Culture House Daily

‘Tolerance’ is the last thing gays need

4 August 2014

4:59 PM

4 August 2014

4:59 PM

There I was flexing my defensive muscles, waiting for the tsunami of hatred to come my way once my new book hit the shelves, when I discovered that not only did I have some great reviews for Straight Expectations (which rails against the complacency and conservatism of today’s gay rights movement), but the book has an American sister. Perhaps the timid capitulation to straight folk is about to turn, both here and in the US, the birthplace – and now perhaps the graveyard – of the gay liberation movement?

The Tolerance Trap, by US academic and political activist Suzanna Walters, has ‘disappointment’ running right the way through it. But Walters does not complain, rather she offers a way forward. Delivering her gripes without whinging negativity, Walters writes tight prose with sharp humour and observation. This much needed book looks at the common-held views of the gay rights lobby and tips them upside down, clearing out every last crumb of every last old chestnut.

There may have been significant legal victories, argues Walters, but there is still a huge amount of bigotry and much left to do. A number of US states do not recognise equal marriage; gays in the military are still stigmatised to a degree; violence and abuse towards LGBT individuals is still a significant problem; and sports stars coming out is met by media coverage that borders on the frenzied.

‘Breathless tales of the triumph of tolerance and self-satisfied encomiums on our post-gay new world dominate our national discourse,’ writes Walters, ‘with dissenting voices to be found only on the wary queer left and the furious Christian right.’

According to Walters, Hollywood and TV gays are the privileged few; marriage does not benefit those of us that live on the margins. The world is still full of folk who hate and wish us harm, and yet we are fed the line that all is now well because in some countries the legislators have decided we should be allowed to marry and adopt children.


Part 11 of the book, ‘Do These Genes Make Me Look Gay?’, tackles my biggest bugbear of the contemporary gay rights movement, and one that I deal with in depth in my book.

‘If marriage is conjured as the Oz of queer liberation,’ she writes, ‘then biological and genetic arguments are the yellow brick road, often providing the routes and the rationale for civil rights.’ But the ‘we were born this way, so give us our rights and leave us alone’ argument does not work, argues Walters, in fact this approach can, and does, backfire.

Just because those heterosexuals that believe in an innate cause of same-sex attraction are more likely to be tolerant of gays than those that argue it is a ‘lifestyle choice’ does not mean, argues Walters, that it is either a correct or even strategic argument to use in order to tackle bigotry.

‘Tolerance as a theme of contemporary gay rights is dependent on biological arguments much as plants need sunshine to flourish.’

Tolerance is a bad word to Walters, because it allows religious ‘objections’ to queer lives to remain in place. I certainly do not wish to be ‘tolerated’. We tolerate back pain, bad wine and crap TV, or, as Walters puts it, ‘Tolerance pushes for marriage equality and simultaneously assures anxious allies that it won’t change their marriages or their lives.’

Tolerance is the last, not the first thing, we need. This book is a call to arms. Read it, whoever you are. It can be applied to any social movement. ‘Not only can tolerance be invoked and then undermined by intolerant actions; it hides behind a veneer of civility to perpetuate inequality.’

As I say in my book, we have gone from ‘shame’ to ‘same’; from ‘the picket line to the picket fence’, and yet there are currently more than 2.7 billion people that live in countries where being gay is a crime. How we achieve true equality matters. That we are currently getting it wrong is the theme running through The Tolerance Trap. If we go for toleration, we will be prevented from truly integrating. If we integrate, we can’t liberate. The rainbow is not enough. Walters is so, so right.

Suzanna Walters’ The Tolerance Trap: How God, Genes, and Good Intentions are Sabotaging Gay Equality is published by New York University Press

Julie Bindel is the author of Straight Expectations: What Does It Mean To Be Gay Today? (Guardian Books)

Follow Julie Bindel on Twitter @bindelj

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.

Show comments
  • steveherts

    Not only do we now have full acceptance of what is termed Gay but the values of the minority homosexualist lobby is actively being imposed throughout society; anyone rejecting or even questioning the homosexualist worldview is immediately accused of “homophobia” ( a made up word), We already have over- representation of Gays in positions of authority in the media (BBC), the Church and Parliament. Try being a teacher who does not believe in Gay marriage and expressing that belief.The real victims of intolerance are those heterosexuals who reject the Gay agenda

    Islam will soon gain control of urban parts of the UK and will start to impose Sharia compliant laws in those areas-we will see this in London first, then other cities such as Leicester,and Birmingham. It will be passed off as respect for Islamic culture-any expression of Gay rights in those areas will be impossible-so corrupt are the supine liberal political elite that runs this country that they will go along with the creation of these Islamic no go areas. Its all about numbers and political mass-when you have over 3 million Muslims in the country most of whom are not prepared to adopt Western values this kind of fragmentation is inevitable. When Islam is present in a country with any significant numerical strength, it does not compromise with the host culture.

    • Shenandoah

      No Islam won’t: we shall oppose it!

      • steveherts

        I’m afraid force of numbers will prevent that-look at areas of the East End of London-where a very rigid Islamic Bangladeshi culture is now in the ascendant. This has become politicised and is gaining control of local councils-the next step will be Sharia controlled zones. If you oppose it you’ll be a racist. Labour and the Liberal Left have helped create this monster in what was once a settled country.

        • Shenandoah

          So deport them. We can do it. All it takes is political backbone. This is still our country. They have no claim.

          • steveherts

            Well I would support financially assisted repatriation for those not willing to assimilate. We could start by ending the nonsense that allows them to import brides from their country of origin or the country to which they still profess allegiance.Unfortunately, we do not have any political leaders of integrity or courage willing to address this problem which grows bigger by the day. There is no such thing as Liberal Islam unfortunately-it is fundamentally incompatible with free democratic western society

  • Ilya Grushevskiy

    Well, Confucius had an interesting quote:

    “If the people be led by laws, and uniformity sought to be given them by punishments, they will try to avoid the punishment, but have no sense of shame. If they be led by virtue, and uniformity sought to be given them by the rules of propriety, they will have the sense of shame, and moreover will become good.”

    The west is slowly turning to the latter mode and is increasingly accepting homosexuality as just another aspect of the human condition, but it’s not a process that can be accelerated sadly – people must change individually.

  • Lagos1

    More foot stamping.

    Its only the “born this way” pseudo-science that has got you the tolerance. And even that is hardly well reasoned, immoral actions are still immoral. We don’t make excuses for other people who have a natural inclination for doing things that are wrong.

    • Ilya Grushevskiy

      There is no natural and absolutist morality – even in Christianity, the Golden Rule (effectively its moral corner-stone from which all other rules follow) has nothing to do with independent third parties and in reality it proposes a relativistic, individualistic approach to moral boundaries.

      Wrong is wrong when someone gets harmed against their will. You may not like it, but in this case your words are the ones that would lead to morally wrong actions with respect to this debate.

      • Lagos1

        Your argument has a number of problems.

        Firstly, to claim that there is no natural and absolute morality means that there is no objective morality and what morality there is, is subjective. This means that if you are correct, then you cannot make claims such as “wrong is wrong when someone gets harmed against their will”. It is your subjective view of morality. In fact, truth claims in general start collapsing if your initial claim is correct – which raises all manner of problems.

        Secondly, you are wrong about Christianity. It very much asserts an objective morality. Perhaps your mistake arises from believing that the golden rule is its moral cornerstone. it isn’t. The primary rule of Christianity is to love the Lord your God. As God is considered as unchanging, goodness itself and the primary source of all that is in nature, then it is impossible to regard Christianity to be proposing ” a relativistic, individualistic approach to moral boundaries.”

        • Ilya Grushevskiy

          On the first point, yes I agree – I can’t make that claim because I do not believe in absolute morality. However, the golden rule is a relative rule, to do with individual actors, so I am happy with it! Taking that rule and making a blanket statement like I did is too far. Sorry about that 😀
          I do however feel that if it comes to individual actions, the Golden Rule approximates well to that statement!

          On Christianity – loving your God is your commandment and says nothing of morality (hence why I said moral corner-stone above). It is stated that God, while benevolent, wise, all good etc etc – is simply unknowable, and even such positive statements are arguably limiters to his Omnipotence. Therefore, His existence and characteristics cannot be used as a basis for a firm moral framework by Man, simply because of the fact that His Law isn’t your law. Attempting to use the absolutes of God to create a moral framework within this world is sheer arrogance imo, and disrespectful of the entity you are taught to love.

          • Lagos1

            The fact that you don’t believe in absolute morality will clearly mean that the Golden rule is entirely subjective to you (as should all other value based concepts – including scientific ones by the way). But again, that presupposes that there are no objective values or purposes in the world.

            But if there are objective values or purposes, then its not possible to say that the Golden rule is merely a relative rule. It isn’t relative because now we can say that there are things that are objectively good for us as human beings, which means that willing the same thing for others is simply willing objective good. This is not subjective. Of course it is framed in terms of us as individual actors, doing to others what we would like for ourselves, but that is merely because we use our own humanity to discern what the objective good is for other humans. Of course our discernment is subjective and this may mean that what we desire does not always point to what is truly good.

            Which brings us to loving the Lord your God. It does have a massive impact on morality. If this is primary, it means that an individual will seek to desire what God desires and this will, by definition, be the objective good and allow the Golden rule to be applied correctly.

            As to your final point, I would disagree on a number of levels. Sure, it is not possible for us to know God completely, but why say that God is simply unknowable? If you are already accepting that He is wise, good etc then you are already saying that you know something about Him. And if we can already say this, we can already point to purpose in nature. And if we can discern purpose, we can discern a natural moral law. This is what classical philosophy taught even before Christianity. The arrogance and disrespect would then be to ignore such moral law.

            • Ilya Grushevskiy

              The Golden Rule states:

              “Treat others as you would like others to treat you.”
              “Do not treat others as you would not like others to treat you.” (I prefer that one btw – discourages enforcement of personal belief systems!)

              This rule flows from an inner, individualistic desire not to be mistreated. It is therefore not anchored to any external “truth”. Your desire not to be mistreated, and my similar desire do not manifest in an identical way. You can generalise – people do not wish to be killed more than they do not wish to be burgled, therefore we can say that murder is a relatively worse crime. But you cannot place it on an absolute, 1 to 10 scale of “evilness”.
              In addition, rules of morality change with time, even Christian laws have changed substantially in 2000 years (marriage is a classic example).
              Now does this mean that the values of God are somehow changing, or of humanity? Obviously the latter.

              There is simply no such thing as absolute good and evil, only relative good and evil (outside of God).
              You only have to look at examples of people using absolute belief systems to see that in nearly all cases such systems cause human misery – Atheist Communism, the theory of Just War, science (I agree with you it cannot provide absolutes btw – a big mistake that some less enlightened scientists proclaim!), even terrorism as a concept has become an absolute. But every absolute theory fails because in the end no part of the human condition can be summarised within a stereotype. Hence the Golden Rule – relativity within society.. it’s not as simple as proclaiming “I’m right, you’re wrong”, but it

              On God – Classical philosophy taught something very different from what Judeo-Christian theology does.
              The classical Indo-European religions are vastly different from the Judeo-Christian ones in the sense that the concept of the Meta-Divine spirit (fate for the ancient Greeks, Brahman for Hinduism, salt water and fresh water for the Mesopotamians) was explicitly stated as unknowable within those belief systems. Even the gods, who while vastly superior to Man, were still subject to it’s arbitrary law.
              Judaism created a monotheistic religion through stating that God is that exact meta-divine substance and therefore He is not subject to an unknowable tug from some force – He is that force itself. Therefore, He is absolute. While at no point within Christian theology does anyone state that you can know God explicitly, this belief has become entrenched through the misinterpretation of Christian philosophy. Christianity, like all religions, is based on faith – you don’t get a bonus for saying you “know God”, no bishop would say that is possible. I never said that God has those characteristics, more that they are decent approximations for the human mind.

              Bringing it back to homosexuality – it is a personal choice by a person and his/her partner (regardless of genetics). You could argue it is unnatural. But surely (I assume you are Christian btw, sorry if I’m wrong! :p ) if the Omniscience that is God created this world, this is also somehow a manifestation of his Divine plan? You may not like it, but “do not judge lest ye be judged” springs to mind. If God is the ultimate creator of All, if He really was set against the concept of homosexuality, surely he would have “programmed in” its impossibility?
              And if these people do not affect your life directly, don’t infringe on your personal space or change your life in any significant way, shouldn’t you simply let them live out their life and let the ultimate arbiter give his opinion on the matter?!

              • Lagos1

                Certainly the way we act on the rule can be driven by our desires, but as rational creatures, it can also be based upon our reason. If reason is to exist in a meaningful sense, then it does need there to be an external truth. Besides which, if there is no external truth, then you certainly cannot claim that the truth is that there is no truth or even that we cannot know the truth. Similarly with your other assertions, such as that there is no good or evil – these claims are actually impossible for you to make once you have committed to this subjective line of argument. Of course you will continue to make them, as we all do, because it is impossible to properly function without believing that values can be real. Which is why you can reel off a list of absolute moral systems that have had failures – all of which incorporate versions of the golden rule by the way, as there is no dichotomy with a sense of absolute morality with this rule. The reality is that it is difficult to find a society that does not operate on the basis that that right and wrong really exist. And I`m not sure I would like to live in one that did.

                As for classical indo-European religions, it is a mistake to believe that these are the religions that classical western philosophy supported. It did not. In fact, it helped destroy them. You describe Judaism as monotheistic and with a God that is the force itself – but that is exactly what classical philosophy said that God is like. We only need to look to Aristotle and his unmoved mover to see this. In fact it is one of the reasons why Judaic beliefs were already attracting Roman and Greek adherents even before Christianity.

                And as soon as we start talking about what God is like, it means that we claim at least some knowledge of him. And Christianity doesn`t claim that faith is based on nothing.

                As to the comment about programming in the impossibility for homosexuality. We could argue the same for all manner of things. But of course there would be no virtue in rational creatures that do not have the freedom to act.

                • Ilya Grushevskiy

                  You’re right there would be no virtue in Man if he had no free will. But is it virtuous to enforce your own opinion on man if he is not offending or causing harm to anyone? If he sticks to the golden rule?

                  I don’t believe in pure rationality btw, if only because of the Münchhausen trilemma and Gödel’s incompleteness theorem (plus I have high functioning autism and rationality doesn’t always make “rational sense” – how do you define rationality within chaotic systems, non deterministic algorithms (solution to Hilbert’s 10th problem), absolute random acts (quantum wave function collapse).

                  Even if the world was truly rational, and you could sum up the whole of existence in a humongous set of numbers and equations, I can’t imagine humanity ever having enough access to the whole to provide itself with an absolute moral framework that they can prove to be complete. Knowing God cannot be to the level of knowing his design completely – that is Omniscience. Without that, you cannot be absolutist in your opinions though as you are always missing aspects of creation, however small and if actions do not break the golden rule, you cannot enforce your morality as you lack the absolute certainty needed for such an action.

                  Hence why I don’t think homosexuality is a problem to society – it doesn’t hurt the individual group, or other individuals that exist within that society if gay people act conscientiously. Whether it affects society as a whole, whatever that is, it would still not allow for absolute rules of enforcement on moral grounds simply because a society has the same limits as man with regards to absolute truth.

                • Lagos1

                  The Münchhausen trilemma and Gödel’s theorem are about the limitations of knowledge, they don`t in themselves deny truth or reason. If they did, they would then deny themselves any credibility because they are based on reason and claim to point to truth.

                  Secondly, lacking omniscience does not mean lacking all knowledge, including moral knowledge. It certainly doesn`t mean that we can`t act on knowledge. In fact we act all the time without total certainty. If we took your suggestion, not only would we not be able to operate a justice system, but we simply wouldn`t do anything at all.

                  You also seem to be conflating enforcement of laws on moral grounds with the question of whether something is moral or not. Its perfectly reasonable to think something is immoral and not wish for a legal framework be introduced to prevent it. However,the reason you give, i.e. that we are not sure of the absolute truth, is not a good one. If we are not sure of the absolute truth, then we could equally say that we are not sure of the morality of hurting others. In fact you have said yourself, that there isn`t really an absolute morality, therefore even the morality of genocide would be subjective. Which means it would be just as reasonable, on moral grounds, to allow genocide as it would be to prohibit it. This is the unfortunate dilemma of subjective morality. It turns into being simply your own personal taste.

                • Ilya Grushevskiy

                  Well, I never said that relativism doesn’t state that we have no knowledge, only that it is relative. I agree that can create problems.

                  Genocide is a relative crime – wiping out a whole species is worse, or all of a planet’s life forms.. This doesn’t make the crime of genocide diminished, simply in a ranking.

                  If I say it that way, relativism feels very emotional and mathematical, while absolute morality feels like it appeals more to emotion – an act is “wrong” simply because it is.

                  That is my problem though – absolute concepts do not allow for my humanity – the ability to question, to ask “why”.. or at least, if the answer is unsatisfactory, to continue asking. Why can’t I wear both wool and linen on fear of being stoned? A relative system would examine the numbers and probably say “not much bad comes of this, it’s ok to repeal the law” while an absolute would say “it is what it is, obey it”. It feels like force, and I don’t believe in forcing people to do things you have no rational explanation for.

                  Also brings the Rousseau argument against force – if force is right, then all I need to do is become the strongest force in order to put in my absolute system of laws… but then it’s only relative absolutism, relative to the force!

                  Between absolute morality, relative morality and nihilistic morality, all three have problems and can cause grief.

                  I like the Hindu concept of reality – this world is a relative world, and there is another one which is absolute, the residing place of Narayana, who is Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva as one.. it can’t exist in a relative world in an absolute form, hence the split! .. it makes sense to me that we are in a relative world, hence my relativism (it also feels like the underlying aspect of creation is deterministic, and absolute law should exist, only it’s so far away from us, it’s not worth using it for almost all decision making)

                  Law can be made of a relative mindset – the best legal system would always be one where each individual action is judged on its own merits, with no “quick summary” from statue, or stereotyping of whole groups of people simply because they have one action in common. This would be prohibitively expensive and time consuming though, hence stereotypes and statue!

                • Lagos1

                  The point is that we don’t need complete knowledge, omniscience, to act and make judgements. This applies to moral knowledge as well. So its still unclear why you think that we are rendered impotent with regard to making judgements.

                  But at the same time as saying this, you are quite happy to make moral judgements. Not only to make them but, at least it appears this way, to assume that they are objectively true. take genocide. Why should we view it as a crime at all? Why should we even adopt the golden rule? Somewhere along the line you are making a real moral judgement even if you want to equivocate on the gravity of it.

                  As for Rousseau, he is actually describing a subjective moral system – even if it is one backed up by force. In this sense, he is describing your moral system, except edged by a bit of steel. I am talking about an objective morality. Its irrelevant whether anybody supports it with force or not. It just is.

                  And why do you think that you cant have a moral system grounded objectively but still grades moral actions relatively? This is precisely how virtually every objective moral system works.

                  What you are describing when you say that you want to weigh up numbers is more of a utilitarian approach to morality. It may (or may not) still be objective although the moral problems with utilitarian morality are well known. But you don’t have to be a utilitarian to grade moral actions as I say. Do you really think objective moral systems necessarily consider someone who steals a car to be as morally culpable as a rapist? Of course not. But this doesn’t stop us saying that both acts are morally wrong. And as you say the best legal systems do judge cases on their own merits. And certainly in the West, these legal systems were built on the assumption of an absolutely objective morality.

                  Similarly, you suggest that you can’t ask “why”. But of course you can. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant were all moral philosophers who asked why and yet were committed to objective moral systems. Don’t think that all objective morality is based on a Divine Command Theory. Traditional morality against homosexual acts is rooted in natural law theory. Read Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant – all of them asked why it was wrong and decided, through reasoned argument, that it was. They didn’t need the reinforcement of scripture to figure it out. We can even ask why with your example of wearing wool and linen. Never wondered why Christians are OK with it?

                  Furthermore, you have questioned the use of reason and yet you now only want moral codes that have a rational explanation. I agree with the latter, but it seems that you are being inconsistent. If you want rational explanations then you need reason. Moral reasoning requires real and objective values. If we believe that real and objective values exist then we have the grounds to believe that real and objective moral values also exist and therefore conclude that morality is objective. You cannot have this both ways.

                • Ilya Grushevskiy

                  Sure, but an absolute moral system (assuming it’s correct… otherwise why would you be following it?! 😀 ) requires perfect information about the cause and effects that precede the actions, which even in our modern society is frankly still far far away, and not even wanted by most people due to privacy losses..

                  Why should you just not view anything as a crime? Because this existence, whatever it is, is all to us, even if insignificant in the grander scheme of things, we are not nothing, so nihilism and indifference to what your actions cause is simply an act of pulling wool over your eyes in order to hide yourself from reason.

                  I think we simply differ on our approach to reality. You are absolute in your approach to your world, I’m relative. Both ways have their faults imo, otherwise you’d kind of hope people would chose one for their own good!

                  I don’t follow natural law as a concept – any action within nature is natural.. a bullet follows some pretty accurate physics laws to hit someone, the brain of the person that fires it works on mentally complex chemistry, but chemistry none the less – there is nothing “unnatural” about anything that is done by man.. unusual, unnecessary? Sure, but that doesn’t mean you can create an arbitrary system dictating to nature what you consider to be within it’s “normal” operational mechanisms (and if our actions are unnatural, how can our reasoning behind them be, therefore surely our judgments are impaired about the subject matter from the get go and we are doomed to failure?!).

                  I follow the golden rule unilaterally not because I think it’s noble, or some smart guy wrote about it in. From 10 years experience, it has provided less hassle in human interaction and I can learn more about the human condition because people do not hide themselves when you don’t judge them for anything you can’t convince them of. Makes conversations interesting.. which is enough really!

                  Morality on the other hand feels as much inward facing as it is outward facing. Every judgement that a person makes to mark someone out as superior or inferior is also concurrently a judgement they make about themselves in relation.. Like double accounting. Well, that’s just a hypothesis, but I don’t think from our histories we can say people enforce laws to only do good.. I choose not to care about such matters until I am certain that I’m right, in my mind (possibly supreme arrogance on my part btw). That ironically sounds like it makes my approach to human interaction pretty absolutist, at least where my mind is concerned, but it’s unilateral and I don’t care if people follow my reasoning – I’m not doing it for them but for myself. Ironically this stops me from being influenced by herd mentality, which to me is the bane of all humanity.

                  Neti neti as is said in the Upanishads about reality.. Approaching the world that way keeps me from doing anything stupid! But I can’t state definitively your opinion is wrong either that way! 😀

                • Lagos1

                  Why do you think an objective and therefore absolute moral system would require perfect information/ I already addressed that. We constantly work with things about which we have imperfect knowledge. Why is morality any different? And if the moral system is objective, then that is what it is. Whether we have perfect knowledge of it no more changes what it is than the fact that the laws of physics are what they are even if we don’t fully understand them.

                  Perhaps we are talking about different things. I am saying that morality is an objective fact independent of what anybody thinks. it is not subjective. In that sense it is absolute. However, and at the same time, it applies itself relatively to a particular instance.

                  You claim that your morality (following the golden rule) is a unilateral decision because it causes you less hassle and helps your understanding etc. But this is not really morality. In fact it is not even subjective morality. Morality comes with obligation. Sometimes the right thing does cause you hassle. In fact doing the right thing can kill you. What you are describing is the application of the golden rule as a means of optimising personal satisfaction. In this sense, someone else could say that murder, rape and stealing was, in their experience, the best way forward. and they would be no more nihilistic or indifferent. So the question remains, why consider certain things crimes? And no nihilist would say we are nothing, they would just say that there isn’t any real purpose to existence. They are perfectly capable of analysing their own actions.

                  Which brings us to natural law. Of course any action in nature is natural. But so what? Natural law isn’t an arbitrary system dictating to nature what actions are “natural”. You are applying the wrong understanding of what “natural” means in natural law and therefore a wrong understanding of natural law itself. In the philosophical sense, what is natural is what coincides with the teleology of nature. And you cannot reject natural teleology without accepting that you are ultimately a nihilist. And in this sense, it is perfectly reasonable for us to act unnaturally because we have free will and the intelligence to make decisions contrary to what is natural. In fact we can even be inclined as individuals, through no choice of our own, to depart from what is natural. For example, we know that the nature of a heart is to pump blood, but no one doubts that it is possible for some hearts to do this improperly.

                  And sure, human laws are not always enforced to do good. But again, what about it? And I doubt that you really don’t care. Most people want to live in a society where theft and murder are against the law.

                • Ilya Grushevskiy

                  Absolute morality is built on a system which can categorically state that a>b>c>…>x>y>z; that is, preferences are known completely. Such a system does not require prefect knowledge, but without it it hits a wall:

                  A and B are doing something. It affects only them, and not in a way they think is wrong. (Homosexuality).

                  C has an absolute morality that states that the action is against natural law.

                  D also has an absolute morality, but because neither C nor D have perfect information, D’s absolute opinion, based on his evidence, says that the action is ok.

                  C and D meet, and they are the people who must decide whether to allow A and B to do what they want with regard to that action.

                  Tell me who wins the argument? Both are completely certain they are right. However both absolute moralities are framed from information available to C and D respectively.. There is a chance one convinces the other, but that requires a person with a belief that he is completely right to admit that he was wrong.

                  In my experience, people who talk in absolutes rarely allow for admittance of error. In most cases, I see the outcome being made through use of force, which has nothing with their respective arguments whatsoever. It’s simply “strongest takes all”.

                  Relative morality cannot give complete answers, so in the above case, C and D would discuss their respective points of view and hopefully meet half way. in the former example that couldn’t happen.

                  If C is absolute and D is relative, the impasse remains, maybe even more so than with two absolutes, because I can’t imagine myself shifting to an absolute moral or belief system at any point, neither can you think of switching to a relative! :p

                  Here’s an example: cannibalism.

                  Should be simple right? Your moral system and mine frown upon it. But does that mean that endocannibalism in New Guinean tribes, where the burial custom is to eat the dead relative is fundamentally wrong? In your system it is. In theirs, it’s right. If representatives from your community sat down and decided to have a debate on it, you would most likely end in an impasse.

                  Relativity states that it’s not wrong or right, simply depends on the individual situation. You cannot create a stereotype of any part of the human condition. Race, national, gender stereotypes are frowned upon. But why not rape, murder and thief stereotypes? The participants of those actions are no less simplistic than a person from a certain city or gender. And the community in which they live create rules based on social, historical and environmental influences.. these influences don’t always give the same answer, but it doesn’t mean that someone is wrong.

                  In the cannibalism case, they do get prion disease when they eat the human brain, so that would be good argument against part of the practice. But not all cases are so clear cut.

                  Sparta was famous for making children steal during their training. Heck, they had to kill a slave to graduate! They didn’t think it was wrong because their system required extreme training to become a killing machine. Does that make their system wrong? Well I frown upon it because in such a situation murder is inequitable. The situation is unfair and causes a negative external effect.

                  That is not nihilism, that is a judgement of an individual action based on the facts available. Nihilism wouldn’t create a judgement because it would say there is no rule that can be defined objectively. I agree that no concrete rule can be defined, but I disagree that individual cases can’t be judged based on circumstance and evidence.

                  Is that morality? Not in your sense I guess, but it would come to the same conclusions as you when people’s actions cause negative external results, but would most likely find fault with your insistence on implementing your laws on a closed system (such as homosexual relationships, which have little to no effect on anyone other than the partners involved).

                • Lagos1

                  But you don’t present a case for absolute morality hitting the wall. All you describe are two people (C and D) disagreeing over the moral issue and the possibility that they may not agree. If moral values are objective, then whether they agree or not is beside the point because there is a moral truth about the matter. Can C and D agree? You say that they are absolutely certain that they know, but this is not necessarily the case at all – this is a false premise. They can be believe in an objective and therefore absolute moral system but be well aware that they are fallible and willing to listen to argument. And indeed we see that moral debate is the norm in most societies that believe in objective moral values. In fact it it can be taken to a highly academic level.

                  I may agree that C and D, were they to believe that morality is subjective and relative, might meet a compromise more readily. But this is not because they believe they simply can’t provide a complete answer (this can also be the case if you believe in objective morality); it is because they don’t really believe that the moral issue is really a moral issue at all. It is merely their own preference and a situation that requires conflict management. They do not believe there are moral facts about the matter. But of course whether they believe this or not says nothing about whether there really are.

                  You cite the example of murder and you disagree with it because it is unfair. But why should fairness be something that we value? After all, you dismiss moral values as being objective, so why not dismiss (or reduce in importance) other values? You say murder can create a negative external effect. But not necessarily for the murderer and it is he that you have to convince. So no, it doesn’t come to the same conclusions at all.

                  You say that it is a judgement based on the facts available. But such a judgement will still involve values of some sort, epistemic values for example, and as you have ruled that objective moral values do not exist then there is no reason to believe any other value exists. In which case your judgement is also subjective and what you take for its basis on fact is nothing more than an illusion.

                  And a nihilist can create a judgement, he would just say that his judgement is purely his own opinion and says nothing more about the truth of the matter and the rights and wrongs of the issue. The only difference then between you and he is that the nihilist has taken the relativist reasoning further to its conclusion.

                  This is the problem with the relativist/subjective approach. Not only does it prove itself entirely unsatisfactory in explaining why so many awful crimes are wrong, following its logic can corrode the concept of understanding all together.

                • Ilya Grushevskiy

                  I am describing a case where two absolute moral systems come to an impasse.. You are right, C or D can change their point of view in that situation, but if they both had an absolute system before, then the one that changed their system was absolutely wrong beforehand, and they must agree that that was the case. If such a possibility can exist, how can there be absolute certainty in their mind about any aspect of the remaining parts of their moral system?
                  It would be like saying “I’m right, I’m right, I’m right… oh, I’m wrong; well then I’m completely right if I switch my opinion, and therefore… I’m right, I’m right I’m right!” There is no admittance of error – that would require the person to then feel the possibility for mistake in his new opinion and that would mean no rational possibility of having an absolute mind frame – if I know I can make a mistake, I cannot be absolutely sure I’m right.. that’s all I’m saying.

                  And relativists do believe in moral systems, but relative ones – what is allowed in India is different from what is allowed in the US. Can both peoples criticize the other? Sure, and both will have valid arguments, but they will not be absolute because neither people will be absolutely sure of their positions. They can also both be right, if both peoples are completely happy with those systems.

                  Judgements will include values and values can develop from experience. My experience is that when I have been of the opinion that I am completely right, I have always been wrong! (I’m not entirely stupid imo, so I’m not sure that’s just down to IQ 😀 ).. and admitting you are wrong when you were adamant that you were right is all great, but then insisting you are absolutely right again just feels like not learning the lesson you could have learnt from.

                  I’m not saying that there cannot be something close to certainty, which would allow for concrete judgements from a weighing up of costs and benefits. Actions that have external consequences can be “valued” that way. But in my opinion, there will always be a variance, simply because no two acts are ever the same, giving the possibility that a negative action becomes positive, or a positive action becomes negative.

                  In the case of actions that have no external influence however: say two homosexuals (back to the point) live out their lives, peacefully and happily, in the middle of say Siberia, subsiding on what they farm/make, having no contact with the outside world and therefore no influence on anybody other than themselves, I cannot for the life of me see an intrinsic reason why they are to be punished for their actions. Who honestly cares?
                  Diverting resources, both mental and physical, in an attempt to change their ways is simply a waste of time and money – there are many other things happening for which people could use their limited time to bring about real positive change in this world..

                  Now if you believe what you believe because you think there are negative impacts of homosexual behaviour on society, well then it’s a different argument altogether.. That’s a cost/benefit analysis, and I’m all happy people having any opinion as long as that analysis stands up.

                • Lagos1

                  OK, but then you are describing a case where any two systems come to an impasse. If C and D differ in their conclusion, because that is the logical conclusion of their respective systems they you are right to say that the only way to bring about agreement is for one of them to replace their current system. But don`t forget that the relativist also draws his conclusion from a system of thought. Therefore the same issue arises – it is therefore not limited to absolute/objective moral systems. It applies to all systems of thought.

                  The difference between your relativistic morality and an objective morality is really that the latter offers a route to moral conclusions on a variety of issues whereas the former only concludes that no real conclusion is possible.

                  And, as I have pointed out, this certainly doesn’t mean that a follower of an objective moral system can never acknowledge the possibility of mistake in his conclusion. It is perfectly possible for him to recognise the possibility for his conclusions to be wrong within his own system (as all
                  manner of moral debates among Christians, Muslims or followers of classical natural law or Kantian ethics testify).
                  Sure, the relativist might be perceived as being more open minded. But in reality it’s just reflecting the fact that his system of thought isn’t actually taking him to any definitive conclusion.

                  But this points to an inherent problem for the relativist as I have tried to make clear. His system is ultimately self-defeating. The arguments required to reach the conclusion (that no real conclusion on moral values is possible) will simultaneously undercut the possibility that a conclusion on any values is possible. Which begs the question; how can we derive the conclusion that no real conclusion on moral values is possible if we have no conclusion on the values needed to build the argument itself?

                  And this moves us on to where you claim that a relativist can still reach concrete judgements by weighing up costs and benefits. But no, he can’t. There is nothing concrete, i.e. objective about them. How can you objectively weigh up costs and benefits if the values that you assign to carry out this exercise have no objective value? It is not possible.

                  Regarding your Siberian couple. The issue here is actually twofold. You jump to the question as to whether they should be punished. However, I would see it in two parts. Is their behaviour moral? And then, should this behaviour be punished?

                  To a relativist as you describe, he can draw no true conclusion on the first question. Hence your immediate jump to the second question. But this leads to an intriguing question for the relativist. Is he ever willing to
                  punish? Of course, he may claim that his cost/benefit analysis (ignore the fact it has no objective value for now) may justify punishment. But in the absence of any moral judgement, it inevitably means that he may be willing to punish someone for something that is not immoral. Perhaps the cost/benefit analysis means that child victims of rapists should be the ones that are punished or that belonging to a particular ethnicity should be a capital offense. I can see certain cost/benefit analysis scenarios taking us here. It means that the justice system is now decoupled from morality. This is troubling.

                  To me, and others who believe in moral facts, the first question is key. And moral behaviour is about configuring our behaviour to what is actually good. And doing good is fulfilling our natural purpose. In this sense it is far more
                  positive than simply making sure we don’t negatively impact other people. Therefore morality is an issue even in the wilds of Siberia and even if you are alone. So are homosexual acts good? Well, they contradict what is evidently the purpose of human sexuality and therefore simply cannot be described as good. This conclusion is backed up by philosophy and religious revelation.

                  But the second question is whether they should be punished. In your example, where we assume that the impact on society is minimal, then the only reason to do so is with the kind intention of helping them to avoid what is bad. In a sense, this would be applying the golden rule. But I am sceptical of how successful a punishment would be in achieving this in your specific example and, as you suggest, whether more good could be done with limited resources elsewhere.

                • Ilya Grushevskiy

                  I don’t think we’ll reach a conclusion:

                  I fundamentally believe in Socratic Knowledge. We are all born with free will, and I will not allow myself to impose my will on others (who do not impose their will on others) when I know that I have not achieved perfection in my thoughts. Doing otherwise would be opening myself up to error. In knowing that such error is possible, pursuing my actions would be double the error for not being able to stop myself.

                  As Lao-Tzu said:

                  “Take the world by constantly applying non-interference,
                  The one who interferes is not qualified to take the world.”

                  Nonetheless, it has been a fun chat, I have more to learn about now! Thank you 😀

              • Shenandoah

                What’s wrong with ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’? That covers everything; prevents abuse of power; and is elegant to boot. To my mind, that phrase alone is the greatest achievement of the West. I don’t mean the Enlightenment, which achieved more — or the pre-Enlightenment, which was much more vicious — but the West as a whole is a society bending towards reason and compassion.

                • Ilya Grushevskiy

                  First, the golden rule is not only a western concept – Buddhism and Confucianism hit on it around the 5th century BC too… it’s a world philosophy really.

                  The problem is that the golden rule breaks down when each actor assumes (believes) that they have access to an absolute morality: A and B are acting within the golden rule to each other, but C sees that action and believes it to be outside of his “absolute morality”, assuming he “knows” that his absolute morality is the true one (why would he assume otherwise?!), he is then within his own golden rule to enforce his opinion on A and B, even though they haven’t broken the rule.. The golden rule only holds without an absolute moral authority.

                • Shenandoah

                  If it’s ‘a world philosophy really’, then why do so few live by it? Buddhism is a religion not a regime nor the basis for any regime, and it weirdly denies the reality of enemies and ill-wishers. In the West we have compassion, rationality, and decency without letting our brains fall out.

                • Ilya Grushevskiy

                  Dunno, but I would hazard a guess that in a world where everyone does, it’s an unstable equilibrium? From a game theory point of view..

                  Buddhism is more a combination of philosophy and psychology in my opinion, but that’s another matter altogether. It doesn’t deny reality, it states its relativism – which given Einstein and Quantum theory is at least for now, scientifically accurate.. It then proceeds to say that a relativistic world cannot produce absolute results, therefore looking inside yourself to find answers is a different way. Not too different from some (Plato?) Ancient Greek philosophers’ beliefs that the world’s processes could be worked out from thought alone (though Buddhism still says that experiment is very much part of this reality so useful). Nihilistic schools have been very badly viewed by Buddhism, being disavowed.

                  I thought it was a bit silly until I read it (agnostic through and through for rational reasons), but the guy is far more rational than you may think!

  • Gwangi

    And how many gay people – male and female – do you think read tedious ‘gender studies/quueer studies/wimmins studies’ tomes like this?
    Most gay people I know just want to get on with their lives – and be tolerated too – and most gay people want nothing to do with the loud and leftie gay lobby. Just like we all have to tolerate each other (I despise religious nuts but I tolerate them so long as they keep themselves to themselves and don’t impose their filthy fake versions of life on me and mine – or my country).
    Tolerance is enough.
    And how I do wish all these tedious books by pompous wiseacre waffling unimportant non-entity academics stopped being published. We’d save a rainforest a year, I tells yer…

  • Picquet

    You won’t achieve ‘true equality’ because you can’t. When some fairy-boy gets pregnant and gives birth from his bum you may be getting close, but I wouldn’t want the midhusband’s job.

  • Gentleman Jim Crow

    You cannot legislate or bully people into liking you.

  • Stephen Milroy

    The love that dare not speak its name is now the love that just won’t shut up about it.

  • Shenandoah

    No that’s right: tolerance isn’t good enough: it has to be full-bore approval. Well, no one else gets that, so why should you? I especially love the idea that those that don’t like your way of life should embrace homosexual demands about everything, when most homosexuals would be the first to prohibit all religion except Leftism, if they could! Still, that’s ‘progressives’ for you: if we took away their double standards there’d be nothing left except soul-crushing conformity.

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    I really would like to explore the connection (if any) between homosexuality and paedophilia. Start with Catholic priests, then look at the way both deviant lifestyles cross social barriers.

    • Guglielmo Marinaro

      Go ahead and explore. I think that you’ll find that there is no more special connection between homosexuality and paedophilia than there is between heterosexuality and paedophilia. Possibly even less, since few of the men who molest small boys have any sexual interest in other adult males, and many of them are in sexual relationships with women.

  • saffrin

    The politically correct i.e. gay types, are given far too much tolerance to be comfortable.
    Take the comments from some of TV’s camp types and the aggressive sexual harassment heterosexuals are forced to put up with in the name of politically correct entertainment.

    • MrsDBliss

      That’s why I stopped watching strictly come dancing. The comments on that show, if said by a man to a woman, would have people up in arms. By allowing it how are we educating our young men how to respect themselves? If they see men, obviously uncomfortable with comments as some are, acquiescing then they will think they have to put up and shut up. Since the majority of paedophile scandals in the Church have been men towards boys in the early teens how is that helpful?

      • saffrin

        David Walliams I find most nauseating. Not only his offensive remarks but his regular touchy feely sexual assaults that would put him off the telly if not in jail if he were ‘normal’ like any other man.
        I’m amazed no one has knocked him out already.

  • edlancey

    perhaps 2% of the population, probably on a par with people who believe in Horoscopes. What gays really need to do is get on with their lives and stop boring the s# out of everyone else.

    • pointlesswasteoftime

      People who believe in astrology don’t get murdered for it.

      • edlancey

        Yes they do, they just call it Witchcraft and/or Sorcery – and it’s by the same people.

        Of course, I expect you aren’t in the least bit interested in non-gay ‘victims’.

        • pointlesswasteoftime

          Well, how far do you want to go with this weak and ludicrous straw man whataboutery? Gays are not accepted by Saudi Arabia either, so your news story is irrelevant. Or are you comparing us to Saudi Arabia? I’m not sure what your point is – people have not been executed for witchcraft in this country for hundreds of years. You specifically mentioned horoscopes which are published in daily newspapers in this country, and those who read them – or even cast them – are not physically intimidated. Gay men are murdered for being seen to be gay in public. As long as that happens, there will be anger and noise.

      • Shenandoah

        Oh come on. As if the gays of Britain are all hunkered down in their homes behind fifteen locks because they daren’t go out! Britain strikes me as a particularly ‘gay-friendly’ country. Give me a break!

  • JonBW

    I have enjoyed the almost pathological (but thoroughly entertaining) intolerance that you have displayed on these pages in recent weeks towards: airports, Morrissey, picnics, people who have picnics, Masterchef, people who dislike low quality TV programmes, the Summer, Farmers’ Markets, Ken Loach, Latin American dance music, artisan potato crisps and yo-yos. (I may have made the last few up, but I bet you don’t approve).

    So decrying tolerance here shows an admirable intellectual and moral consistency.

  • Blindsideflanker

    No Gays need the riot act read them.

    Apart from their unsavoury practices, an additional reason why HIV AIDS spread so rapidly in their ‘community’ was their habit of indulging in casual s3x, especially in the San Francisco bath houses.

    You might have thought the G4y plague would have forced them to change their habits, but apparently not, even though they have their faux marriages, areas of London Parks are still places to be avoided after dark for they are turned in G4y d6gging venues. I also gather that S3xual Health bodies are worried about a new G4y indulgence of legal high orgies that are spreading disease, but perhaps most worrying is the San Francisco bath house brought to the internet age, as was advertise by St3phen F1y on his QI program, who showed the audience his new mobile phone App ‘G7inder’ which showed H8mosexuals in the local area who were up for some no questions asked casual s3x.

    Instead we have the media who go all emotional about someone who comes out as a G4y and we are treated to endless chat shows of them outing themselves and getting presenters telling them how brave they have been

    • Blindsideflanker

      Good lord, fifth try I managed to get it posted.

      • post_x_it

        Congratulations! Aren’t you clever.
        Of course heterosexual males the world over are all, to a man, paragons of monogamous virtue. The continued existence of “the oldest profession” for their depraved delectation is nothing but a vile fiction, confected for the purposes of collective character assassination by the jewish military-sexual complex.

        • Shenandoah

          I can’t bother with your last comment which is pure nutter territory. But as for hetero males: they are civilized to a great extent by hetero females, their more promiscuous instincts generally reined in. But when you match promiscuous males with no dependents and no family responsibilities with other males exactly of that description, you get casual male b0nking agogo. Which is partly why the ‘g@y marriage’ idea is such a dishonest wheeze. Most gays don’t actually want it: they just want to poke a finger in the eye of the rest of society.

        • Blindsideflanker

          6% of the population,( yep this is size of the homosexual population, you wouldn’t realise it from the wall to wall coverage the MSM gives them ) accounts for over half of the HIV infections.

      • Fergus Pickering

        Hardly worth the bother, was it?

      • Jackthesmilingblack

        Sounds as if you’ve made the Spectator’s $hit list.

    • pointlesswasteoftime


  • The Masked Marvel

    The first step toward enshrining Thoughcrime. It’s not enough to tolerate: one must celebrate. One is not permitted inner thoughts which do not follow protocol.

    Before anyone starts screaming about homophobia or Christian righties, ask yourself if you want this enforced for issue with which you don’t agree.

    For example: It’s not enough to tolerate Christians. No negative public comments should be allowed. No Jerry Springer The Opera. And so on.

    • Archibald Heatherington

      See my comment below. Nice to see we’re in agreement.

      • The Masked Marvel

        And since when were the homosexual rights crowd asking merely for their rights and then to be left alone? That’s the exact opposite of what’s going on here. If they actually did that it wouldn’t ‘backfire’.

        • Archibald Heatherington

          Quite. I think they ought to leave normal people alone!

          • The Masked Marvel

            I support their having the basic rights being demanded. I oppose discrimination. The legal trappings of marriage are a perfectly reasonable demand. However, the activist crowd want to enforce it on the Church as well as on personal, private behavior. That’s one place where the line must be drawn: your rights end where mine begin. Unfortunately, this notion is being subsumed by the thought police.

            • Shenandoah

              The legal trappings of marriage are a perfectly reasonable demand.
              The legal trappings might be; the name is not; nor is child-raising, since children are best raised by a mother and a father and suffer when they are not.

              • Zimbalist

                Agree. It’s a calamity for a child to wilfully deprive them of a father or mother; it is unnatural and no good can come of it.

              • The Masked Marvel

                Legal trappings. The word itself is meaningless without them, and without any larger social context. And if you’re going to use the law to ban couples from raising children based on whatever proof you can find that it would be harmful, then you’d d@mn well better be prepared to ban a significant number of heterosecksual (avoiding the moderator is becoming tedious) couples from doing it as well. Baby P’s parents, for example. Do you want the State deciding who can raise children and who cannot? Bailiffs turning up and removing children from their homes to become wards of the local council?

                • Shenandoah

                  I want society to recognize (as it has always done hitherto) that children need a mother and a father. That is nature. The human project is one of transcendence, in many ways, but we cannot transcend sexuality, and we cannot transcend the need for genuine parents.

                • The Masked Marvel

                  That doesn’t answer my question.

              • Firefly

                Not to mention that it’s not actually a right to have children. If it were, we wouldn’t have foster programs, and IVF would be covered by health care 😛

                If they were to demand that they can keep *their own biological children*, they might have a case. But adoption? Nope. Not a right. And calling your relationship marriage is not a right, either. The fact that they campaign for it in countries where they already have many benefits (like health care, common-law-type rights, the ability to live openly together, even to sponsor foreign partners for immigration) can be seen as nothing but an attempt to formally legitimize their relationships, and thereby improve their chances of widespread acceptance and celebration. It’s not even about rights.

    • global city
      • The Masked Marvel

        This reads like a story got loose from the Daily Mash.

    • Shenandoah

      As you say: if we keep up like this we’ll end up as North Korea with the lights on.

  • Archibald Heatherington

    I’m thoroughly sick of hearing about homosexuality. I don’t care whether you were “born that way” or have been made “that way” by your environment. Shut up and get on with the hand you’ve been dealt. I don’t see why you need to keep reminding us of the fact that your preferences/compulsions are reproductively unhelpful, and asking us to legislate to compensate for this. All right, repealing the 1534 Buggery Act is reasonable, but beyond allowing you to practise whatever it is you do to each other in peace, I see no reason to do any more. No reason to be forced to respect it as a lifestyle (I don’t DISrespect it, I want to ignore it.), and no reason to have to accept “Gay Culture” as a vibrant and valuable part of our society. I find it repulsive and want to ignore it, as I do rap and non-metrical poetry. That doesn’t make me homophobic, that would entail fear or hatred of homosexuals, but I find the whole thing altogether distasteful, and I want to hear no more of it!

    • Right-Minded

      Does this have anything to do with your filthy Jewish heritage by any chance?

      • Archibald Heatherington

        No, not at all: Judaism is clear that it’s God’s prerogative to deal with their behaviour, not ours.

        It has to do with the fact that most of my friends are very liberal and demand not just tolerance of homosexuality but worship of it.

        • Right-Minded

          That’s absolutely fair enough, and I’d probably agree with you about that. But your original comment was harsh and so I responded in kind. Just so we’re on the same level.

          • Archibald Heatherington

            I’m pleased we agree, but “filthy Jewish”?? I don’t mind if you dislike my religion, but come on, that kind of LibDemesque language isn’t on! I didn’t use any pejorative labels.

            • Right-Minded

              Please, don’t give me that crap, your comment was full of pejoratives and pretty harsh/vile comments (in my opinion) – and obviously you have your own, but if you can dish it out you have to be able to take it I’m afraid.
              For the record, I have nothing against Jewish people, in fact I support Israel’s current position.

              • Archibald Heatherington

                Did I say “filthy gays”? No. Had I done so, there might be an equivalence. But I didn’t.

                Anyway, I’m prepared to let the matter rest, as there’s genuine antisemitism in the world that matters quite a lot more than whether or not you think using an unpleasant adjective to qualify “Jewish” is reasonable. I’m delighted to hear you support Israel and think that my views are fair enough. Let’s let that be an end to it.

                • Right-Minded

                  No you didn’t use filthy, you used ‘repulsive’, ‘distasteful’
                  and ‘abnormal’ instead; so you’re a bit deluded to take the moral high ground on this one.

                  And as you say there is plenty of vile Anti-Semitism around these days, so you’d think you would be a bit less harsh on another community.

                • Shenandoah

                  Many things ARE repulsive, distasteful, and abnormal. You’re denying the right of others to think for themselves. Just like a LEFTIST.

              • Shenandoah

                Hey, what you said was completely out of line and nothing can excuse it.

                • Right-Minded

                  Ok so you’ve called me a ‘right-winger’ and a ‘leftist’, so which is it? Make up your mind idiot.

                  You’re right, what I said was out of line, but you clearly missed the point, IT WAS MEANT TO BE – because what he said was out of line.

                  Let me point out your hypocrisy to you; you say ‘I’m denying the right of others to think’, but aren’t you doing exactly the same by denying me to think of the Jews as filthy? (which I don’t btw) …

                • Shenandoah

                  Oh I think you should see the connection between being a lefty extremist and a right-wing extremist. They meet up in the middle. Figure it out.

      • Shenandoah

        Are you the incarnation of Hitler? How can you say such a thing? You must be a filthy right-winger.

    • Jackthesmilingblack

      “My mother made me a homosexual.”
      “If I gave her the wool, would she make me one?”

    • pointlesswasteoftime

      So stop reading about it, as, no doubt, you don’t read non-metrical poetry, nor listen to rap.

      • Shenandoah

        Missing. The. Point!

    • Shenandoah

      Hear double triple hear!

    • Prole

      “i have….no reason to accept “gay culture” as part of our society” says the person using a personal computer.
      not sure which is funnier, the irony or the ignorance,

  • tjamesjones

    is this the right place for the censorship joke? I’m a big fan of censorship – whenever I see a double entendre I whip it out.

  • post_x_it

    What baffles me in the extreme is that the vast majority of gays, habitually and sheep-like, will only vote for left-wing parties who actively encourage the proliferation of immigrant communities that have zero tolerance for homosexuality. The short-sightedness is absolutely astonishing.

    • Shazza

      Totally agree and when in the not too distant future when the UK is an islamic state, Julie will look back at the days of ‘tolerance’ with not just nostalgia but deep desperation.

      I give this sorry state of affairs to arrive in about 30 years. Max.

      • post_x_it

        I saw some triumphant boasts on Facebook today from people who went to Brighton Pride on the weekend about how the Conservatives packed up their stall early because they couldn’t take any more abuse from the crowd.
        These people live in a rainbow coloured pantomime world where Labour and the Greens are the good fairies and the Tories (not to mention UKIP) are the villains, boo hiss.
        One day these idiots will wake up and realise who has done the most to undermine the rights and freedoms we currently enjoy. By then it will be several decades too late.

    • Right-Minded

      There are a few of us (very few) who acknowledge the disastrous consequences which will eventually accompany the tsunami of immigrants from primitive third-world & Inferior cultures.

      The thought of a growing Islamic presence in this country terrifies me, I don’t even have to look at the regular executions in countries like Iran to tell me that. What is equally depressing is the joy that other gays express at the strengthening of this particular community.

      Bizarre, but you should check out Pat Condell on YouTube, he’s a like-minded gay – you’ll appreciate his video.

      • post_x_it

        As is Douglas Murray, of this parish.

    • Jackthesmilingblack

      Right on, past. Killing Jews and homosexuals is right on the top of Islam’s “Must Do” list.

  • English Majority

    I think most Brits aren’t bothered whether someone’s Gay or not. What they don’t like is how most Gay’s are Lefties.

    And the fact they often aggressively try to undermine our values and manhood.

    Lesbians are thoroughly acceptable, though (if they’re good looking).

    • Mark1984

      Aggressively trying to undermine your manhood? I’m sure there’s a joke in there somewhere…

  • tjamesjones

    I think tolerance is a pretty good achievement if that’s what you can get. aggressively promoting ‘alternative lifestyles’ seems a bit counter productive in the long term – an actor called ben wilshaw(sp) was in the times on sunday talking to a journalist about how his civil partnership is his own private affair – that seemed to be the subject of the article. I would say it’s a left wing disease to require everyone to think the same thing julie b.

    • fundamentallyflawed

      We the elite will decide how you need to think, and if you don’t agree then we will call you even worse than you would use and pass laws to make your thoughts illegal in public and in private.

  • Jacques Strap

    Lets face it, the bigger the tolerance levels, the looser it feels…..

    nudge nudge wink wink

    • post_x_it

      I can hardly contain myself.