The Lib Dem numpty has just said that if London had more people 'of faith' it would be a 'better place'.

I wonder what, as a gay man, he thinks about the bus adverts?
Or the Catholics refusing to accept marriage between loving couples?
Or Muslim youths passing out leaflets advocating murdering gays?

Yeah. We need more 'people of faith'.

Perhaps he means fans of the quintessentially 'safe' sitcom Faith In The Future, starring Oxo mum Lynda Bellingham, which ran for three series in the 1990s?

Personally I disagree - the capital would be better served if there were more Ever Decreasing Circles advocates around.

_________________
Si vas a plagiar noticias, no uses un sitio de noticias falsas como fuente.


Last edited by Carlos The Badger on Thu Feb 31, 2021 18:60 am, edited 666 times in total.

No, he meant:

We need more people who can keep their private beliefs and lifestyles private, when those lifestyles do not interfere with others.

_________________
You may say I'm a dreamer.... but I'm not the only one....

Eh?

_________________
I'm a nasty, violent lefty. You cunt.

It's a silly opinion and you're right to pick him up on it. However, I don't think it's right to reduce Paddick to his sexuality, nor to reduce 'people of faith' to a couple of fundamentalist groups and the doctrine of an institution whose views are contested by some of its own congregation.

Besides, there are plenty of homophobic atheists. If you asked me what I thought of the opinions expressed by the mayor of Saran near Orléans, a communist atheist who has compared gay people to genetically modified crops, I'd say they were awful. It doesn't stop me from being faithless; it doesn't mean I'd like to see fewer atheists on the planet.

Faith isn't a such a bad thing when you can keep it to yourself.

_________________
You may say I'm a dreamer.... but I'm not the only one....

I disagree, on the grounds that you can't keep it to yourself. If informs how you live and there are consequences, even if you keep your permanently mouth shut. Opting out of reality means the rest of us have to take up the slack to accommodate this even if it is not noted.

His sexuality has been very useful to Johnson and his mates in keeping up the "Livingstone hates gays" bollocks.

That'll be the Johnson who in 2000 criticised Labour for "Labour's appalling agenda, encouraging the teaching of homosexuality in schools, and all the rest of it."

But Livingstone knows Lutfur Rahman who...

Actually I do know many christians in the US who keep their faith to themselves.... oh and plenty who can't of course....

Same goes for people of all faiths in the UK. Every adult has a right to his/her own private woo and that's where I part ideological company with anti theists.

_________________
You may say I'm a dreamer.... but I'm not the only one....

But if you're part of a minority who's really being looked down on, then you need to sort of speak up. It's not just about you, it's about everyone else.

That's why I get so pissed off when a prominent gay person (no names in particular come to mind, but I've heard it said) says they're not for gay marriage. It's selfish, because someone's going to see that and think they speak for all gay people. Will Young almost did it on Question Time a number of weeks back. He skirted around the issue when he had an opportunity to represent the community as a whole. Yes, he made some good points, but he lacked the direct thump of making that point.

It's funny, everyone's saying "Christians are against..." or "So-and-so don't believe..." yet you have these visible people like Archbishop Desmond Tutu saying they don't believe God hates gays, and I assume he's pro-same-sex marriage.

It's a vocal minority ruining it for the silent majority, I'd say. And if you're prominent and given a chance to speak but you don't? Well... y'know.

_________________
Changin' avatars like there's no tomorrow

If you cannot speak up then there is something seriously wrong with freedom of speech in the UK.

I think the mail lies when it claims freedom of expression. What it is actually claiming is freedom of the mail's expression and its moronic readers. What is happening is that people are speaking freely and challenging this ideas and the mail will then use every shitty tactic to undermine this.

The mail is the real enemy of freedom.

If you cannot leave other people, who do not interfere with you or anyone else, to get on with their own business because you "don't like it", then there is something very wrong with you.

_________________
You may say I'm a dreamer.... but I'm not the only one....

The Mail is the "enemy of freedom" not because of what it says, but because of what it does.

Dacre and his minions are generally incredibly clever at spinning stories to fit their views, but as someone else mentioned on the site, they don't go all the way with it - they leave the reader to take it to the next step.

_________________
Changin' avatars like there's no tomorrow

But does Will Young represent anyone other than himself? Can he? Should he? Would we expect Peter Hitchens to suppress his personal beliefs in order to represent the majority heterosexual point of view? Is Germaine Greer everywoman?

When a prominent gay person is invited onto a national stage to talk about politics, rather than fashion or personal 'identity' issues, it's exciting (because rare). It's disappointing when I don't agree with them, but contrary to Mailite opinion there is no 'gay mafia', no community-wide pinkthink. If the media were genuinely diverse, there would be plenty of queer voices opposing Will Young. The media aren't diverse. That's not Will Young's fault.

If I were invited onto Question Time, which 'communities' would I be expected to represent? I would betray them all. In any case, here on Mailwatch, I've found myself defending, among others, christians (although I'm not a churchgoer), fat people (I'm not obese) and opponents of pornography (I'm an occasional consumer). Why should there be a particular onus on Will Young to speak up for gay marriage, simply because he is gay?

Having said that, like you, I often feel betrayed by high-profile people I expect to speak up or speak out for the things I believe in. It's a rotten system that grants all the RightMinds people space to air their indistinguishable opinions, while excluding so many diverse and thought-provoking alternatives. Vive la révolution, eh?

Well, I don't think I meant to imply Will Young should say what I think he should, simply tried to make the point that I felt he missed an opportunity to say "regardless of my own personal feelings, there are people in the gay community, of which I'm a part, who want to have a legal marriage and I think it's selfish that anyone can even think to deny them that right" or something.

He didn't have anything heavy hitting to say, I think, whereas Will Self just hit each point with a mallet - especially with that Daily Mail cow.

_________________
Changin' avatars like there's no tomorrow