Christian Institute and the BNP defend Christian Voice
Colin Hart, director of the dementedly homophobic Christian Institute, has jumped to the defence of Stephen Green of Christian Voice. The CI has been careful in the past to distance itself from CV, but Green’s arrest has prompted them to speak out:
It is noticeable that police never arrest Muslims who make remarks about homosexuality,
said Hart. That’s right, Colin. Don’t let awkward facts, such as the police investigation into Sir Idiot Sacranie’s homophobic remarks, get in the way of your tiresome “they-wouldn’t-dare-treat-Islam-like-this” argument.
Meanwhile, the British Nationalist Party also express their support, noting that there they share much common ground with Green’s Christian Voice organisation:
There is an interesting introduction on the Christian Voice Web site which broadly echoes the BNP’s national outlook; this suggesting that there is much common ground between the pro-Christian BNP and “conservative” Christians – despite what the liberal bishops and cardinals would have the world believe!
CV have tried to distance themselves in the past from the BNP, especially when the latter joined them in their anti-Jerry Springer: The Opera campaign.
Mmmm… You guys are usually pretty balanced, but in the first place, I certainly wouldn’t describe the Christian Institute as “dementedly homophobic”
These guys are dementedly homophobic.
“Balanced”?! What on earth gave you that idea, sconzey? 🙂
Ah, but being coolly homophobic may be a sign of inner dementment.
“Dementedly homophobic” is a bit of a tautology when you get down to it. Is it possible to hate all homosexuals in a reasonable and well-considered way?
It’s possible to sincerely believe that the homosexual lifestyle is morally wrong, but at the same time accept that other people must make their own descisions about how to live their life.
Sconzey,
Or maybe that genetics is involved, perhaps?
Homosexuality is far more than a lifestyle choice, no matter what assorted supernaturalists would try to have us believe.
Anyway, why should anyone “hate” (ie being “phobic” about) an activity that they find “immoral”? Simply passing a personal judgement does not inevitably lead to hating, does it? What about mild dislike? Is there a sliding scale of “hate”? Is gaydom worse than abortion, eating bacon, or drawing cartoons of a highly-mythologised person? hmm?
Maybe those leaps require specific commands to action from a “sacred” text or two..? 🙂
The studies suggest that the gene on the X chromosome I assume you are referring to is neither nessecary (some homosexuals do not have the gene), nor sufficient (some heterosexuals do have the gene). The gene may bias an individual towards, say, an aesthetic appreciation of the male body, but at the end of the day there’s little beyond anecdotal evidence to suggest that homosexuals don’t have a choice.
sorry, I just realised I leapt from homosexual to gay… That should have read “an aesthetic appreciation for the body of someone of the same sex”
It’s more complex than just a single gene switch. And that still doesn’t mean someone can choose not to be gay, any more than they can.
The problem with religious texts (ALL of them) is that they have to be viewed in a temporal context – they suited a purpose WHEN they were written. Now they don’t.
Actually sconzey, I was thinking more of this:
Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers
* 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
* 22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
* 11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, “A genetic study of male sexual orientation,†Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991.
Bailey and Pillard (1993): occurrence of homosexuality among sisters
* 48% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual women were likewise homosexual (lesbian)
* 16% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
* 6% of adoptive sisters of homosexual women were likewise homosexual
Bailey, J. M. and D. S. Benishay (1993), “Familial Aggregation of Female Sexual Orientation,†American Journal of Psychiatry 150(2): 272-277.
Bailey was worried about possible selection bias with these studies – eg advertising for participants in gay newspapers, so did another study out of the Australian Twin Registry, with almost 5,000 participants (roughly 1,800 sets of twins and 1,300 unmatched twins). This also tracked the same pattern.
Twin studies are great for that sort of research…
No-one currently claims to know the precise mechanism, but there is sufficient evidence to state confidently that there is a significant genetic element. Of course nurture plays a major role…but the genetic influence indisputable – unless you’re a subscriber to NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, and pretty much equivalent to “creation science” in terms of scientific integrity!).
Now I’ve dealt with your question – how about you bother to answer mine regarding the “hate” construct, huh?
What caused your heterosexuality, Sconzey? Oh, I was forgetting: you have a choice in the matter, and can turn gay any time you wish.
(The above is written on the assumption you’re hettie. Apologies if you’re not.)
Melanie Phillips is defending Christian Voice too.
Not exactly Loz – what she’s doing is not only worse, it’s actually and factually wrong.
Once again (2nd time this year, in fact) I find myself agreeing with Red Ken; this isn’t a Christian country; it’s secular. The relgious are kicking up a LOUD stink because the are outnumbered.
Society may have Christianty to thank for where it is, but we don’t need it now. Like a good pupil, many of us have gone beyond the knowledge of our teachers. This is what the Xians (particularly the paid ones) don’t like – like many manual workers who feared the dawn of computerised production plants, they can see this as an end to their (in their case) easy, comfy jobs for life.
I looked at Phillips’s rant. ‘Britain would lose its identity, its values and its cohesion without [Christianity],’ she opines. Bollocks, Mel! Britain’s identity is in the pub, the wine bar, the office and factory, the street among the streed-cred street kids, the school (with or without a religious assembly), the Proms, the rock concerts, the rap gigs, B&Q on a Sunday, Tesco any day, the corner shop, the football terraces, the cricket grounds, increasingly the blogosphere and other online forums. While I agree with some of what Mel has to say (one doesn’t like to agree with people like her, but I daresay there are some things even Adolf Hitler said that I might agree with, and some things on the BNP website that I might agree with – some), she’s talking shite. Christianity as a cohesive force is no longer needed, because religion itself is no longer needed (it may be desired, but hardly needed, in that one can be weaned off it). We’d be a more cohesive society without it for reaons that have been rehearsed in this blog and elsewhere so often that I needn’t go into them.
And of course she’s right to say Green shouldn’t have been arrested. I believe that, too, and I’m one of the unholy, ungodly, disgraceful, scandalous, profane sinners he hates so much and seeks to quieten. Once we start stamping on his freedom of speech, it won’t be long before ours is similarly curtailed. But that’s only a contingent reason: the real reason I think he should be allowed to say his piece is just the principle of it. Say as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law, as Aleister Crowley didn’t quite say. But with the usual and sensible caveats, of course.
[…] MediaWatchWatch has found a copy of the leaflets and notes that both the Christian Institute and the British Nationalist Party have expressed their support for Stephen Green. Posted by Paul in UK (September 9, 2006 at 9:32 pm) […]
@Andy
That was the study I saw too, and although there is strong suggestion for a genetic basis for homosexuality, there’s enough room there to defend some element of free will in the matter.
Tackling the hatred question, scrolling back up this seems to all stem from a post by “Graham Deans Williamson” who linked homophobia to a hatred of gays. Reading this, my reply wasn’t entirely accurate. No, it’s not possible to hate all gays in a reasonable and well considered way. The word “homophobe” connotes “unreasoned fear”, so someone with personal moral objections to homosexuality does not nessecarily have to be a homophobe, as their moral objections do not nessecarily have to lead them to fear or hate gays.
Just as if, (say), your friend shoplifts, you can maintain a moral objection to their act without disliking them as a person.
Hey Andy,
perhaps we should make some (joke) pro-gay leaflets extolling the benefits of being in a same-sex relationship (i.e. another guy never complains that you left the seat up, etc.) It Would make for interesting reactions if we distributed them outside a few churches! Perhaps York Minster or Westminster Abbey….
Let’s see how far our freedom of speech goes then. 😉
I think “homophobia” is one of those words which can’t be taken as a literal semantic thingummy; it clearly doesn’t mean some sort of nervous or allergic reaction to gays. While it is perfectly possible in theory to disapprove of homosexuality without actually hating gay people, it never really seems to work that way in practice.
Sconzey,
glad we got all that cleared up! 🙂
“Deciding” what your sexual preferences are is still a deeply moot point. I mean, I’d have been delighted to find blokes attractive…so much more to choose from! 😉
(not that this would necessarily have improved my strike rate – I’m not exactly Brad Pitt…)
All we can say from evidence is that there is a biiiig continuum of sexuality out there…and of course, cultural values (legal repression,etc) play a part in determining expressed behaviour. Hell, in some instances, I’ve known guys who were pretty much omni-sexual being pressured by their peer group into declaring themselves one absolute or t’other…the old “bi’s are only deluding themselves” argument… 🙂
Marc – Now THAT’s a great idea! Especially somewhere like York Minster, where you’re bound to get American tourists mixed in with the pensioner-heavy congregation! There must be more advantages to “living gay”…hmmm.. sharing deodorant? You can go “gadget shopping” together? Shifting heavy furniture is much easier with two blokes?
Andy A. can you help, please?
the old “bi’s are only deluding themselves†argument…
Bi’s definitely have more to choose from 😉
Being gay once had the advantage of not being pressured by a partner into marriage, daft buggers have gone and screwed that one up 🙂