web analytics

THE BIGOT OF THE YEAR AWARD

By David Vance On November 2nd, 2012

Interesting to see that the intolerance of the gay activist organisation Stonewall has run them into some trouble;

“A row has broken out after the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland was named Bigot of the Year by gay rights “charity” Stonewall. Cardinal Keith O’Brien’s stance on gay marriage was singled out at Stonewall’s annual awards in London. Sponsors Barclays and Coutts have said they will axe their funding if the category is not dropped next year. Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson won Politician of the Year, but was booed for also criticising the bigot award.

Wonder should there be a GAY BIGOT of the YEAR award, done in a humorous style, of course? I am sure Stonewall would be amongst the contenders. Also, the fact that BANKS fund this collective of rancid heterophobes is a disgrace.

85 Responses to “THE BIGOT OF THE YEAR AWARD”

  1. You’re free to start a Gay Bigot of the Year award as much as Stonewall are entitled to have their award.

  2. Big debate on this yesterday on Radio 5Live.
    I understand that the banks concerned are considering withdrawing their funding..

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/30/stonewall-bigot-award-banks-sponsorship.

    The point is one cannot be labelled a bigot for reasonably disagreeing with another’s point of view.

    a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong.. http ://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/bigot

    I emailed Nationwide on their support for this, and pointed out that over 300,000 people had signed a petition against introducing gay marriage. I did the same thing with these two banks,plus the fact that they were acting outside of their commercial remit and being complicit in helping bully the British people into accepting something without proper debate.
    To label a member of the Church as a bigot for standing up for Christian teaching, is a bit rich to say the least.

  3. What a relief to see this anti-gay post on ATW. It must have been at least 3 days since the last one. I was beginning to thing standards were slipping 😉

  4. It’s not an anti-gay post: it’s an anti-gay-bigotry post. From the opinions expressed by some here, one would get the idea that gays are the most tolerant people on the planet, tolerant of everything except people disagreeing with them.

  5. Allan

    There is no such thing as ‘What gays think’ any more than ‘what straights think’ Suggesting that all people of a certain orientation think the same really is bigotry.

  6. Sure Allan. In the same way that you’re not anti-Semitic.

  7. Colm,
    Get back to work!
    As McTatters says, it’s not an anti gay post. I am not against Gay people, but I think some of their educational and social goals are harmful and potentially destabilising to society. I also think Stonewall’s “Bigot of the Year” award is social bullying and will ultimately work against them.

    Here’s an interesting website for you. I contacted them recently because I read an article by one of the group who believes homosexual Christians should be celibate, just as single heterosexuals should be. (Incidentally I am talking about Evangelical Christians (Holy Joes as Phantom calls ’em), not simply churchgoers).
    I want to understand their point of view. What kind of bigot is that, Colm?
    http://www.gaychristian.net/

  8. ‘a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong.. ‘

    Now that dictionary definition, as posted by Agit8ed, is about as succint as it gets. The operative word therein is ‘unreasonable’, – but what defines ‘unreasonable’?

    In the case under discussion I find the premise that homosexuality is ‘normal and natural’ is the unreasonable part of the gay argument.

    I can well understand why they insist that it is so, – they wish to be accepted as does everyone. Yes it does happen in ‘nature’, but that certainly doesn’t make the practice normal.

    Now Stonewall and their supporters, with their insistence that it is so, are surely as bigoted as myself and many others who are unconvinced by their argument that it is so.

    I find that as with ‘Nazi’, using the ‘bigot’ word first is a sure sign of a failed or unconvincing argument.

  9. I don’t think it is possible to clarify the word ‘Bigot’ – it is just one of those pejorative words that express an opinion rather than being a descriptive fact. Saying that someone is ‘male’ is an undeniable fact whereas one person’s bigot would be another peron’s hero.

    A person is not a bigot because they oppose same sex marraige – after all it is the official accepted position of all main churches and their leaders. The reason I think this Archbishop has been singled out is due to the unreasonable and insultingly hostile excessive language he has used in his vehemence against it and promising to wage war and spend any amount of money and resources to fight against this. He gives it a priority out of all proportion to it’s importance and talks as if allowing same sex civil marraige contracts to be legalised will usher in the apocalypse. Methinks he would do better to advance the cause of humanity if he devoted even a fraction of such energies into opposing real miseries such as child (and adult) sex abuse, exploitation and criminal violence in society.

  10. It shows how tough it is for political homosexuality that Barclays and Coutts are thinking of walking away.

  11. ” I don’t think it is possible to clarify the word ‘Bigot’ – it is just one of those pejorative words that express an opinion rather than being a descriptive fact. Saying that someone is ‘male’ is an undeniable fact whereas one person’s bigot would be another peron’s hero.”

    So are you saying Stonewall is wrong in having a “Bigot of the Year award”, or is it meant to be harmless fun that unfortunately damages people’s reputations along the way?
    (Incidentally, all the dictionaries think it is possible to define ‘bigot’.)

    I agree that some people go OTT in singling out and condemning homosexuality Colm, and I disagree with that too; but as you are always rational and humorous, I am more interested in your opinion.

  12. For many years this has been a difficult subject to discuss, not so much the main topic but more for the rarely spoken of nuance or details.

    Same sex comradeship is normal, it is what makes for good teamwork, and an effective military, and a strong family, besides being a communal thing – a gathering of the males, as in a golf club, for example, and likewise for the ladies with their sewing circles, probably poor examples, but I am sure the meaning is clear, – where would the WVS be without them?. All quite normal and natural.

    Where I have difficulty is in recognising sodomy as being in any way ‘natural’, – that it is done by both homo and hetero sexuals, makes no difference – it is, and always will be, in my book, be seen as a perversion of the worst kind. That ‘gays’ are prone to the practice doesn’t exactly help their objective to be recognised as in any way normal.

    I am just trying to explain my feeelings on this contentious matter and in now way wish to give offence to those who think otherwisw.

  13. As usual, the best comment is to be found in The Independent.

    I particularly enjoyed this one by “SilentHunter”. He or she was responding to white-as-the-driven-snow Barclays and Coutts’s difficulties with the award.

    “…Barclays said it objected to an individual being labelled “so subjectively and pejoratively…”

    Presumably because they’re not feeling the love from the British people they ripped off with fixing Libor rates, embezzling money under false pretences, loaning money to drug cartels, etc.

    “…while Coutts threatened to withdraw their support of the awards unless the category was removed…”

    Again, presumably because they too, feel less than loved since they were fined £8.75 Million for accepting money from criminals to “launder it” for them . . . and no questions asked.

    Frankly, I would have to ask Stonewall, what the hell they think they were doing associating with such criminal scum as Barclays & Coutts in the first place.

  14. Richard Clinton –

    Clearly Stonewall was trousering this embezzled, laundered money. It sounds like a lucrative gig at the top end of homosexuality business.

  15. Moore Pete,

    “Political homosexuality”, “homosexual business”? What are you on about?

    Next time a put-upon community expresses its distaste of intolerance will you describe it as doing business?

  16. Next time a put-upon community expresses its distaste of intolerance will you describe it as doing business?

    That include Israel..surely the most put upon commuunity on the planet…..

  17. Dogisgreat,

    Israel? Not even close. Try the Rohingya Muslims of Burma 🙁

  18. How about all the jews residing in Saudi Arabia then? (clue there aren’t going to be that many) or maybe the Egyptian Coptics or any other place in the slamic ME countries Christians? Or the Christians being slaughtered in Nigeria by oh I dunno Muslims?

    Much more put upon than the UK’s homosexuals wouldn’t you say? Geez talk about a massive over reaction. Stonewall? Nasty little bigots.

    Get over yourself will yah?

  19. Richard Clinton –

    If the campaign turns into a nice little earner then yes, I’d describe it in such terms.

  20. Dogisgreat,

    Yes, the world is full of shit. This we know. Blame religion.

    When you’ve completed your erection of straw men, perhaps you’d care to return to the topic—and justify your charge that Stonewall are bigots.

  21. Moore Pete,

    I shall pass your comments on to my friends at Childline.

  22. Richard Clinton –

    Well there you go.

    Childline is staffed mainly by volunteers. Good luck to them. It’s also owned by the dubious NSPCC, which is a another nice earner for those at the top.

    Charity is often big business now.

  23. Flipping hell Pete, you don’t like government, you don’t like Big Charities, are there are any groups you like ? 😉

  24. Moore Pete,

    The NSPCC is “a nice earner for those at the top”? Surely you can’t be denying a person a wage for work done.

    Anyway, what was the topic again? Oh, yes: a Woomeister’s justly deserved gong for bigotry.

  25. A great pleasure Richard.

    Seen on the side of a London bus…..’some people are Gay – get over it’.

    The fact of the matter is that it IS a very MINORITY choice. Not 6% not even 3% in fact less.

    Try putting on the side of a bus…The majority if people are NOT gay…you get over it.

    Then you’ll see the nasty little bigots exposed.

    But for sheer bigotry I give you the minority peeps who took the time to send the hate mail to those elderly B&B couple. Or the sheer petty nasty vindictivness of pursuing a fully funded court case over ‘hurt feelings’.

    and I dispute your ad hominem of straw men. Being killed for having the ‘wrong religion’ by bigots is pretty far from straw men. Thats serious stuff. Being a wee bit upset becasue a hotelier doesn’t like you playing hide the salami under his roof just doesn’t compare. The homosexuals in this country are not in any way persucuted. Stonewall is ‘offense seeking’.

  26. Colm –

    I respect many charities, but not those that get into bed with government, act as an arm of government, put the emphasis on fundraising and make their senior staff wealthy.

  27. Dogisgreat,

    I’m still waiting for you to explain why Stonewall are “nasty little bigots”.

    Your additional erections do not cut it.

  28. “Frankly, I would have to ask Stonewall, what the hell they think they were doing associating with such criminal scum as Barclays & Coutts in the first place.”

    Grrrrrrh! Go get ’em Richard! Never mind that we’re trying to define bigotry in the context of Stonewall, or that many heterosexuals do find the gay lifestyle, especially anal sex*, both unnatural and unpleasant.. LET’S GET THE BANKS!!

    *You could consider one of these as a talking point next time you talk to your bank manager..

    http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/what-does-gay-male-sex-consist-of.html

  29. If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get gay married.

  30. Agit8ed,

    Don’t blame me, dear. I was quoting a comment made to The Independent.

    And to paraphrase FewsOrange: If you don’t like anal sex, don’t engage in anal sex. But do please butt out of the private lives of others.

  31. Then you’ll be waiting a long time Richard….good luck with that pal.

  32. Very droll Mr Clinton,
    butt the fact is that Stonewall and others want to promote the Gay lifestyle, and for those who dare it obviously has its risks: as Mike Cunningham’s link on Wednesday showed..

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2225437/Pleasuredrome-deaths-2-men-die-collapsing-Londons-popular-gay-sauna.html

    Also, let’s consider the HIV Aids virus. Remember all the campaigns Richard? The men dying of Aids related illnesses? The advice to Gay men not engage in unprotected sex??
    All that was paid for by taxpayers’ money; not begrudged, but nevertheless it was aimed initially mainly at the gay community. So actually as a taxpayer I do have a legitimate interest in what people get up to..

  33. This award is counterproductive and I hope it stops.

    It does nothing to advance their cause or add to the debate

  34. Agit8ed,

    I think you misunderstand Stonewall and others. They don’t want to promote anything, let alone their lifestyle. Rather, they wish that others could accept them for what they are. They’re tired of being in the closet.

    This the archbigots and their ilk refuse to do. It’s tragic. There are plenty of wicked folk in the world deserving of our ire. Why not address them, and leave innocent gays and lesbians in peace?

  35. Aileen,

    I strongly disagree. Somebody had to put that bigot in his place.

    Counterproductive? I think not. His shaming is productive in the furtherance of tolerance and equality for all.

  36. Richard

    How exactly has he been put in his place? How has he been shamed?

  37. Aileen,

    I’d have thought it obvious. His bigotry has been shown for what it is. And his shaming has been extensively documented by our national dailies.

    About time too. He’s a nasty piece of work who covered for child rapists. If he’d been in any other walk of life he’d be jailed as an accessory to a crime. Unfortunately religion still gets handed a get-out-of-jail card.

    And this is a man who dares to condemn the innocent on the grounds of their sexual orientation.

  38. It doesn’t put him in his place or shame him, Richard. It shows Stonewall for the scumbags they are. Calling a Catholic Cardinal a bigot for supporting Catholic teaching. I would find it very funny if Cardinal O’Brien was to ask the police to investigate whether or not this constitutes a hate crime.

  39. He hasn’t been shamed. Stonewall calling him Bigot of the year may have been widely reported but that doesn’t mean he has been shamed.

    Being named Bigit of the Year trivialises the issue and would I imagine be the least of his worries.

  40. “I think you misunderstand Stonewall and others. They don’t want to promote anything, let alone their lifestyle. Rather, they wish that others could accept them for what they are. They’re tired of being in the closet.”

    Richard,
    I make an effort to understand the issues, and here’s one of them…

    from Stonewalls website re education packs..
    http: //www.stonewall.org.uk/at_school/education_for_all/quick_links/education_resources/4673.asp

    Different families (this for primary school..)

    Children come from a variety of different backgrounds and may have gay siblings, uncles, god parents, parents or carers. Celebrating and acknowledging different families is crucial to make all children feel welcome and enable them to learn how to value those who are different or come from different backgrounds and families. Stonewall’s Different Families report found that when children with lesbian or gay family members realise that their family isn’t ever mentioned in class and other children use the word ‘gay’ to mean ‘rubbish’, that they feel excluded and stop talking about their family. Read more
    Information or promotion??
    As I have said before Richard, what you don’t like is that anyone should say “NO”.
    Interesting that you quote the Rohingya Muslims of Burma to Dogis, yet seemingly forget the Islamic attitude to homosexuality.

  41. Seamus,

    He did more than support Catholic teaching. Check it out, why don’t you. Why do you think he was singled out for the award? The man has form.

    Would you also find it funny if the cops felt his collar for protecting child rapists? Or is that less serious in your book than being (*cough, spit*) gay?

  42. Why was he singled out for the award? Because he is the most high profile figure in the UK who disagrees with Stonewall about gay marriage. That is the only reason. What did he say that was so wrong?

    Also where did Cardinal O’Brien protect child rapists? Have you evidence of that? Maybe you should hand your evidence over to the police.

  43. Agit8ed,

    Yes, that’s information. And for your further information: nobody becomes gay because of a promotion. (You may be confused with chaps becoming alcoholics because of a Heineken promotion.)

    I mentioned the Rohingya because Dogisgreat tried to divert the thread to Israel. Heaven knows why.

  44. Highlighting what someone is doing may be “naming and shaming”. Giving them a silly title of Bigit if the Year doesn’t.

    For many people having such a title puts their judgement in question and this question would relate to their assigning it to someone.

  45. Seamus,

    This should help you out:
    http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/nelson-jones/2012/03/sex-marriage-rights-gay-brien

    There are many more such examples.

    Also, he apologized for that concealment of criminals. There’s a neat little doodah called a “search engine” that will assist you further. Google is one.

  46. Agi

    When you are quoting please use quotation marks or something to denote it. I don’t know where your quoting ends and your commentary begins.

  47. Aileen,

    The title focuses media attention. Job well done. Even Seamus has been alerted to the ghastliness of his führer.

  48. He apologised for the Church’s concealment not his personal concealment of them. Also he didn’t compare gay marriage to slavery he used it as an analogy. I read the article at the time and remember the gay agenda lobby trying to twist his words at the time as well.

    Now can you bring forward examples (considering you spoke the allegation) of where his Eminence covered up child abuse? If not will you withdraw the allegation?

  49. I don’t think the Archbishop has been shamed by the ‘Bigot of the year’ award, because of course you need to feel shame at being in that position and he will not feel ashamed of having been dubbed that by a gay rights organisation.

  50. Richard

    It also highlights that they have an award called Bigot of the Year. A cause for shame.

    Colm

    Absolutely! Why should he care?

    This makes SOME gay rights campaigners feel good about themselves. It will make others cringe and for a lot of the wider population dismiss Stonewall as numpties!

  51. Richard,
    It is not just INFORMATION, it is PROMOTION and CELEBRATION!
    Let’s say for example that one day staff from Pleasuredrome might come into schools (in the interests of celebrating “difference”) to advise on career opportunities in the gay entertainments industry.

    That the little Primary schoolkids Stonewall are targeting, might be indoctrinated enough to believe that the delights of Pleasuredrome are to be “celebrated.”

    Yet you agree to the “bigotisation” of Cardinal Keith O’Brien* (whom even Alex Salmond defended).
    * http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20175530

    That is SICK, Richard.

  52. “The title focuses media attention. Job well done. Even Seamus has been alerted to the ghastliness of his führer.”

    I thought you people thought making Nazi references made you a bigot. Are you a bigot Richard?

    Two things. Firstly, Cardinal O’Brien view’s are ghastly. They are right and they are supported by the majority of the public. Secondly, I am not Scottish so how is Cardinal O’Brien my leader, even in terms of faith?

  53. Agi

    “… career opportunities in the gay entertainment industry”

    what are these?

  54. Agi

    do you mean the industry of entertaining gays? or are we talking gay entertainers?

  55. Seamus,

    Here’s an interesting snippet for you: http://themanthebheastscanttame.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/big-keith-knew/

    “I thought you people thought making Nazi references made you a bigot.”

    I’m not “you people”, whatever that may be. “Führer” is a German word meaning leader. O’Brien is a leader. Would you have preferred Tsar?

    “Are you a bigot Richard?”

    No. I have no religion, thank god.

    Apologies. I’d assumed O’Brien to be your leader, given your spirited defence of him and his ghastly remarks.

  56. Right instead of providing evidence or a report from a newspaper of record you instead link to an sectarian, anti-catholic site who base most of their opposition on football.

    Well done. You sure you aren’t a bigot?

  57. Seamus,

    How do I break this gently? The entire hierarchy of the RC church is and was complicit in the protection of priests who raped children. This includes the pope and his cardinals.

    This is hardly news. And yes, I’m sure I’m not a bigot. Are you?

  58. I don’t think it is possible to clarify the word ‘Bigot’ – it is just one of those pejorative words that express an opinion rather than being a descriptive fact. Saying that someone is ‘male’ is an undeniable fact whereas one person’s bigot would be another peron’s hero.

    A person is not a bigot because they oppose same sex marraige – after all it is the official accepted position of all main churches and their leaders. The reason I think this Archbishop has been singled out is due to the unreasonable and insultingly hostile excessive language he has used in his vehemence against it and promising to wage war and spend any amount of money and resources to fight against this. He gives it a priority out of all proportion to it’s importance and talks as if allowing same sex civil marraige contracts to be legalised will usher in the apocalypse. Methinks he would do better to advance the cause of humanity if he devoted even a fraction of such energies into opposing real miseries such as child (and adult) sex abuse, exploitation and criminal violence in society.

  59. Oops

    I seem to have reposted a comment from earlier. I don’t know how that happened I was pasting something from word and I must have put it into the comment box. Oh well at least it’s still on the right thread 😉

  60. ” what are these?”
    These are opportunities in places like Pleasuredrome Aillen
    I could probably get the details if you’re interested?

  61. “How do I break this gently? The entire hierarchy of the RC church is and was complicit in the protection of priests who raped children. This includes the pope and his cardinals.”

    Prove it. Prove that every single member of the hierarchy of the Catholic church was involved. Prove it or take your bigoted comments back.

  62. I could probably get the details if you’re interested?

    Are you going to go undercover, so to speak 😉

  63. Colm

    Statistically it was a safe enough bet 😉

  64. Aileen

    I had to think about that for a second, now I get what you mean 🙂

  65. Agi

    That doesn’t explain the concept. Examples on their own rarely do.

  66. Colm
    LOL

    Were you thinking that status tacky (that is what my IPad spell corrected my attempt to spell “statistically”. 🙂

    Were you thinking that statistically it was a safe bet that Agi was going undercover? 😀

  67. Aileen

    I’m sure if the distinguished Mr Agit8ed were to go undercover into a Gay sauna he would do it ever so tastefully and there would be nothing tacky about it at all 🙂

  68. OT

    I was in the Ely Centre doing interviews re the 25th anniversary and the fastening of my Poppy brooch came apart. Jim Dixon managed to repair it and someone was asking me about it and I found myself saying “Jim fixed it for me”!!!!

  69. Aileen

    If you had ever had cause in the past to ask Mr Saville to re-attach your Poppy , God knows where he would have put it 🙂

  70. Colm

    *shudders!*

    Poor Jim Wells used “Jim’ll fix it” his campaign Sloan for years!

    “Jim fixed it for me” was what he had on the badges!

  71. Yikes !

    I do wonder what will happen now with all those ‘Jim fixed it for me’ medals hanging proudly in family display cabinets throughout the UK.

    I’m off out now so no more from me for a couple of days. Have a good weekend Aileen and all (including Agit8ed if he ever emerges from that Gay Sauna ;: )

  72. Jimmy Savile wasn’t all bad.

  73. Aileen,
    “Agi

    That doesn’t explain the concept. Examples on their own rarely do.”

    I thought perhaps you were considering a change of deployment, and if you feel that lying back on a bed wearing only a smoulder would better suit your talents, I would do my best to help.. 🙂

  74. “Jimmy Savile wasn’t all bad.”

    Hmm. Doesn’t chime with the text I received yesterday:

    JIMMYS A VILE MAN

  75. I see that the Guardian are running a fresh piece about the Stonewall award.

    If you were in any doubt as to the justification of the term “bigot” to describe a candidate, this will set you, er, straight:

    Stonewall said the award was entirely justified since O’Brien had been consistently abusive and intolerant about gay marriage. Colin Macfarlane, the director of Stonewall Scotland, said the cardinal had “gone well beyond [a] decent level of public discourse”.

    He told BBC Radio Scotland: “The people that were nominated for bigot of the year have this year called gay people Nazis, they have compared them to bestialists and to paedophiles, and one of the nominees suggested that gay people should be put in front of a firing squad and shot dead.

    “So I think what we are doing is highlighting the very cruel, very nasty, very pernicious language that is being used by some people – and in particular by the cardinal, who won.”

    Hmm, “bestialists”. Was that not Ken Maginniss, one of David’s fellow-Ulstermen? He grunted about “beastiality”, which I suppose is close enough….

    The Guardian piece ends with this:

    Previous winners of the bigot award include the Daily Mail columnists Melanie Philips and Jan Moir; the Tory MP Chris Grayling; and Iris Robinson, a DUP member of the Northern Ireland assembly.

    Gosh, another Northern Irelander. Who’d have expected it from that wonderfully tolerant and laissez-faire community?

  76. Richard Clinton,

    “Was that not Ken Maginniss, one of David’s fellow-Ulstermen? He grunted about “beastiality”, which I suppose is close enough…. “

    “Gosh, another Northern Irelander. Who’d have expected it from that wonderfully tolerant and laissez-faire community?”,

    So your response in a discussion of bigotry, is to make an equally bigoted and – horror of horrors, – racist generalistion re the Northern Irish.

    You must feel quite relieved that surnames aren’t used and seen in the same fashion as one’s nationality, i.e, as a derogatory generalisation. You might never be taken seriously again.

    After all what’s in a name – whether of a country or a person?

  77. Ernest,

    What did you make of Stonewall’s charges as reported in the Guardian article? You’re strangely silent on them.

    “So your response in a discussion of bigotry, is to make an equally bigoted and – horror of horrors, – racist generalistion re the Northern Irish.”

    One could look at it thus. One could also wonder at the reason why TWO individuals from NI, a province with the population of a minor British city, should be candidates for the Bigot of the Year award.

    “After all what’s in a name – whether of a country or a person.”

    Not sure I understand this. But speaking of names, did you twig my comment at 10.37pm yesterday? Mrs C didn’t see it 😉

  78. Richard Clinton,

    ‘You’re strangely silent on them.”

    Not so! you obviously didn’t see my 12.0.p.m. or my coment at 1.52 p.m yesterday.

    Yes, I saw it – very juvenile! sort of thing one expects among the twitterati!

  79. Ernest,

    We seem to be at cross-purposes here. I was alluding to this:

    [Stonewall] told BBC Radio Scotland: “The people that were nominated for bigot of the year have this year called gay people Nazis, they have compared them to bestialists and to paedophiles, and one of the nominees suggested that gay people should be put in front of a firing squad and shot dead.

    Pretty damning stuff I’d have thought. What’s your take on that?

  80. Richard,

    It’s pretty much what happens when the proverbial irresistable force meets the immovable object. One group of bigots calling another group of bigots – bigots!

    Both revert to name-calling when all else fails, – a typical lefty ploy, I might add, both know what they think is right, and neither is prepared to accept that the world is full of differing opinions. Long may such differences persist, after all ‘life is just one big multicoloured tapestry’, – isn’t it?

  81. Ernest,

    “One group of bigots calling another group of bigots”

    This would be the case had gay people

    1. called O’Brien and the other candidates Nazis

    2. had compared them to bestialists and paedophiles

    3. had suggested that they be executed by firing squad

    They didn’t, did they?

    If a man complains of bigotry against him does this make him a bigot? For me at least that’s a rhetorical question.

  82. Richard,

    That wasn’t quite what I wrote.

    There is no doubt that Stonewall are a group of bigots, – they believe heir opinions and beliefs are sacrosanct, as does the the Cardinal.

    The name calling really has little or nothing to do with it, each party believes they are correct in their thinking, – and nothing is gonna change their tiny minds!

    That is bigotry!

    It seems it takes one to know one!

  83. Ernest,

    Sorry if I misunderstood you before, but now you’re coming right out and declaring Stonewall to be bigots.

    You refer to their “opinions and beliefs”. I’m not sure those are at issue—if they exist at all. What is at issue here is equality; the LBGT community wish to be accorded the same rights as everybody else. What can be wrong with that?

    If Stonewall are “bigots”, pray tell who or what they are bigoted against? Heterosexuals? Hardly. Politicians? Don’t think so. Unchristian bigots? Yes, and O’Brien leads the field.

    He waged a shameful campaign to deny homosexuals the right to marry. He used every weapon at his disposal to do this, repeatedly feeding his flock (at their expense) the lie that a change in the law would oblige his Church ministers to conduct a marriage service for a gay or lesbian couple.

    And that, Ernest, is bigotry.

  84. Richard,

    I didn’t think that one had to be ‘against’ anyone to have bigoted ideas. The definition I have always had was that a bigot was a person who had very fixed ideas on topics about which they felt strongly. With that definition I would suggest that we were all bigoted on subjects and matters close to our hearts.

    One could almost say that ‘bigot’ was a complimentary term for someone who held strong views, which in many areas of life, is considered a virtue.

    Of course running headlong into anyone with views contrary to one’s own is damned annoying, and that goes for both parties.

    I think that ‘bigotry’ only became an insult with the decline in religious belief and was used by non-believers to mock those who insisted that their beliefs were always correct, and might perhaps be too small minded to even consider the alternative.

  85. p.s. In Stonewall’s case perhaps their sustaining belief – to the point of bigotry, – is that homosexuality is more normal than most of us would care to believe or admit!