where I have encouraged anyone to do anything that puts them at risk of contracting HIV or STDs.

I urge you to read some of my posts carefully where you will see that I have in fact made some responsible comments on the whole issue of HIV and STD transmission and have given it some serious attention.

However, I need not have - because none of Melanie's articles mention HIV/AIDS specifically and I have been on this site attempting to respond to some of the points raised in her articles.

I have a clear conscience about my own codes of personal behaviour on all levels.

However, you appear to be a lazy bigot who 1) cannot be bothered to actually read people's posts 2) then claims that people are not being truthful about what they have posted (of course it is not possible for you to know one way or the other and 3) then rants as you have done frequently on the marriage thread and have now unfortunately decided to do on this thread.

I am not even going to discuss the risk to yourself of contracting AIDS as I have no idea what you actually get up to in your spare time and do not wish to know. However, you would be well advised to ensure that you educate yourself carefully about the real risks and to behave responsibly.

Your problem is that you seem totally incapable of separating 'fact' from 'abusive rant' and this inability ensures that you cannot be taken seriously on the subject of homosexuality or AIDS.

I suggest you calm down a little as your 'anger' is totally self-inflicted as there is no one who is imposing homosexuality, or pro-homosexual views on you. You are living in a democracy, have freedom of expression (you certainly exercise it vigorously on this site) and are free to decide how you wish to lead your life.

Fortunately, I am also free, rarely feel 'oppressed' or 'angry' and am absolutely sure that no one with your views is going to influence my life at more than the occasional minor 'irritant' level.

Chuck,

I challenge you to point to one sentence in the whole of this site where I have encouraged anyone to do anything that puts them at risk of contracting HIV or STDs.

I urge you to read some of my posts carefully where you will see that I have in fact made some responsible comments on the whole issue of HIV and STD transmission and have given it some serious attention.

However, I need not have - because none of Melanie's articles mention HIV/AIDS specifically and I have been on this site attempting to respond to some of the points raised in her articles.

I have a clear conscience about my own codes of personal behaviour on all levels.

However, you appear to be a lazy bigot who 1) cannot be bothered to actually read people's posts 2) then claims that people are not being truthful about what they have posted (of course it is not possible for you to know one way or the other and 3) then rants as you have done frequently on the marriage thread and have now unfortunately decided to do on this thread.

I am not even going to discuss the risk to yourself of contracting AIDS as I have no idea what you actually get up to in your spare time and do not wish to know. However, you would be well advised to ensure that you educate yourself carefully about the real risks and to behave responsibly.

Your problem is that you seem totally incapable of separating 'fact' from 'abusive rant' and this inability ensures that you cannot be taken seriously on the subject of homosexuality or AIDS.

I suggest you calm down a little as your 'anger' is totally self-inflicted as there is no one who is imposing homosexuality, or pro-homosexual views on you. You are living in a democracy, have freedom of expression (you certainly exercise it vigorously on this site) and are free to decide how you wish to lead your life.

Fortunately, I am also free, rarely feel 'oppressed' or 'angry' and am absolutely sure that no one with your views is going to influence my life at more than the occasional minor 'irritant' level.

Chuck,

I challenge you to point to one sentence in the whole of this site where I have encouraged anyone to do anything that puts them at risk of contracting HIV or STDs.

I urge you to read some of my posts carefully where you will see that I have in fact made some responsible comments on the whole issue of HIV and STD transmission and have given it some serious attention.

However, I need not have - because none of Melanie's articles mention HIV/AIDS specifically and I have been on this site attempting to respond to some of the points raised in her articles.

I have a clear conscience about my own codes of personal behaviour on all levels.

However, you appear to be a lazy bigot who 1) cannot be bothered to actually read people's posts 2) then claims that people are not being truthful about what they have posted (of course it is not possible for you to know one way or the other and 3) then rants as you have done frequently on the marriage thread and have now unfortunately decided to do on this thread.

I am not even going to discuss the risk to yourself of contracting AIDS as I have no idea what you actually get up to in your spare time and do not wish to know. However, you would be well advised to ensure that you educate yourself carefully about the real risks and to behave responsibly.

Your problem is that you seem totally incapable of separating 'fact' from 'abusive rant' and this inability ensures that you cannot be taken seriously on the subject of homosexuality or AIDS.

I suggest you calm down a little as your 'anger' is totally self-inflicted as there is no one who is imposing homosexuality, or pro-homosexual views on you. You are living in a democracy, have freedom of expression (you certainly exercise it vigorously on this site) and are free to decide how you wish to lead your life.

Fortunately, I am also free, rarely feel 'oppressed' or 'angry' and am absolutely sure that no one with your views is going to influence my life at more than the occasional minor 'irritant' level.

Chuck,

I challenge you to point to one sentence in the whole of this site where I have encouraged anyone to do anything that puts them at risk of contracting HIV or STDs.

I urge you to read some of my posts carefully where you will see that I have in fact made some responsible comments on the whole issue of HIV and STD transmission and have given it some serious attention.

However, I need not have - because none of Melanie's articles mention HIV/AIDS specifically and I have been on this site attempting to respond to some of the points raised in her articles.

I have a clear conscience about my own codes of personal behaviour on all levels.

However, you appear to be a lazy bigot who 1) cannot be bothered to actually read people's posts 2) then claims that people are not being truthful about what they have posted (of course it is not possible for you to know one way or the other and 3) then rants as you have done frequently on the marriage thread and have now unfortunately decided to do on this thread.

I am not even going to discuss the risk to yourself of contracting AIDS as I have no idea what you actually get up to in your spare time and do not wish to know. However, you would be well advised to ensure that you educate yourself carefully about the real risks and to behave responsibly.

Your problem is that you seem totally incapable of separating 'fact' from 'abusive rant' and this inability ensures that you cannot be taken seriously on the subject of homosexuality or AIDS.

I suggest you calm down a little as your 'anger' is totally self-inflicted as there is no one who is imposing homosexuality, or pro-homosexual views on you. You are living in a democracy, have freedom of expression (you certainly exercise it vigorously on this site) and are free to decide how you wish to lead your life.

Fortunately, I am also free, rarely feel 'oppressed' or 'angry' and am absolutely sure that no one with your views is going to influence my life at more than the occasional minor 'irritant' level.

Frank,

Don't try to patronise me! I am your equal under the law (well almost...just waiting for those same-sex partnership rights)..something you clearly cannot stomach. Poor you! Actually, I am probably your superior - better educated, better read, better travelled, better paid...anyway, I don't want to rub it in too much...or you'll be feeling queasy as, in your day, all gays were no doubt regarded as infinitely inferior.

I guess that some of this goes to explain why you keep on (and on and on) about sexual practices (yes, Frank, all gays know about what goes on Hampstead Heath...but not all gays go there...of course, you won't believe that, will you?).

I am only going to bother to refer specifically to one of your ridiculous comments:

"As we now know the age of consent has now been lowered to a ridiculous level where sexual behaviour can be greatly influenced by those in powerful positions, such as priests, schoolmasters, scoutmasters and many other community posts that supervise youngsters".

Frank...16 is the age at which you are able to get married and have children, leave school and get a job, fight for your country and die...but, according to you, homosexuals need special protection and cannot be allowed to love who they wish. Rott and nonsense. I was making every adult decision myself at 16 but was made to wait until 21 to look for Mr Right. I found him at 23 and have happily lived with him for many years since.

Women ARE generally much more sensible on homosexuality than the (increasingly) small group of heterosexual men who think like you, Frank.

Melanie herself acknowledges that homosexuals can be committed and caring towards eachother in long-term relationships.

I could suggest a good psychotherapist Frank if you wish to get a bit more relaxed with male homosexuality and learn to see it to less of a personal threat.

Dear Chuck, Reuben and Frisbee - seeing as Reuben quotes Gabriel Rotello approvingly, how about this article by him - Who's the butchest of them all? Advocate, April 30.

This just in from the lab: If you've always figured that straight guys who feel their masculinity threatened are more likely to hate gays than those who are secure in their masculinity, you're right. That's the result of a new study that tested the idea that male homophobia is rooted in anxiety about masculinity. It's no big' surprise, but it has big implications.

The new study about masculinity complements older studies that have shown that homophobia among men also is directly related to men's insecurity about their sexuality itseff. My all-time favorite study on this was conducted a few years ago by Prof. Henry E. Adams of the University of Georgia. First, Adams gave psychological tests to male college students and divided them into two groups based on the results: homophobic and nonhomophobic. Then he wired them up to a clever little device called a penile plethysmograph, which measures sexual arousal, and tested their reaction to three types of erotic videos: straight, lesbian, and gay male.

Adams discovered that 80% of the homophobic guys were either moderately or strongly turned on by the gay film, compared with ouly 34% of the nonhomophobes. He also found that the `phobes were significantly less aroused by the straight video than their gay-friendly counterparts. In other words, many of the `phobes were guys with a lot of suppressed homosexual feelings. Adams's conclusion was that male homophobia is strongly related to.an inability to cope with "homosexual impulses."

Now Prof. Richard H. Gramzow of Northeastern University has taken that concept one step further. He gave a group of college students a se ries of bogus tests that would supposedly detect "masculine" or "feminine" traits. He then gave the students fake results, telling some that they were masculine and others that they were feminine. Then he tested their attitudes about gay men.

Sure enough, the guys who were told they were feminine expressed more homophobic feelings than the "masculine" ones. His conclusion was that "the tendency for males to derogate gay men is strong when ... their sense of masculinity is threatened."

Yikes. The implication of Gramzow's study is even more disturbing that Adams's. Not only are deeply conflicted closet cases homophobic, but so are guys who think that others perceive them as anything other than butch. And these are modern college students, not dinosaurs.

Some have suggested that we should use these kinds of studies to shame homophobes, and British activist Peter Tatchell does just that. Tatchell says that when he visits schools and tells students about Adams's study, he gets quick results. "Previously loudmouthed bigots suddeuly go quiet," he says. One teacher told him that the level of homophobic banter in the classroom had "declined significantly" after his visit.

That's great, and I'm all for it. Embarrassing `phobes about their homophobia is better than nothing. But it doesn't necessarily change their feelings, and it doesn't address the larger problem these studies reveal--namely, that in a society that puts a premium on boys' masculinity, that derogates femininity, and that equates male homosexuality with femininity, the fastest and easiest way for boys to demonstrate their masculine status is to dis gays.

Well this thread meandered off into set positions. Just what makes the current situation of ideological rigidity suppressing free thought and speech seem permanent ?

Society changes, and it seems that Western Europe has entered the uncertain and unstable phase that was so common in the 1920s/1930s when societies changed dramatically as economic decline and societal fragmentation led to increasingly authoritarian government.

Looking at the report of the Dutch Parliamentarians on multiculturalism; the situation unfolding in France, the open border to the Russian frontier in the EU, and the prospects for redeployment of industry and jobs within the expanding European Union leading to shrinking welfare cover over the coming decades in the western parts of Europe, I would not be sanguine that liberalism, or democracy will be recognisable in years to come.

Even Winston Smith found certain thoughts less accepted than certain chants; and the declining faith in political parties makes it much more likely that the system will decay into a harsher and much more controlled society

Guy Chambers

"Case closed!"

You wish!

Romulus,

"Looking at the report of the Dutch Parliamentarians on multiculturalism; the situation unfolding in France, the open border to the Russian frontier in the EU, and the prospects for redeployment of industry and jobs within the expanding European Union leading to shrinking welfare cover over the coming decades in the western parts of Europe, I would not be sanguine that liberalism, or democracy will be recognisable in years to come".

Interesting points. I agree that the society we know in western countries - which is suspended between the dead deferential society that cannot be returned to (no society has ever managed to turn back the clock precisely to a former stage of socio-economic development) and whatever will eventually totally supplant it - will not exist in a few years.

However, where I disagee is that parallels with history (particularly the 1920s-30s) are not very instructive to our present condition because so many socio-economic factors have altered society beyond any similarity with those societies.

Politicians might like to control us as individuals but it has become ever more difficult to do so.

The state apparatus of totalitarianism - and thought control - has only ever been really been successful in totally closed societies where the means of production, distribution and exchange, social and geographical mobility, and freedoms of expresson, religion etc have been carefully conrtrolled by insitutions that have been able - and have been generously bankrolled by the state machinery - to maintain very high levels of monitoring and control of those whom they oppress.

Thus in Portugal, for example, under the fascist dictatorship of 1924-74, a group of a few families owned nearly all the means of industrial activity in the country, the police were military police who reported directly to the junta, the land was owned by a small number of large landowners ('latifundos') and the church colluded with the state and the captains of industry and agriculture.

A country that had been a relatively prosperous small country in the early 20th century was turned into one of the poorest in Europe. Why? Because of the costs of i)maintaining the infrastructure, ii) keeping down the rebels in the colonies and iii) controlling the economy rather through state control and the costly distortions of denying the introduction of genuine market mechanisms.

Inevitably, the dictatorship finally collapsed under the unsupportable strains.

I mention Portugal because it is a microcosm of other 'closed sytems' that eventually collapse...look at Spain under Franco (similar but with a little less state control of the economy)...look at the newly independent Eastern European countries that have emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union (which one could also argue was almost inevitable again because of the impossible costs of maintaining the state apparatus of totalitarianism).

these countries are highly significant bulwarks against any future totalitarian tenedencies within Europe. It is no accident that Spain, Portugal, Italy, Poland and several other Eastern European states backed Bush against the former Iraqi dictator...these countries are 'new Europe' and act against the corporatist-state (rather than totalitarian) tendencies of states such as France and Germany.

The end of these totalitarian regimes coincided with the demise of the traditional left-right party affiliations in the UK and with huge changes in terms as economies took a quantum leap in technology and cross-border trading that means that companies produce and distribute differently and consumers consume differently.

This also coincided with the growth of the internet and new forms of communications, and community building according to specific issues - environmental, social, etc etc.

These groups now interact with political parties and the governments of modern states as never before. One could argue it is the arrival of what some 1970s sociologists termed would be rule by technocracy.

This said, one could equally argue that the democratic deficit has grown as political processes have become far more mult-layered and complex (local, regional, national, European, global) and in fact seem impenetrable and difficult to influence for ordinary citizens.

In such a situation, people can become unduly swayed by simplified explanations (sometimes honest and sometimes deeply lazy and/or disengeuous by certain leaders of certain special interest groupps, news media, and memebers of various branches of the establishment).

This is dangerous when it coincides, as it now does, with a judiciary that is endlessly 'progressive' on crime and is out of touch with ordinary citizens' lives and immediate concerns in relation to security and safety.

It is made worse when governments deny or distort these problems and respond with arbitrary targets rather than attempting to tackle the problems themselves.

the biggest danger is not a move towards anything in the future that resembles the totalitarian systems of the past but that this 'deficit' between the every day experiences of citizens (in the areas of health, law and order and education in particular) becomes wider and the establishment's deeply embedded relativist thinking fails to respond to the needs of citizens as traditional establishemts would have done before the 1990s.

Another danger is that goverments will introduce the wrong measures in trying to respond to citizens - and the democractic, crime, education and health deficits - ones based on massaging the truth, avoiding tough decisions because they are popular and lose votes, and ones that sometimes have unintended consequences. Equally, it is not inconceivable that extreme demagogues will in the future jump into this vacuum and offer solutions based on unfair scapegoating of groups of people who are in no way directly responsible for the current situation we're in. This probably explains partially why certain minority groups get so defensive and over-react to advserse criticism of their objectives and sometimes very existence.

Some of Melanie's Daily Mail fans clearly see her as the harbinger of light, truth and everything-that-is-good in the fight of the 'silent majority' against the encroaching 'police state' of the 'Gramscian-inspired' 'neo-Marxist-Leninists' of the forthcoming 'PC-gone-mad' totalitarian Britain. It is a vision that is conveyed to the accompanying tabloid drum beat of them-and-us hysteria.

I am tempted to email Melanie along the lines of 'Melanie Save Us - From Your Followers' except I fear she might not see the humour as sense of humour does not figure prominently in her articles.

This blog now contain several articles and diary entries which rehearse predictable themes about grevious threats to freedom of expression because of PC zealots. However, the site has also become a battleground between bigots (nearly always men it appears) who turn nearly every thread into a 'the buggers (or whatever minority they don't like) are taking over' diatribe...and gay men who up-the-ante by pointing out a few home truths about the obsessional nature of some of these bigots.

Some of Melanie’s pronouncements seem to add fuel to these bigots’ fires although the most extreme seem blissfully unaware that Melanie even exists let alone display any knowledge of her writings or - Heaven forbid - attempt to respond critically to them.

It would seem that Melanie has an unshakeable conviction in the righteousness of their beliefs which leads to her steering a heavy truck load of convictions over any obstacles – including common sense, sense of proportion, a true understanding of her adversaries - that confronts her on the road to utopia.

Some of her most ardent fans stand by the road-side cheering her on. No problem....but, perhaps they would like to provide some real details of real victims of PC zealotry and ‘suppression of freedom of speech’ in future rather than to lazily repeat a few well-known and contentious cases such as Harry Hammond, Robery Kilroy-Silk and Richard Littlejohn.

Ooops, typo...
"Melanie has an unshakeable conviction in the righteousness of their beliefs" should have read
"Melanie has an unshakeable conviction in the righteousness of HER beliefs". I would not for one minute wish to suggest that Melanie actually supports some of the views expressed by some of the more extreme posters on this web site. Given her adherence to what she terms as genuine liberal values I would imagine she must wince when she reads some of what those who support her type on here.

Melanie, You are spot on again. The UK society (and there is such a thing) is spiralling to a point where a backlash must bring us back on track. It is great that our tolerance for things that were once abohrant and considered disgusting, has increased, but how far down the road do we go? We seem to be evolving into desensortised beings who tolerate everything. Morals and standards need to be place at the for front of modern thinking and we need to call a halt & re-think of what as a society we set as our core values. The victim culture is part of this problem, and we have moved from a responsible society, to a state dependant and protected society. What the Government have failed to grasp is that these new liberal laws that rightly remove inequality and prejudice, have also led to a removal of any aspirational standards, like marriage, fatherhood and parenting. Even today in the Independent there is a nrticle about there being no need for fathers relating to lesbian couples having fertilised eggs. This is just pure wrong and my saying that does not mean I am making a victim out of lesbians, or fathers, it is just something that is wrong and should stay wrong, just like peadophilia, and incest. Can we be allowed in this country to state when something is wrong without fear of being labelled a victimisor, or abuser? Probably not !

Actually David, I take your point about the 1920s being a period of masses versus classes; and that society is different from then, but I do question how far the changes are mere modulations on a long wave...like a Kondratieff Wave.

In essence, each nation has the same geopolitical issues as always; Germany facing east and west seeking secure borders uses the EU as Bismarck used the Reinsurance Treaty.....and the insecurity of 2003 is not unlike that of 1890s and 1920s/30s when tariffs were imposed......it is impossible to see how welfare states can survive in Europe if China can export duty-free to the EU.....

The deflation is what will destroy societies....the only inflation in our economies comes from the State and non-traded goods like houses...but largely in Britain because of lax credit.......British household debt is greater than the entire Euroland......so when the credit bubble bursts you could see huge impacts across Europe..............

what they have forgotten is that large numbers of people need to be in gainful employment to keep society stable......and the EU is providing neither stable employment, nor security, nor energy supplies.......the situation has the potential to be devastating......and there is no evidence that politicians have risen above 'common-room trivia' to focus on the major shifts which imperil a way of life established after 1948

Joe
___________________________________________

So your all for embarrassing ‘phobes’ about their homophobia and attempt to do so soliciting two research studies and the bigoted opinion of Peter Tatchell!

Let’s look a little closer at these findings?

Queer websites around the world certainly champion the study by Adams as ‘proof’ of homophobia against any who criticise homosexuality. Tatchell, on his ‘Bigots are Buggers’ webpage, initially refers to this research which SUGGESTS that 80 percent of homophobic men have secret homosexual feelings. Later he turns this suggestion into a very positive CONFIRMATION thus gilding the lily. In other words a ‘theory’ is turned into ‘proof’!

Putting aside the very serious question as to why such a militant pervert is addressing schoolchildren in the first place, it is clear, Tatchell indulges in misinformation to the exact degree that you do.

The Adams 1996 findings does not, I repeat, does not suggest that 80 percent of homophobic men have secret homosexual feelings. Tatchell has disingenuously and deliberately read this into the report. The 80 percent figure relates strictly to the question of erectile ‘arousal’ and NOT homosexual feelings. There is a world of difference between these two.

More telling, Dr. Adams admits a serious question about the validity of his study. A competing theoretical explanation exists. What was measured was not tumescent sexual ‘arousal’ but ‘anxiety’, a function of the threat condition. In a subsequent press release the American Psychological Association concluded these competing notions should be evaluated by future research. It’s a matter for the record that no such undertaking has transpired. This may be related to a second consideration of concern. How do we objectivity the heavily subjective concept of ‘homophobia’? Any such enterprise is trapped in a conceptual minefield.

Little wonder that the Adams ‘index of homophobia scale’ appears to have been abandoned confirming there is no such thing as clinical homophobia.

Next to nothing can be read into this study because the sample was infinitesimal. It involved only 64 people but this is totally ignored by those involved in the politics of homobabble!

As to the Gramzow ‘research’ it is important to recognise this is more about attitudes than behaviour. As research has already shown attitudes are not necessarily predictive of behaviour. Accordingly, to quote Advocate, ‘The bottom line, …is that heterosexual males appear to express antipathy towards gay men as a way to express their masculinity.’ So what? This does not contribute to the debate any more than research recently done on the German gay movement that demonstrates that the homosexual community bonds stronger when facing increasing political conflict. And if the Gramzow study is so ‘disturbing’ it is rather odd that other homosexual websites completely ignore it. But then, maybe they don’t have the same insight as joe?

One wonders about the antecedents of Gramzow? I suspect he’s a homosexual with an agenda to push. He spent sometime recently at the University of Southampton. Anyone know of him?

David
___________________________

As you will recall I have called you a hypocrite elsewhere. But now you come up with this:-

"We seem to be evolving into desensortised beings who tolerate everything. Morals and standards need to be place at the for front of modern thinking and we need to call a halt & re-think of what as a society we set as our core values."

You and your homosexual friends have significantly contributed to the lowering of moral standards in our society.

How you have got the gall to pontificate about moral standards is perplexing to say the least.

"Some of her most ardent fans stand by the road-side cheering her on. No problem....but, perhaps they would like to provide some real details of real victims of PC zealotry and ‘suppression of freedom of speech’ in future rather than to lazily repeat a few well-known and contentious cases such as Harry Hammond, Robery Kilroy-Silk and Richard Littlejohn."

David:

Your quote above leads me to make a rare appearance on this forum. You are clearly an intelligent and articulate person but I am puzzled as to how you can live in this country today without being aware of the efforts made by government and institutions to proscribe thinking that they consider "politically incorrect".

It must never happen that the citizens of this country be told what they may do or not do, say or not say outside the criminal and social laws that have been long established in our written and unwritten constitution.

I have previously posted the comment that prejudice is an ugly human trait but it is, in my view, beyond the authority of government to attempt to silence or eliminate it. When, in those attempts, the customs and traditions of our society are called into question and we are required to refrain from certain traditional practices because they may cause offence to minority groups, then those who try to impose those restrictions have gone too far.

This country's behavioural patterns have been born out of a Christian morality which has slowly adapted to changing times. It is neither desirable nor the responsibility of government to make the huge adjustments that are being imposed upon the people of this country.

I won't attempt to comply with your request to supply "evidence" of the PC zealotry that most thinking people are only too aware of. I simply can't believe that you have lived in the UK for a reasonable time as an adult without being aware of what's happening.

It's a pity that Melanie is now promoting the "public health" argument that was so gleefully and graphically advanced in comments on the previous Harry Hammond story. The argument is a red herring, for two reasons.

Some male homosexuals practice sodomy, which carries a higher risk of transmitting disease than heterosexual intercourse. Lesbian sex acts carry the least risk of all. So, if public health is a reason to preach against male homosexuals, it's also a reason to preach in favour of lesbianism.

Since this isn't what the "public health" chorus are advocating, I can only assume that they have some other reason for constantly putting down homosexuals, and the "public health" thing is just a convenient stick to beat them with. That reason, judging by the posts on this site, is an intense personal dislike of the homosexual acts that they describe with a mixture of horror and, apparently, fascination, and in much more detail than I wish to know.

The second reason is that holding up a "stop homosexuality" sign has no impact whatsoever on anybody's sexual choices. The only effects of doing so are to make a mockery of oneself, and to intimidate others, in the same way as if I were to march through an Asian district with a "say no to Bin Laden" sign.

David

“I challenge you to point to one sentence in the whole of this site where I have encouraged anyone to do anything that puts them at risk of contracting HIV or STDs.”

Every one of your posts encourages young people to take up the homosexual lifestyle which is putting themselves at risk of contracting HIV or STDs.

The whole thrust of your posts is to have society put its stamp of approval on your lifestyle. Most of your demands about having your partner being allowed to make decisions in the case of incapacity could be done by private agreement or by special specific legislation. You are lobbying for more than that. You want a civil union that confers all the rights of a marriage including adoption. You basically are lobbying for homosexual marriage that is called civil union.

The rate of sexual disease amongst homosexuals is one of the main reasons I oppose society putting a stamp of approval on homosexual relationships. It is not the only reason but a very important one. HIV is relevant to this blog. The topic is about hate speech legislation. I pointed out how militant homosexuals tried to ban a video that told the truth about the link between homosexuality and AIDS.

If the majority of homosexuals lead monogamous lives like you claim to do, we would not have the problem. If hate speech legislation is passed I could be charged with pointing out such facts as:

66% of men and 90% of had 10 or fewer lifetime sexual partners.

Only 17% of men and 3% of women had more that twenty-one lifetime sexual partners.

75% of homosexual of white homosexual men had more than 100 lifetime partners.

43% had more than 500 and close to a third had more than 1000.

14% of homosexuals were in what researchers termed monogamous relationships.

66% were no monogamous with in the first two years.

I could go on but most intelligent people on this blog will see the point. If what you say is true about you and your partner it is not the norm for homosexuals.

You maintain without proof that people are not only born homosexual but also bi-sexual. Many of us do not accept this. We also believe that when the state gives its stamp of approval to homosexual relationships it will increase the number homosexuals and bi-sexuals practicing their aberrant lifestyle. One of the side affects will be an increase in AIDS and other very serious diseases.

You may not like to talk about AIDS. You probably would like to be able stop me telling the truth about the link between homosexuality and AIDS. PLEASE do not come back with the nonsense that I am implying that ALL homosexuals have AIDS. You know this is not true but like Goebells you believe in repeating a lie.

One of your militant homosexual countrymen is trying to introduce hate speech legislation in this country.

To summarise, civil union for homosexuals will encourage homosexuality and bi-sexuality and consequently the spread of HIV and other STDs. No amount of preaching about the use of condoms will stop this. If you can produce evidence that Rotello is wrong about the average number of sexual partners plus the extremely high number of partners that SOME homosexuals have is not the reason why homosexuals are disproportionately infected with HIV do so. Otherwise cut out your waffle. Those less educated than you can follow Rotello’s logic. Where did you get your education at a boy’s boarding school?

"civil union for homosexuals will encourage homosexuality" - great idea, wrong species!

Who turns me on the most ... Susan? Or Fred? Well, if I went with Susan, I could marry her later on, but I couldn't ever marry Fred... OK, Susan it is then... what did you say? Men can marry each other now? That's really great! I think I'll go with Fred!

KJN
_____________________

Where the hell have you come from with your specious logic?

It's the homosexual lobby that is consumed with the 'health question' and they certainly have good reasons for doing so.

That's right, when the argument is against you - turn to purile levity!

Frisbee -
It seems that my posts have touched a raw nerve.

OK, this thread's a little weird so:

1. The idea that homosexuality is the "cause" of aids is false. It mutated from SIDS (that's Simian Immunodeficiency Syndrome, not crib death)...so that's quite enough about monkey...please no more.

2. The prevalence of AIDS in homosexuals has a medical basis. The success rate of AIDS transmittence is an incredible 100%. It's actually not even risk. If your gay partner has it, your toast. Couple this with the "gay lifestyle" of the early eighties (which entailed quite a lot of what conservatives feared), the virus spread like wildfire across gay communities. Unfortunately, I can't bring myself to desribe the physical/sexual process beyond the word "colon cellular activity". OK! ENOUGH.

3. Yes "gay" as an English word has been horribly corrupted. It no longer means "happy" to us in ANY normal discussion. End of discussion. If you don't like that, look in dictionaries, and take note at definition numero uno.

4. I've gotten damn tired of all arguments reducing to Mr. White Bigot vs Ms. Whining Minority. It's been the same story for over thirty years. Trite. Trite. Trite. Even the most popular TV shows never last long for the same reason. Let's face it: MASH was finally canceled.

5. It's hard, I know, but um...aside from the word "damn", which is sexually neutral, could we please refrain from graphic descriptions?

Chuck,

"Every one of your posts encourages young people to take up the homosexual lifestyle which is putting themselves at risk of contracting HIV or STDs."

Nonsese.

Frisbee,

"We seem to be evolving into desensortised beings who tolerate everything. Morals and standards need to be place at the for front of modern thinking and we need to call a halt & re-think of what as a society we set as our core values."

You claim that the above is something I have typed. It is not one of my statements. By all means take me to task on what I actually say (fat chance!) but not on what I have NOT said

David's persistent contributions have caused this debate to focus upon the amazing apparent increase in homosexuality, and that is perhaps the right question since so many of the puzzling (and as many believe disastrous) changes being inflicted on this country flow from that. Is it, as David and those who share his inclination believe, an heroic fight against the prejudices of time immemorial yet to reach its fruition, or is it something less principled and more important?

A quote from Andre Gide back in 1932 suggests an alternative "... I believe also that imperative, irresistable tastes, whether homosexual or heterosexual are rather rare, and that a great number of people have a mobile taste, ad libitum, vacillating, without conviction, without vocation, ready to yield to the occasion, to fashion, to opinion, and indiscriminatingly seeking sensual pleasure, the only thing that is certain".

That is too cynical a view for me, but it does open up the question as to whether David and others may not be (unconsciously of course) followers of fashion and positioning themselves for advantage in a grossly feminised society. The reason why society has been so feminised and the implications of that are really the question that we ought all to be addressing, because we are all affected by it. Even those of us who remain loyal to the sex we were born with have no doubt trimmed to give more space to our 'emotional side' due to societal pressures.

Could it be lower sperm counts produced by industrial processes that has caused masculinity to wane? Are the lower birth rates that permit women to play a much larger part in society (whether for good or bad) consistent with a healthy society? Is the encouragement of immigration a female response to an unsatisfactory domestic gene pool? Is this wave of feminism a spasm, a response to a temporary local problem? Will artificial reproduction render males redundant? All of these issues are I believe more important than whether homosexuals are an heroic, misunderstood and persecuted minority.

Henry,

I actually agree with most of what you say - but I just happen to think that the 1) certain high-profile cases are exagerated to suit the circulation targets of the tabloids and 2) whereas Maggie Thatcher took on union militancy (and all its associated intimidation that often abused the freedom of expression) in the 1970s and won, it was an easier target than thwarting PC which is a many-headed monster and is expoused mainly by those on whom Blair depends for votes.

Along with Michael's concerns is it a good idea to allow same sex couples to procreate given that in nature this is impossible. Just What will nature have to say about in generations to come?

Michael,

"David's persistent contributions have caused this debate to focus upon the amazing apparent increase in homosexuality"

As Melanie's article mentioned remarks by Richard Littlejohn on homosexuality in the context of freedom of speech, it is hardly surprising that I should too have raised it.

Of my 25 posts on this thread, 23 have either 1) not mentioned homosexuality at all or have 2) mentioned homosexuality only in the context of replying to someone else who has raised it often in an offensive way that has included very personal slurs against me. In only 2 of my 25 posts have I initiated a discussion on homosexuality.

Richard Littljohn is a bigot who never misses an opportunity to spout hatred.

I fear that Melanie Philips is to an equal extent a bigot and is full of an equal amount of hate.

Whilst sharing all the twisted prejudices of the Soho bomber, and professing to be appualed by violence, they can't quiet help ringing their hands on the side-lines saying 'well, it is there own fault isn't it, they're not quiet natural like us.'

They both encourage and give secour to hater criminals.

Melanie Philips should consider the public health consequences of heterosexuality - 47m HIV cases world wide before she picks on a few hundred thousand gay people in the uS and Europe.

I remember people like Melanie in my prayers - I htink she needs a lot more of them than gay people.

Ditariel,

"The success rate of AIDS transmittence is an incredible 100%. It's actually not even risk. If your gay partner has it, your toast".

No offence, but this is simply UNTRUE. The rate of risk varies widely according to the sexual activity performed ranging from very high risk (unprotected anal intercourse) through medium risk (oral sex) down to no risk (massage, dry kissing).

So, to claim 'your toast' if your partner is HIV positive is like saying that you will inevitably 'fall to your death' if you go mountaineeing. Your risk varies according to all sorts of variables: climbing gear, climbing experience, climbing conditions etc.

David
____________________

I find your three degrees of risk fascinating! Presumably you'll have some foundation for this?

Am I also to conclude that you are into 'massage' (mutual masutrbation) and dry kissing (whatever that might be)?

Enlighten me - Please do?

Frisbee,

"I find your three degrees of risk fascinating! Presumably you'll have some foundation for this?"

Yes.

"Am I also to conclude that you are into 'massage' (mutual masutrbation) and dry kissing (whatever that might be)?

Enlighten me - Please do?"

No

David
_________________

That's it then!

You've got to be into "O"

Hey Frisbee, so you're now saying that it's anxiety that makes homophobic men get an erection when they see gay sex-acts - but weren't you and your pals saying elsewhere that there is no such thing as homophobia, that it's all a gay plot to paint a valid disapproval as a phobia. Which is it? Also, you can't have it both ways - supporting a writer when he helps your arguments and dismissing him when he doesn't. And I accept that there is no decent research into homosexuality and homophobia, but that goes on both sides. The research you quote endlessly is also based on small samples and carried out by people with an agenda, usually on the religious right.

Frisbee,

"That's it then!

You've got to be into "O""

I said NO to your "enlighten me" request...

Fascinating as it may be to elaborate on the mating rituals of men of like persuasion; it does represent a polarised shift from the issue of thought crimes and the delimitation of opinion into a straitjacket of conformity.

Andrei Sakharov spent much time in closed cities as punishment for his ideological impurity; and others were injected with sulphur treatments and locked in institutions....I recall names like Bukhovsky and Scharansky, and Yelena Bonner who could not go for eye treatment abroad; and Pastor Niemoeller, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, whose thoughts were not congruent with opinion-leaders of the time; even Gallileo had a problem with the Thought Police........

So, do we think it is right that the Media attempts to close down discussion and direct people as it does.....in the case of the BBC the editorial opinion on any one issue is as clear and distinct as in the Daily Mail; however, in the one case I have a subscriber-choice; and in the other I am a captive audience.

Romulus,

"in the case of the BBC the editorial opinion on any one issue is as clear and distinct as in the Daily Mail; however, in the one case I have a subscriber-choice; and in the other I am a captive audience"

THat is a key distinction. Privatise the BBC!!!;-)

Romulus,

"Fascinating as it may be to elaborate on the mating rituals of men of like persuasion; it does represent a polarised shift from the issue of thought crimes and the delimitation of opinion into a straitjacket of conformity".

LOL. You ARE right of course. The problem is, however, that when we 'men of like persuasion' try to discuss the 'thought-control' issues seriously we get constant interuptions from 'trolls' who try to start a slanging match about our sex habits. I know, Romulus, I know...more fool us for rising to the bait...

BTW: they've started filling in some of the potholes on the E40!

Joe
______________________________________

“Hey Frisbee, so you're now saying that it's anxiety that makes homophobic men get an erection when they see gay sex-acts”
No, I never said that! Examine my thread more carefully.
What has been said elsewhere is that homosexual men stigmatise opposition by labelling critics as homophobic as a means of avoiding proper debate and discussion
“And I accept that there is no decent research into homosexuality and homophobia”.
One the first issue you are clearly wrong – there is an abundance of research into homosexuality and its largely depressing, but its methodologically sound and in the best traditions of clinical science.
As to homophobia, it is homosexuals who keep going on about it and even you quoted Peter Tatchell as an example. You unashamedly admit your own purpose in doing so:-
“… I'm all for it. Embarrassing `phobes about their homophobia is better than nothing.”
Now that you have had the benefit of our sojourn into a little science, which you and your homosexual friends manipulate, you may now be a little more reluctant to quote this same source to back up dodgy conclusions.

I am just waiting for someone to say something insulting about lesbians - the negative moral linkage between public health and gay sexuality obviously falls down when one looks at the female side where there is very little incidence of AIDS - so surely if it were punishment for immorality then it would fall on them too. Or are some here of the Queen Victoria school - don't believe in it. From what I have seen from female friends (all ostensibly straight) and from all surveys etc, bi-sexuality in women is far more common than in men - we all know the female make-up is more prone to hugging and kissing anyway - the polls I have seen would indicate that the majority (60-70%)of young women now could be said to have had such experiences - or would be open to such. So I am waiting for someone to say that this presages the end of mankind!

I don't think that you can put the Daily Mail and BBC into the same category.

The former is market orientated - making whatever uneducated claims it wants to make about "Immigration" or "Crime", for example, so-long as they accord with/and promote the ignorant attitudes of UK proles.

The latter (at least) attempts to challenge our base attitudes. It is the critical faculty it engenders that the right find most offensive, alongside its editorial independence.

I would rather watch a publically funded broadcaster than see so-called "news" pumped out by an Australian tax-dodger with ineliminable political and economic interests. I may not like what the BBC say, much of the time, but am not enthralled by the alternative.

Okay Frisbee, let's talk about anti-gay bigotry or prejudice from now on rather than homophobia - I'm against the medical model of homosexuality so I suppose it might be counter-productive to medicalise anti-gay bigotry. As for your science, I'm sure that the Nazt scientists thought they had 'proved' the inferiority of 'non-Aryan' people. If you think that scientific research is neutral you are misguided. It's all about formulating a theory and then seeking to prove it, and cannot be taken out of contxt of the beliefs of those carrying it out. As for gay men 'going on' about 'homophobia', that is because we experience it every day as black people experience racism. I suppose you think they should keep quiet about that too. And by the way, I don't support the prosecution of Harry Hammond, and I think that the Employment tribunal's decision in the prison officer case was spot on, so i'm not some politically correct drone. I'd also like to hear from you on Stuart's point. Lastly, the 'I'm all for it' quote was still Peter Tatchell, not me.

Stuart

I am not sure of the point you are trying to make. The issue is not about insulting lesbians or male homosexuals for that matter. If someone wishes to state that are homosexuals disproportionately represented in AIDS statistics they should be allowed to in a democracy that values free speech. If someone directly advocates violence against homosexuals as a group that goes beyond free speech like yelling fire in a movie theatre. Homosexual militants argue that stating opinions about homosexual behaviour leads to violence. This is drawing a very long bow.

“the negative moral linkage between public health and gay sexuality obviously falls down when one looks at the female side where there is very little incidence of AIDS”

There a factual linkage between male homosexuality and public health. I am not aware of any post on this blog that implies let along claims that there is a linkage between female homosexuality and public health. If female bisexual has sex with a male bisexual she is at risk. However an exclusive lesbian or a female bisexual that has sex with a heterosexual male and a woman is not at much risk of contracting HIV. Blood services policies in the UK reflect this.

Most of us on this blog that the militant homosexuals label as homophobic are only opposed to promoting something that is harmful to society and trying to have laws passed to stop all opposition to homosexual agenda.

People with a strong addiction do not like to hear the truth about the likely consequences of their action.

The like between male homosexuality and HIV is as clear as the link between smoking and lung cancer. Not ever one that smokes will get lung cancer and not every homosexual with get AIDS. Their odds might be better then Russian roulette but not much.

It is good to know Guy Chambers that you are a willing consumer of taxpayer-funded broadcasting........ not everyone wishes to buy its output however.

You approval of the BBC presumably takes delight in poor English, poor editing, low-grade presenters, third-rate repetitious News, and a supercilious, half-baked, poorly researched presentation of infotainment.

Since I choose not to buy The Daily Mail, I wish to have the same choice with respect to the BBC.

Guy,

The BBC challenging ???

Here's a quote just one example that came out in the last couple of days.

"This piece from the BBC is a 'must read' for UK activists.

Six times more men than women commit suicide in prisons.

There are 20 times more men than women in prison.

Read the article and see how many times the word 'men' is mentioned.

Here is the third paragraph to whet your appetite ...

Women, new arrivals, drug users and the mentally ill are most at risk of self-harm and suicide, she added.

Do you see?

When it comes to real victims and real need, 'Women' get top billing - even when their numbers are relatively few compared to those of men.

And 'Men' are kept completely out of the picture and the text.

'Men' become 'drug users', the 'mentally ill', 'prisoners', 'inmates', 'patients' etc etc.

Their gender completely disappears.

The BBC has been doing this for years!

It is a truly disgusting organisation that has been generating hatred toward men all over the world".

For Mr Tony Blair to invade another country, killing thousands, even amputating the arms of a small child, who was then flown to England for surgery, while the media exaulted how great we are, is probably as accurate as you can define British society, Blind when our economic prosperity depends upon it.
A society which is very sick indeed and of which Mr.Robert Kilroy-Silk and is but a small part.

His outburst tells us alot about his education.
Very good indeed.

Quite disgusting.

I still don't see the public health argument in terms of comparison with smoking - or indeed even more so SARS - has anyone ever passively caught AIDs from standing next to a HIV positive person. If you are talking about the risk from transfusions then it's more likely that someone would get it from blood donated by an unknowing carrier infected on some trip to the hetero centres fo the Far East.

You forgot the use of the phrase "Anti-Semetic", its used to silence anyone who speaks out against the occupation of Arab lands by Israel.

It works effectivly as you know yourself.

Ha.Ha.Ha.Ha.Ha.Ha.Ha.Ha.Ha.Ha.Ha.Ha.

This made me chuckle.

From Private-Eye.
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/hack.htm

“WHATEVER else I am, I am not a racist,” says Robert Kilroy-Silk. “My record will testify to itself… I probably have done more to improve race relations in this country than any other single institution.”

Tragically few people are aware of this heroic record, however, since scarcely anyone reads the Sunday Express -- not even the paper’s own editors, who printed his recent piece about Arabs without noticing that it had already appeared last April. His efforts to promote racial harmony deserve a wider audience, and Lord Gnome is happy to oblige. Here are Kilroy’s thoughts on…

The English. Don’tcha love ’em? “Now that the fabulous victory of the English rugby team has rekindled, or rather demonstrated, the depth of English national pride, we must never let it be repressed again,” Kilroy declares (14 December 2003). “It is time that we English… stopped allowing ourselves to be put upon. We are beginning to find ourselves. We must now make ourselves heard.”

The Irish. In 1992 the Daily Express apologised for printing a Kilroy column which described Ireland as “