I became aware of this story a bit earlier but thought it too parochial for this site, but it has just popped up again on BBC Five Live and so I wanted to make a few comments. It concerns the view of a Northern Ireland politician, Iris Robinson, on homosexuals. Now let me first say that I can think of little good to say about Mrs Robinson, and have been a vehement critic of her Party, the DUP. But yesterday, on the Nolan Show, she stated that in her view good counselling could help homosexuals change their lifestyle. She went further and called homosexuality “an abomination” – I believe this word was actually bleeped out by the Beeb. I’ve just caught Steven Nolan open up this subject again on Five Live, playing back Robinson’s opinions and then inviting comment. You can just IMAGINE the hostility she has attracted from late night BBC 5 live listeners. I fail to see why Robinson is not entitled to her view without being then exposed to the pro-Gay Jihad that the BBC has been indulging in today. In BBC world, being gay or at least being gay friendly is de rigeur and Allah help those who take a traditional – even Biblical view (gasp) – on homosexuality. I welcome what this politician has had to say even though I do not care for her. I also note the implied threats that have come her way from militant gay groups with mutterings of hate crime. There is NOTHING wrong with suggesting sodomy is sinful and the BBC should be ashamed of its jihad against Mrs Robinson during the past 48 hours. Where’s the bias? The bias lies in the BBC’s relentless pro-Gay agenda.


This story appeared on The Today programme (8.20am) and I was amused to find that the BBC managed to locate Eamon McCann, a local marxist Irish republican, who is also an atheist, to provide balanced comment. Us wicked Christians must be put in our place and the BBC delights in doing so. Why were McCann’s predictable Bible bashing comments not balanced by someone else who is supportive of the idea that homosexuality is not normal? Or is it gay rights uber alles?

Bookmark the permalink.

91 Responses to GAY JIHAD ON THE BEEB.

  1. gharqad tree says:

    “There is NOTHING wrong with suggesting sodomy is sinful”

    I disagree. What is wrong with it, in my opinion, is that no consenting sexual act between adults is “sinful”.

    We are ants on a tiny speck of matter orbiting a dying and rather small sun, so insignificant in the cosmos that light travelling through space at roughly 190,000 miles per second takes over 46 billion years to reach us from the visible edges of the universe. Given that fact, I feel no need to pass any judgements whatsoever about what any other two (or indeed three or four) human beings decide to do to derive pleasure from their bodies the way I derive physical or emotional pleasure from mine. To say nothing of the profoundly disgusting way I derive pleasure from a certain other person’s.

    In my opinion, the need to tell other people how to behave sexually, to tell them they are doing something unethical – or even something of which the supposed creator of this expanding universe disapproves – is the mark of someone who needs to get a hobby. If Mrs Robinson doesn’t want to be sodomised that is entirely her right; if someone else does, it has nothing to do with her.

    It has nothing to do with her, the Pope, Islam, etc etc. If nobody is getting hurt, why can’t people be left alone to pursue what pleasures they choose to enjoy during the handful of decades they exist on this planet? I’m sick of busybodies sticking their pious noses in where they’re not wanted.

    Others may of course disagree. That’s fine, and I’m happy to politely argue the toss with anyone.

    That said – this is, once again, an example of the BBC not merely reporting important facts, but picking a fight and pushing an agenda. Agreed.


  2. gus says:

    quarqad tree, Mrs. Robinson believes homosexuality is sinful. You don’t.
    She didn’t ask for you to agree, she gave her opinion. I believe homosexuality is a sin as well. I don’t attack gays. I don’t lynch them. I am merely of a religious persuasion that does not approve of the acts. Are you gay?
    If not, why don’t you yourself follow your own advice and butt out.

    Butt out!!!! No pun intended.


  3. Anonymous says:

    if everyone decided to become bum bandits and drop anchor in poo bay, how long would the human race last


  4. Jason says:

    To be honest I wouldn’t mind the shirt lifting pillow-biters so much if it wasn’t for their irresponsible and reckless behavior in the late 70’s and early 80’s which was largely to blame for AIDS becoming the epidemic it is today. Reading accounts of how the gay left interpreted every health warning as an “attack on their lifestyle”, especially in the depraved bath houses of San Francisco, disgusts me. They actively ignored warnings because they wanted to make a political point about the validity of their lifestyle – and then they had the audacity to attack the same people who had warned them – especially the Reagan administration – for “not doing enough to cure the disease” once they admitted it was a threat to them. Here in the US, many in the gay community openly cheered and jeered when Reagan died, and vocally expressed their hope that “that bitch Nancy” would die soon too.

    I also read an article in the New York press a few years ago about the “bug chasing” scene here in New York, in which hardcore gays actually have parties at which those without the HIV virus can get themselves infected voluntarily. They wear their HIV status like a badge of honor and say they’re showing society that there’s “nothing wrong with having the virus”. The quote which really sickened me the most was from a gay guy who was planning to go to a bug chasing party to get infected. He said “I just think that, you know, the exact moment at which I become infected will be the most erotic feeling possible”.



  5. John Reith spins in his grave says:

    That said – this is, once again, an example of the BBC not merely reporting important facts, but picking a fight and pushing an agenda. Agreed.
    gharqad tree | 07.06.08 – 2:17 am |

    Surely the issue here is that the BBC should be made representative of its audience.

    i.e. it should be made to recruit roughly the same proportion of gay, islamic, christian, racial minority, labour or conservative individuals as the public it serves.

    As Andrew Marr notes in the side bar however, it has disproportionate numbers of certain minorities.

    We’re always hearing about “diversity targets” for the police, MP’s, the forces etc – but never for the beeb.

    I remember a line JR used to trot out on here – that it was quite reasonable to have a labour supporting BBC since a majority had voted for them in three successive elections.

    Based on the polls and recent election results, looks like they’re going to have to recruit around 29,995 conservatives over the next couple of years.

    I keep scanning the Thursday job pages in the Telegraph – but….no evidence so far.


  6. George R says:

    Probably many Beeboids who don’t bank at the Islamic Bank of Britain, bank at the Co-operative Bank, for ethical reasons, like the way certain Christians are treated there:

    “Co-op Bank bars Christian group”


  7. Ron Todd says:

    They will never accept that of all the main religions Christianity is the most tolerant of Gays.

    The beeb likes to get them early. I do not make a point of watching childrens programmes, but as I have young relatives I sometimes find myself in front of the TV when they are on.

    Every childrens programmes that has presenters seems to have at least one obviously gay and at least one ethnic minority.

    Do they want our children to believe that white hetro sexuals are a minority?

    Any programme that uses ‘ordinary people’ will have a disproportionate number of gays and minorities, at least one of which will be Muslim.

    How can the beeboids believe both

    Gay is good and
    Islam is good


  8. Chris says:

    Yes, that is a problem for the BBC. How to separate their support for Islam and homosexuality at the same time without offending the former. Still, they seem to manage it though I have no figures for the BBC’s Muslim audience. Surely they must have a target?


  9. Shotgun says:

    Or is it gay rights uber alles?

    That would be about right since 1997. An opinion is only valid and non criminal if it is the same as Government opinion. The BBC is the Government opinion maker.


  10. Martin says:

    If a Muslim preacher of hate had said it (oh hang on “lets push homosexuals off a cliff” where have we heard that before?) would the BBC be up in arms?


  11. Matt says:

    Iris Robinson is entitled to her religious views.

    However, her comments concerning homosexuality being a problem that can respond to councelling are condescending, offensive and just plain wrong. Might they be an example of a certain intolerance to be found in NI?

    Some of the comments above are gratuitous and offensive. How would the moderator feel if they were made about another group i.e. Jews.

    I am not gay and I endorse ghared tree’s last paragraph.

    By welcoming what this politician has to say, does David Vance see homosexuality as being a psychiatric/psychological condition?


  12. engineerist says:

    the bbc has had a pro sodomite agenda for at least 50 years and has made it the business of the corporation to legitemise the idea of sodomy through every means possible, look, if you care to over the programmes of the last half century note which writers, actors, presenters,singers,etc. have been brought into the limelight, its truly disgusting to think that hard working taxpayers are pressganged into paying for this tide of filth.the whole thing needs tearing apart. Make them all get proper jobs, I could go on and on about the political bias and all the rest of it but what I want to know is what can be DONE??????


  13. Martin says:

    Poovery is the norm at the BBC. It’s one reason why I’m so surprised that the BBC is so pro Islam.

    She suggested that gays could be converted, she didn’t suggest they be beheaded or pushed off cliffs.


  14. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    Absolute nonsense, DV. To refer to a natural sex act between consenting adults as an ‘abomination’ is … well … an abomination.

    You’ll tell us next that it’s quite OK to refer to Israel on the BBC as an abomination.


  15. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    “If not, why don’t you yourself follow your own advice and butt out.”

    What pathetic drivel. Are you saying that if you are (say) not Tibetan, you are not permitted to comment on Chinese repression in Tibet?


  16. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    “She suggested that gays could be converted”

    Gays can no more be ‘converted’ than a zebra can be converted to a horse. The idea that you can go around telling people what their sexual preference should be is, as someone has said so eloquently, the mark of someone who needs a hobby.

    Why doesn’t this utterly stupid woman travel to Pakistan to preach Christianity?


  17. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    Martin, I am aghast at the first term in your last post. I’d have expected better from you. How about referring to Jews as kikes?


  18. Benny says:

    For all their talk on diversity, the BBC doesn’t seem to be very keen on diversity of opinion. At the BBC there is a right kind of diversity and a wrong kind of diversity. The diversity industry insists that diversity is essential to bring ‘new ways of thinking’ and bring an enriching ‘alternative perspective’. But here we can see that the BBC doesn’t like an alternative perspective that is outside their group think. What a bunch of hypocrites.

    By lining up loads of callers to condemn and shame the person outside their group-think, this is what they were doing:

    What we on the left have to continue to do is what American political scientists call framing.

    Framing means making the debate fit into our norms by using things like this website and other avenues… [ie the BBC] …to say that racism, sexism etc is not merely wrong but that its immoral and to be condemned. By doing that we create conventions. But we also have to be alert to other people manipulating the discourses of society- for example the religious claiming that they are discriminated against- when they actually are not. Being forced to treat others equally is not being discriminated against, it is being coerced and such coercion may be justified.


  19. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    George, the so-called Co-Op movement is not remotely ethical. I could tell you hair-raising stories, but I’d be betraying a personal confidence.


  20. Ron Todd says:

    It is hard for me to imagine how being buggered by another man could in any way feel natural. Or give the feeling of wellbeing that can be had just from a supportive hug from a female friend at a time of need.

    The frequency with which most gay men change partners does suggest there is a sense of fulfilment that they are chasing but never catching.


  21. Martin says:

    NO: I was being flippant about it. Knowing the Beeboids would be upset by it, but not with the fact that Muslims would like to see homosexuals stung up from the nearest crane jib or shot through the back of the head in the 18 yard box or pushed off cliffs.


  22. George R says:

    No doubt the BBC has its own ‘Navajo’-type support for homosexuals in its employment:

    “Navajo on the war path over gay rights charter”

    But how does the BBC treat any ‘Mr. Mrs. Roberts’, referred to here?


  23. David Vance says:


    My point is not that I am right and you are wrong, my point is that the BBC takes a position on this and THAT is wrong! Like her or loath her (and I loath her) Iris Robinson has an opinion worthy of debate – as we have seen on this thread. But on the BBC this morning, a marxist atheist was trotted out to give HIS opinion and without balance.

    My views on homosexuality as neither here nor there but I do resent the BBC’s pro-gay agenda.


  24. El Cid says:

    Re The statement from Oxfordian “Gays can no more be ‘converted’ than a zebra can be converted to a horse”

    Oh really, there you have it then, scientific proof, case closed. Similarly, no doubt, gays cannot be “created” by careful grooming in prison, at select schools, or perhaps Oxford?


  25. libertus says:

    “Absolute nonsense, DV. To refer to a natural sex act between consenting adults as an ‘abomination’ is … well … an abomination.”

    Unfortunately for your argument, NOx, sodomy isn’t a ‘natural sex act’, but to’evah, as you’ll no doubt know from Torah. As an atheist, however, you must dismiss the Jewish scriptures as so much nonsense. Oh vey.
    To describe something as ‘natural’ means you have a concept of ‘nature’. All kinds of things are found ‘in nature’, including love, heroism, motherhood, bisexuality, paedophilia and gender dysphoria. Some of these things further the reproduction and health of the human race, some of them are harmful. Acts of sodomy are inherently sterile, cause injury to the anus (because they go against the muscular structure), and are generally considered disgusting and degrading by women. Have you ever wondered why? Male-male sodomy is simply a parody of sexual intercourse.
    Of course, the Jewish religious concept of nature, exemplified in Torah and amplified by St Paul, is that ‘nature’ (Gk. physis) denotes a good structure to the world given by the Creator, which is corrupted by sin but restored by God’s grace.
    I should add that this understanding of nature is also fundamental to a conservative view of life and society: a given good that should be conserved for human flourishing. I suspect this is part of the reason Michale Portillo no longer felt at home in conservative politics.
    As for your claim that homosexual desires “cannot” be changed or redirected, you are probably not aware of the work of the psychiatrist and one-time pro-gay activist Dr Robert Spitzer, whose work can be accessed from the NARTH website.


  26. The Cattle Prod of Destiny says:

    What a depressing read this all makes.

    The main reason why I dislike the left is that I have little time for those who hate. The same applies to the muppets on this blog who think that hating ‘pooves’ is a stand-up thing to do. It’s not.

    What people do in private is none of your affair and, provided no one gets hurt or takes part unwillingly, so what? No harm, no foul.

    And no, I’m not gay or even fond of buggery, no sexual practice that involves picking the sweetcorn off afterwards is attractive to me. But what others do is their own look out.

    ‘Butting out’ applies both ways dontcha’ kno’.


  27. libertus says:

    Cattle Prod: In one sense (as a private citizen) I too don’t particularly care what consensual adults do in private, but the debate has moved far beyond that 60s Trudeauism. Homosexual acts in private have long been legal. The real issue is the mainstreaming of the ‘lifestyle’ through gay ‘marriage’, the SORs that faux Catholic Blair pushed through, causing the closure of Catholic adoption agencies, the public funding of homosexual interest groups, and the concerted effort to teach acceptance of homosexuality in schools. At the vanguard of this has been liberla-left politics: look at Massachusetts and Canada. Christians are being fined and publicly humiliated (through the charade of ‘Human Rights Commissions’ in Canada) for simply quoting the Bible! See Mark Steyn’s website for latest details. And it is definitely coming ot Europe, as the European Parliament extends its tentacles. Democracy and free speech are dying in this continent. All of this has been deeply offensive and destructive to the rights of conservative parents.
    And the BBC will willingly contribute to this.


  28. libertus says:

    Let me add that there is plenty of denigration of Christianity and causal blasphemy broadcast by the BBC, especially ‘comedians’ like Marcus Brigstocke or shows like ‘Jerry Springer the Opera’, so they must think some targets are fair game.
    Well OK. But I don’t want to pay for it.


  29. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    Libertus, you can spout scriptures at me all day long, and even come out with absurd phrases like ‘oy vey’ – I am simply not interested. You may as well quote Enid Blyton for all the authority I attribute to it. What religious people believed 3000 years ago has no bearing on the case, as far as I am concerned.

    Homosexuality is not learned, it is inherent in people. That makes it a natural act. In fact, there are other animals that engage in such behaviour.

    Your personal bias to the contrary doesn’t change that fact. Nor does El Cid’s weak attempt to have a go at me, in which he offers nil evidence despite mocking what he regards as my non-scientific approach.

    DV: sorry, you can be pro-gay or anti-gay for all I care, but you are ducking the issue and it’s not a pretty sight. Calling the sexual preferences of one particular group an ‘abomination’ is not all, period. I don’t know if you are religious, but how would you react if the BBC gave a platform to people calling Protestantism an ‘abomination’? I know that I would object most strongly, and I speak as an atheist.


  30. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    … is not ON …, I meant.


  31. El Cid says:

    Re Oxfordian comment:

    “El Cid’s weak attempt to have a go at me, in which he offers nil evidence despite mocking what he regards as my non-scientific approach.”

    Why must I supply “evidence?” I responded to your statement of “fact” and merely pointed out the blithe arrogance of your unsubstantiated assertions.


  32. Matt says:

    Just as an aside. Is getting an atheist Republican on to counter a religious Unionist not very balanced indeed?


  33. David Vance says:


    No, I’m not ducking the issue that I raised. If you want my view on sodomy, then i think it is depraved. I also think however that it is an individual choice and those who make it will be judged by their Maker for doing so. As someone who believes in the Bible, I state plainly that I believe sodomy to be an abomination. It’s not a pretty sight, since you ask. What people do in private is their own business but I am entitled to hold my religious view on it, just as you are entitled to your view, and Iris Robinson to her view!


  34. It's all too much says:

    Can anybody explain to me how the the BBC intends to create a Utopia that is simultaneously ‘diverse’,’cohesive’ and representative? These things seem to me to be mutually contradictory like all leftist ideo-illogical thought. The way the BBC treats minority issues, such as gay representation, falls into the category of ‘indulging’ opinions (that it approves of) rather than ‘tolerating’ them. It seldom if ever represents a majority view on any social economic or political issue

    With regard to gay minorities, I have absolutely nothing against gay people at all, the can stick their organs wherever they want as long as it is part of an adult consenting relationship. I am a libertarian and I have absolutely no right to criticize something that doesn’t affect me directly (you are, of course free to have any contrary opinion as you wish). I think some of the blogs here are quite illiberal – the blog is dedicated to attacking BBC bias not ‘lifestyle choice’. Nevertheless there is much substance in the complaints against the BBC.

    My basic issue is with the blatant and consistent over representation of all ‘minority’ opinion on the BBC – and it seems to me that the male presence on the BBC has a large gay component which is not representative of the population at large. This stacking of the deck is clearly symptomatic of the BBC narrative

    The BBC must represent the views of the population which is not
    – Predominantly BME/Foreign born
    – Predominantly gay
    – Predominantly Labour voting
    – Predominantly ‘Green’
    – Predominantly pro Europe


  35. libertus says:

    ‘oy vey is an absurd phrase’? Oy – no, won’t go there. I simply quoted the teachings that have been constitutive of the Jewish religion for over 3000 years, and shared by Christians (the first of whom were all Jews) for 2000. I’m not a chronological snob. I don’t judge the truthfulness of an idea by its age, otherwise I’d reject everything from the ancient world, and maybe from last year.

    “Homosexuality is not learned, it is inherent in people. That makes it a natural act. In fact, there are other animals that engage in such behaviour.”

    You speak much too quickly. There is no evidence of a ‘gay gene’, despite all the efforts to establish this. I am fairly sure there is a psychological predisposition in individuals toward acting out in a homosexual way, given certain circumstances and childhood trauma, and for that reason I consider the development of homosexual affections more situational and acquired – in pretty much the same way I think padeophilia, gender dysphoria and other paraphilias are instances of arrested or redirected sexual development. Homosexual behavior in the animal world probably reflects male dominance behavior, especially among domestic animals. Robert Spitzer agreed that for highly motivated individuals (usually with a relgious motivation) unlearning the behavior was possible – not at all easy but certainly possible.


  36. libertus says:

    Anyway, my larger politcal point is that Western Europe’s atheist left-liberal political class (along with their allies in Massachusetts and Canada) are seeking to mainstream homosexuality and censor and punish conservative opponents of a social policy never exampled before in human history – not even in ancient, ephebophiliac Greece. This is resulting in persecution of Christians, and is already leading to a violent backlash by Muslims.
    The future will not be pretty, and the BBC cannot square this circle.


  37. Barry says:

    I don’t have anything new to add to the debate, but would like to throw in that I can’t understand any religious people’s view on homosexuality. It’s nonsense. Such as the forbidding the eating of pig products in Judaism, Islam and Christianity … yes, Christianity: Leviticus, Chapter 11, v.7; Deuteronomy 14;7-8; Isaiah 65:2-4, and 66:17. Like many things, Christians are quite selective over this, so why can’t they be selective over gays? It was an order given by the inventors of religion because those people believed it to be unclean. Animosity against homosexuals stems from the same prejudices and is arcane as believing you become a werewolf if you get bitten by one or drink from the same pool (a warning against a disease carried in wolf saliva that exhibits crazy symptoms in humans before killing them – I forget the name of the disease).

    I see your point about the clear bias, though. BUT, by the Beeb’s own admission, “unbiased” does not necessarily mean “equal” air time. Senior journalists are entitled to look at a story or comment and if it is clearly wrong or hateful he can slant it. If the Mugabe regime was given more than a perfunctory voice, wouldn’t it be awful of the BBC to “support” the evil dictator the same way they support Hamas et al? In this matter (the gay one), I can’t help but feel they are right to do this. The politician – an ELECTED OFFICIAL – in question has put forward some horrible opinions that most people who are free of that mankind-tainted superstition known as religion will find repugnant.

    If inviting rebuttal on a completely different show, perhaps they SHOULD invite her back to answer her critics. But perhaps she’s said all she needs to say and the licence payers are expressing their outrage.

    I DO I see your point, but in this case can’t agree.

    And for the person asking about criticising Muslim anti-gay stance, here’s a couple: (final paragraph on this one)

    A few old ones in there, and I only did a quick search, but there are a few that REPORT on homosexuality and Islam but I note how neutral this is. Compared with say:

    Again, just a quick search but the tone is slightly more askew. I don’t think the balance is totally out of kilter but there’s definitely more animosity when Christians get involved.


  38. David Vance says:


    Yes, it’s the animosity that sickens me. As I try my best to be a Christian, I am content to defend my position when it is put under attack. But I don’t see the BBC piling on the same pressure on Islam, do you? Or questioning gays as to why they are deserving of any special status. The fact is that the bbc IS avowedly pro-gay – it’s a matter of faith to them!!


  39. gharqad tree says:

    quarqad tree, Mrs. Robinson believes homosexuality is sinful. You don’t.
    She didn’t ask for you to agree, she gave her opinion.

    Yes, Gus, and as you can see, she placed her opinion in the public forum, and it was brought to our attention in a public forum by DV, and I believe that comments are welcome here. It’s what we do. You’ll get used to it. Whether she asked for me to agree has no bearing on anything. DV further made a statement of his own to which I responded, giving my reasons. I’m sorry that process suddenly seems anathema to you.

    I believe homosexuality is a sin as well. I don’t attack gays. I don’t lynch them. I am merely of a religious persuasion that does not approve of the acts.

    Fine, that’s your right. It’s also my right to reject a concept such as sin, not take my attitudes on other people’s behaviour from a series of texts compiled 2-3000 years ago, and take a slightly more utilitarian approach to human behaviour. That said, I’m glad you don’t literally carry out the instructions for punishment of homosexuals that the Judeo-Christian scripture instructs you to. It’s all very well believing in the scriptures, but even those who do usually realise that at least some of it has to be ignored as belonging to another era of human history. It’s all a question of which bits to ignore I suppose…

    Are you gay?
    If not, why don’t you yourself follow your own advice and butt out.

    That is staggering. I take it that you yourself are not gay, gus, so why are you not obliged to butt out? You get to offer your opinion but I should for some reason refrain from doing so? Perhaps I am being picky, and failing to spot that your comment was merely the pretext for introducing a hilarious joke.

    Having read this dispiriting and slightly depressing thread, I am considering banning myself, gus, so you may get your wish after all. It’s noteworthy that you didn’t respond with anything that might be called argument or reason – merely asserted the wish that I should shut up, and that your religious beliefs say being gay is wrong. Rather weak, but each to their own.

    DV – I fully respect your right to your opinions, and your right to hold your religious faith, (which I respect in a very real way, believe me, I’m not just paying lip service to politeness there), but you assert two things divorced from the issue of BBC bias: that homosexuality is an abomination, and that it is depraved. You have offered no reason why you hold those beliefs, other than that they happen to coincide with a belief system to which you subscribe. Some of us would be interested to hear some of the reasoning behind these very strong words, and I hope that whether you decide to oblige us in that wish or not, you can do so without resorting to full-on hyper-defensive attack mode, because no offence or attack is intended on my part.


  40. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    El Cid accuses me of arrogance, when all he did was arrogantly tell me that my statement is baseless … give him a mirror, someone – I am laughing too much at this prat to do it myself.


  41. Nearly Oxfordian says:

    Libertus, the one talking too fast without thinking first – or reading carefully – is you. It is the cheapest demagogic trick in the world to put words in someone’s mouth and then attack him for ‘saying’ them. Look up ‘strawman’.
    I never mentioned a ‘gay gene’, so it is silly to attack me over such a claim. I never said that a particular type of behaviour is determined by one, or two, or three genes.
    Behaviour is far too complex to be determined by single genes. Read up on genes. They mostly code for something at the level of a single protein or suchlike. Behaviour is something like 6 or 7 orders of magnitude more complex than that. It involves all kinds of things, some of which we don’t know, but we do know that it involves both hereditary and environmental factors (both physico-chemical and psychological ones for the latter). It is, however, the case that homosexual behaviour has been observed in humans who had nil external ‘teaching’, in fact often the opposite (homosexual leanings in a small Nebraska town in 1950 are hardly likely to have been ‘copied’ or ‘learned’ from one’s environment or peers or adults in authority, let alone been ‘groomed’).

    For those shooting off their filthy mouths (and clearly, unreconstructed filthy minds) about butts: not all male homosexual acts involve this. And for the other obvious ignoramuses here: women can be homosexual also.

    I repeat: I couldn’t give a toss about what some stone-age moralist wrote 3000 years ago. They also owned slaves. Perhaps the religious nuts here think that is also a moral thing we should copy.


  42. gharqad tree says:

    Just as an aside. Is getting an atheist Republican on to counter a religious Unionist not very balanced indeed?
    Matt | 07.06.08 – 11:54 am | #

    It depends entirely on how they’re treated, doesn’t it? It seems as though the BBC have tried hard to destroy the views of one, and it is evidence of either bias or that serial incompetence which always coincidentally benefits the left if they did not also do so with the views of the Republican Marxist.

    I want to be quite clear that despite personally finding the condemnation of homosexuals as sinners (and the terms in which that condemnation has been couched by some) to be sorely counterproductive towards the aims and credibility of this site, I share DV’s absolute disgust at the way that, for example, Islamic hatred of gay people gets a free pass when much milder views expressed by Christians are routinely put through the ideological shredder. It is bias pure and simple, and that bias disturbs me far more than any perceived failure to be impartial about whether someone else’s sex-life is morally right or wrong.


  43. Matt says:

    gharqad tree

    My remark was ‘tongue in cheek’ (no pun intended!)


  44. gharqad tree says:

    Matt – apologies. Point taken. It was a late Friday night and I should’ve realised 🙂

    NOxf “butts: not all male homosexual acts involve this. And for the other obvious ignoramuses here: women can be homosexual also.

    I agree, and would add that some of the most enjoyable heterosexual acts involve butts. Let’s stop picking on butts folks!

    I couldn’t give a toss about what some stone-age moralist wrote 3000 years ago. They also owned slaves. Perhaps the religious nuts here think that is also a moral thing we should copy.

    I understand where you’re coming from in the context of this discussion, but I wouldn’t personally go that far. The Judeo-Christian tradition has undoubtedly contributed many good things to human life, society, and thought. The Jewish scriptures are keen always to stress that the essence of the Law is mercy, compassion for the weak, and justice applied fairly and equally. As Hosea put it, “It is mercy I desire, not sacrifices”.

    However, the point you make is broadly what I would second: these scriptures that form the basis of some people’s belief systems also contain many things that they allow themselves to ignore or disregard as being anachronisms or unworkable, or based on simple errors of knowledge. This does not invalidate a religion or a system per se – (to claim that it does is as simplistic as claiming that because no gay gene has been found, therefore homosexuality is a deliberate sin) – but what it does do is pose a challenge to the religious: on what basis do you dare decide which elements of God’s eternal word are to be ignored, and which applied? It is precisely this challenge that Muhammed put to the Jews. He was not content with their rationalisations, their liberalisations, their symbolic punishments, and insisted on all death penalties prescribed by scripture being literally applied. In this respect he was logical, scriptural, and a profoundly evil psychopath; but the challenge to the religious remains: if Scripture is the word of God, on what basis do you decide which elements have application in the world outside the pages of the book?

    And one more general question: what do people think is the correct formulation – “the BBC have” or “the BBC has”?



  45. libertus says:

    NOx, my reference to the mythical ‘gay gene’ was to do with the way that most of this line of argument has progressed, esp. from Hamer and LeVay. I am glad that you reoognise that the issue is a lot more complex than that and that environmental factors influence the development of homoerotic attraction. This need have nothing to do with ‘grooming’ or seduction, because such feelings arise unbidden or not consciously sought in the minds of adolescents – just as paedophilia and gender dysphoria does. The psychodynamic model which I find persuasive (which incorporates issues like trauma, personality type, body type, heightened anxiety, and parent-child dynamics and disaffection leading to failure to identify positively with one’s own sex) is described by the (believing) Jewish psychiatrist and physicist Jeffrey Satinover in ‘Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth’. Behavior, especially sexual behavior, is self-reinforcing because of the serotonin it releases (similar to alcohol and nicotine) and helps people cope with anxiety and depression. As a Christian and one who includes Moses and Saul of Tarsus in my spiritual heritage, I find harsh talk about and abusive treatment of homosexual persons wrong and uncharitable. It also wrong to encourage people into a lifestyle of such depression, unhappiness and health risks. But that’s religious nuts for you. We think the content of nature – and morality – has positive content, and is more than naturalism and individualistic hedonism. We really do believe in the transforming love of God and wish others would discover it. When I listen to people like Christopher Hitchens, I think: what a clever man and master of phrases. And so unhappy with it, too.


  46. libertus says:

    ghargad tree: you raise interesting questions about the way a religious tradition deals with its inheritance. As a biblical scholar (of sorts), I would argue that the OT practices of debt-slavery and prisoner-slavery are considerably more complex than people today may appreciate and they certainly formed no basis for the chattel-slavery from the 16th century on, or for making an analogy with homosexuality. But this isn’t really the forum for it. If readers are interested, they should consult the website of Robert Gagnon of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, where the issues are dealt with in great detail.


  47. Ron Todd says:

    gharqad tree:

    ‘some of the most enjoyable heterosexual acts involve butts’

    Might be enjoyable for you I bet the women involved get little pleasure and have to be pressured or emotionally blackmailed so ypou can have your fun.


  48. David Vance says:

    gharqad tree,

    Thank you for that question. I understand your interest in my views but am reluctant to answer since I do not want to impose my religious and moral views on this site! Lord knows you have to put with enough from me without the full on debates I hold on my own site.


  49. gharqad tree says:

    Ron Todd: obviously, when it comes to what my partner likes and dislikes, you know best.



  50. gharqad tree says:

    DV: fair enough – it’s hardly the right forum.