Imagine, if you will, that a Conservative or Labour MP had uttered these words in the middle of an official parliamentary committee...
There can be no viler act, apart from homosexuality and sodomy, than sexually abusing innocent children. There must be sufficient confidence that the community has the best possible protection against such perverts, and it is important that there be a mature public debate on the issues, but the security of our citizens must be our overriding priority.Imagine further, that when asked about those remarks the MP "clarified" them in these terms...
From Hansard
I cannot think of anything more sickening than a child being abused. It is comparable to the act of homosexuality. I think they are all comparable. I feel totally repulsed by both.The MP in question was not a Conservative or Labour MP, but leading DUP MP Iris Robinson, who also happens to be married to the leader of the DUP and the First Minister of Northern Ireland, Peter Robinson. If Mrs Robinson had been an English MP for one of the main political parties the London based media would have, by now, hung her out to dry. She would also have been disowned by her party.
I did an interview on this for BBC Radio Ulster this morning. Strangely Mrs Robinson did not appear to defend herself, neither did anyone else from the DUP. During the interview Mrs Robinson released a statement to further "clarify" her remarks. Apparently she didn't really mean it. Let me fisk her remarks. My comments in italics.
The remarks in the Grand Committee report do not accurately reflect my views.
Strange you should have been so definitive in your comments then.
While I will be seeking to check the Committee recording, what I clearly intended to say was that child abuse was worse even than homosexuality and sodomy.
Worse EVEN? I should think so seeing as though homosexuality is actually legal in this country.
While I have strong views on homosexual activity based on the Scriptures, it can in no way be equated with child abuse.
Good, we're making progress of sorts.
If that had been the impression I created at the Committee, I would have expected other Committee members to correct me immediately.
They were probably in shock.
At no point have I set out to suggest homosexuality was worse than child sex abuse.
Er, yes you did. Both in the debate and in the Belfast Telegraph this morning. See above.
There can be no comparison between the two. My entire contribution at that Committee meeting was about highlighting the gravity of sex offences and indeed calling for stronger sentences.
Pity you didn't draft your speech more carefully then, isn't it, love?
Whenever I see a statement from a politician which contains the words "What I meant to say..." I can see that they have been leant on. In this case probably over the breakfast table. Mrs Robinson has form on this issue. A few weeks ago she said that homosexuals should receive psychological counselling in order to be cured of their condition. I have to say that it's not me who needs to see a psychiatrist.
It's a free country and I fully defend Mrs Robinson's right to come out with such bigoted, ill judged claptrap. But by doing so she just reinforces existing prejudices among certain people who then feel expressing them in a violent way is somehow acceptable and can be defended because of the "scriptures". Not long ago a gay man in Belfast was beaten to death in a violent, homophobic attack. While I am sure Mrs Robinson, being a good Christian, would never condone any form of homophobic attack, she should not be surprised if her remarks give succour to those who perpetrate them.
144 comments:
From the comments you report her making, she's a liar as well as a bigot - an altogether nasty piece of work.
That is just, just shocking....
Iain,
Whilst Mrs Robinson's comparisons between homosexuality and child abuse are obviously offensive and rather infantile, I presume that you would not seek to condone violent attacks upon paedophiles any more than you would upon practicing homosexuals? I have a slight concern that your comments here might be mistakenly taken that way...
You have, obviously, never spent much time in Ulster. They are thirty years behind England. They may be pleased that they are so blessed. I can assure you that they even consider oral sex between male and female an unnatural act!
Sorry, Mr Dale, but she may speak for more people than you think.
There is a tendency for gay people to forget that many people are concerned that the way we are going -and your reaction to the ladies view helps that concern- it will not be long before homosexuality will be mandatory!
IF we live in a free society, then surely she has the right to express her view! We may or may not disagree but hysterical outbursts does not give me the view that you believe in free speech!
People are entitled to dislike homosexuality. They are not entitled to discriminate against it though. As the Rod Steiger character said in "No way to treat a lady", 'it does not make you a bad person'
I think its wrong to compare homosexuality between consenting adults and what one must presume to be coercive sex with a minor.
We are talking about NI here though ... one wonders what the nationalist view is.
Andrew Lilico, I cannot see how you can draw that conclusion, but I am happy to put on record that I do not support violent attacks on ANY group of people!
I bet she has taken some stick about looking like a lesbian over the years!
I don't know whether I'm more shocked by her outrageous comments or by the fact they haven't received more publicity. It is hard to imagine any "mainland" politician surviving making those remarks, even if they were married to their party leader.
Can we object to all the rude, irritable people from Northern Ireland who come to England and p*** us off? Can we ban them?
On a separate note, I'm not sure whose picture is more disturbing when one's cursor runs over the top of your blog - Morgan or Gordon?!!
Steady, Iain. Mrs Robertson's views on this issue - that homosexual behaviour is repulsive and wrong - have never been a secret and are presumably endorsed by her constituents and, indeed, still by a great many British people. While her linkage between consensual homosexual behaviour and the sexual abuse of children was crass, it was an explicitly emotional comment - a gut-reaction - rather than a considered statement of moral equivalence. It is certainly important robustly to engage with such views and to challenge them, if you do not share them; but you cross a distinct line by actually denouncing them as illegitimate - because that is not argument; that is intimidation.
So this incredibly stupid Robinson bint says:
"If that had been the impression I created at the Committee, I would have expected other Committee members to correct me immediately"
Really?
Why?
She expresses her view and those on the committee heard what she had to say. They are not required to 'correct' La Robinson, surely? Is it part of some sort of job description? Or is her mouth operated by other beings, in some way?
What an astoundingly stupid response to valid criticism of an astoundingly stupid statement. Where do they find these people?
What is she actually any good at? Maybe Peter Robinson can fill us in on this. Nothing too 'intimate' though, please.
Freedom of speech: Yes, everyone is entitled to it, but do any of you seriously believe that (as Iain pointed out), if this was Labour, Lib Dem or Conservative that the media wouldn't have strung them up? We may have a legal right to free speech but look at how Cameron had to force out Mercer over his non-racist comments and there was another candidate recently who mentioned Enoch without refering to him as being satan in disguise. I'm astounded that the MSM has not covered this.
She was quoted on radio five this morning saying that politicians have a duty to uphold gods law. The inference being that they should be anti-abortion. Seems that the leaks about what they were really offered for 42 days may be starting to appear.
Who is the most anti-gay Tory MP? And Labour MP? Might be an idea to get a bit of cross-party context.
The more this woman talks the more she embarrasses us in Northern Ireland.
You perhaps missed her contribution to a Radio Ulster debate last week where she said its 'the Government's responsibility to promote God's Laws morally'.
Whilst we have more than our fair share of those who'll back her to the hilt (from both sides of the religious fence, I may add), the vast majority know she is simply a stupid oul bat, in politics for wages and expenses, on the coattails of her husband...and simply too stupid to understand the impact her ill-thought out comments are having.
Asked about her views on abortion and her comments were along the lines of 'what would you know, you're a man'.
She's chair of the NI Aseembly Health Committee: god help us.
"You have, obviously, never spent much time in Ulster. They are thirty years behind England."
More like a century. Backward and bigoted on all sides of the political and religous divides.
Given the choise of gay sex or sex with Mrs Robinson's i'll opt the gay sex any day....
Several commenters on Slugger O'Toole have now confirmed with Lorraine Sutherland, the Editor of Hansard, that the record of Mrs Robinson's speech is an accurate reflection of what she said in Parliament. It always fascinates me that so many evangelicals are happy to lecture the rest of us how we should take the bible as the inerrant word of god, but simultaneously believe that unimportant stuff like the Commandments (in this case, the ninth) and the Sermon on the Mount are directed at somebody else.
Would it be inappropriate to say oh my God!
President Josiah Bartlett on The West Wing summed it all up:
"I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, and always clears the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? ... My Chief of Staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath, Exodus 35:2, clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important, 'cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes us unclean, Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother, John, for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?"
So, then, we are all clear, ok? Gays are definitely ABOVE child abusers in the pyramid of social hegemony. But only just, according to Iris. She is of course quite wrong. The next notch up from child abusers is White Heterosexual males, (preferably fathers, preferably tax payers). That is, if you believe the equally vile Harriet Harman or Prawn Dimarolo, or the Avon and Somerset Police, or Bristol City Council, or any number of Stalinist organisations who have now demoted us to the last people they will consider for jobs, adoption of children, equal rights, etc. etc.
It's bad enough that there are enough people back in the province who believe this nonsense, but it's positively embarrassing that Iris swans around as if everyone from NI agreed with her bigotry. They don't. It's worth remembering that the first "gay weddings" in the UK took place at Belfast City Hall, and the Gay Pride gathering was about the same size as the "Save Ulster from Sodomy" protest on the other side of the gates. (And most people in Belfast - like most people in the rest of the UK - carried on regardless.)
Iain, calm down dear !
You have to understand that people of a religious persuasion have a right to view homosexuality with different eyes than yourself. They also view heterosexual sex with a different set of standards.
You say that the London based media would have hounded her out of her job. This is the same London based media which hounded Patrick Mercer out of his job, and is asking us all to 'celebrate diversity' even if that means giving up our right to challenge mass migration.
You could ban her, whip her and flog her to the gypsies - that will only confirm her in her view, as the Bible teaches that one has to be different from mainstream culture and that the road is often a tough one, and that one will have to suffer slings and arrows, so to speak.
Simply shouting at her will not make a blind bit of difference. It is no use telling her what she should believe when you don't have the slightest sympathy for her church and her beliefs.
If you want to get her to change her mind there is no use being like the 'Wind' and trying to blow her coat off with a Force 9 Gale - try a bit more warming sunshine - you might have a bit more of a chance.
But you may have to face the fact that she may never love gay people - but the best you can hope for is to persuade her to tolerate you, and to at least leave you in peace to live your live as you please.
Which might mean you spend a bit more time letting her live her life and her faith as she pleases..
Chill !
You need to watch 'Folks on the Hill' [available on the BBC website, fact fans..]
It has some tremendous sketches with Peter and, er, 'Mrs Robinson'..
Welcome to the DUP.
Please put your opinions back 300 years.
Makes me *so* proud to be from Northern Ireland.
Anti-gay ? She looks rather butch if you see what I mean.
"While I am sure Mrs Robinson, being a good Christian, would never condone any form of homophobic attack, she should not be surprised if her remarks give succour to those who perpetrate them."
Tosh!
That is a dreadful way to try and justify legalising any behaviour.
We are all sinners and it's never wise to compare sins. I think she was wrong in attempting that.
The MP is disgusted by homosexual acts. So am I. So are millions of people: most of them too afraid to say in Stasi Britain.
Anonymous said that in Ulster they are "thirty years behind England".
Weren't the 70s generally far nicer times, apart from the fashion?
Yes, someone dares to say how they really feel about homosexual acts and hysterical outbursts are released across the nation as stunned columnists and bloggers get writers' block until they regain full consciousness.
We were assured just a few years ago that the loss of the safeguards in Section 28 would not change anything, but already we have trials of picture books like "Daddy's Roommate" to promote homosexual relationships to young children.
This book, if you don't know, is about a young boy's parents getting a divorce so that daddy can go and live with his boyfriend Frank.
Anyone half normal would be hysterical about this, not Iris Robinson.
Can people not yet see that the whole 'gay' agenda is about weakening families? That's admitted by some prominent activists. Go Googling.
Some of these people hate normal folk with happy families.
But you never hear this angle on the telly or mainstream media, do you?
The majority have been silenced to the point that they are shocked when someone says something that resonates with their own feelings.
How is society going to look in another twenty years when the children weaned on this propaganda have become dysfunctional young adults?
P.S. Mrs Robinson also said that "homosexuals should receive psychological counselling in order to be cured of their condition"
It can and does happen and those who are healed are very thankful.
It is the present fawning to every politically correct pressure group that is doing great damage to this country.
Great damage.
So don't be shocked by someone expressing her feelings; be shocked at the fear the majority has of not.
It is a point of view, and this being a free country, she is as entitled to think and say so as you are to abhor it. I should not like to live in this country the day that expressing such views became illegal.
As for "anti-gay", I am not sure she is. If she were to treat gay people differently in her professional life, that is to be fought through the law. If she is rude or disdainful to gay people, then she should be scolded. But for merely saying this, even in public, she can only be treated with disdain.
If the Old Testament had come out firmly in favour of paedophiles, half of Ulster would have no problem with them at all.
Let's face it, for all that people may bang on about how marvellous the Union is, who feels more like a foreigner to your average Brit? Someone from Northern Ireland or someone from the Republic?
Give me someone from the Republic over one of the intense obsessives from Ulster any day.
Perhaps you will post a piece on the freedom of speech for those who believe that homosexuality is a perversion, and why such a belief is "bigoted, ill judged claptrap". Will you will explain how being beaten up for being'gay' is any worse than being beaten up for 'looking at someone a bit funny' ?
It is likely that a majority of people in the country do NOT agree with you, we were never asked; we were told, by people like you, what we must now think and say.
Still, it gives you a top trump in the debate, scream ( best do it in a girly voice) homophobe !.... and no more rational debate.
***She was quoted on radio five this morning saying that politicians have a duty to uphold gods law.***
Actually, only the bits that fit in with her prejudices. Can't see her picketing her local pork butcher.
Wonder if Christ reads Iain's blog. If so, he's probably reading Stewart Cowan's contribution to love and understanding and thinking: "that was one wasted crucifiction".
Iain, it was a pleasure doing Radio Ulster with you earlier today.
I don't think Iris speaks for a majority of people here, or anything like it, but a curious party system and a decade and a half of 'peace talks', with the British government actively pushing a supertaig and superprod solution leave us with a crowd of nutbins like the DUP being the largest political party. Although far from a majority, and far from all DUP people agree with Iris.
The reason why no-one in the London-based media cares is because no-one in London really thinks Northern Ireland is British - especially the Unionists. Meanwhile, significant elements of both unionist parties want nothing to do with modern Britain, instead interpreting 'Britishness' as meaning 'inhabitant of a Cromwellian volksstaat'.
Iris is hardly a paragon of morality herself - say something hateful about gays, then try and blame the Hansard staff for misquoting you when the shit hits the fan. Sounds like she could do with reacquainting herself with the 9th Commandment a bit.
Dear Ian Dale,
I'm so sorry you've seen this. She's been everywhere with this for weeks.
I'm so sorry! It's been awful - embarrassing - words fail!
Unsworth said...
So this incredibly stupid Robinson bint says:
"If that had been the impression I created at the Committee, I would have expected other Committee members to correct me immediately"
Really?
Why?
Because that is the way it is on that committee. If one of them makes an outrageous statement then the other members immediately pick them up on it.
The latest primary school textbook in Northern Ireland is apparently: "Daddy Kisses His Children and then Puts on a Bowler Hat and a Silly Sash and Marches up and down Other Peoples Roads, Banging a Drum and Scaring the Shit out of Them".
Aaaah, good clean Ulster family life.
Mrs Robinson: "I have strong views on homosexual activity based on the Scriptures"
Now THERE'S a surprise.
Iain, with your sometimes cruel and cutting sense of humour, I'm surprised you didn't go with the headline "Mrs. Robinson, you're trying to seduce me?"
Are you sure she is worse than Norman 'homosexuals are deviants' Tebbit ?
"We are all sinners"
Speak for yourself, Stewart, not for others.
Mind you, if Iain wants to tackle homophobia, perhaps he could have a word with his chum Guido Fawkes, who seems to allow sort of anti-gay diatribes on his blog, even making such comments himself...
Or would that be too much like shitting on your own doorstep ??
All those Tories who for years thought it was clever to like the DUP, should take note. Some of them are no better than the BNP, and Paisley is one of the worst. They are all full of hate.
I grew up in Paisley's constituency, and most of his flock was pretty nasty and stupid bigots. Many believe him to be a profit from god.
Robinson is a silly bint. So stupid, that she doesn't even realise what an utter fool she will be regarded by making these remarks.
Conservatives should oficially boycott the DUP and people like Iris Robinson. They are not decent people.
Welcome to Ulster Iain. You won't find a more bigoted place this side of Moscow or Istanbul.
This is the latest in one of her rants about a month ago she said a doctor friend of hers could turn gay people straight.
The woman is a bigot, liar and an embarrassment, unfortunately there are too many people like here here in Northern Ireland.
(cant wait for the expenses reports on her & her husband to come out... "thou shall not steal" is a commandment, just hope she has adhered to it!)
Unfortunately this sort of bigoted psuedo-Christian clap trap is par for the course in the DUP. It is not a political party in the conventional sense but a personality cult that doesn't tolerate any dissent. The sad thing is that so many people in NI are so gullible as to vote for this shower of morons.
It's at times like this that the Guardian's blogs seem positively sane by comparison. The politics may cause you to bang your head against the wall but at least they don't quote the Bible at you.
By the way, the bit in the Old Testament that says that homosexuality is a sin goes on to say that you should invite homosexuals to gang rape your daughters in the hope that it'll turn them heterosexual.
Why does it all sound like an average day in the life of the DUP?
"...There can be no viler act, apart from a James Galway solo, than having to listen to Iris Robinson..." *
They're Neanderthals, and like Millwall supporters take the view that no-one loves us; we don't care.
What I would love to see is the Orangeman, the Wahabite and the Hassidic Jew slugging it out for a place in "How Do You Solve A Problem Like The Enlightenment?" (ideally on Channel 4).
Lines are open, get voting....
(*or anything starring James Nesbitt)
Last week she said that job of government was to "uphold God's law". No need for elections or MPs then, just buy a Bible, rub out the title and write in "Statute Book".
And remember, Gordon Brown did a deal with these guys.
The DUP is very popular and I suspect most of her supporters endorse her views. I agree with her. And I have every right to find homosexuality repulsive and contrary to nature.
Why is it that gays and other abnormals just can't about their business quietly? Why is it necessary for everybody to accept their "lifestyle" and be pilloried if they utter anything against them.
Good luck to the lady.
Good post Iain- I don't agree with you all that often- but I think you hit the nail on the head with this one.
And well done again for having the balls to put up posts from the likes of Stewart Cowan et al- proving that free speech is alive and well on your blog even if it does mean wading through the long slabs bigoted idiocy.
As you rightly point out- everyone has the right to say what they like- but I would add for the likes of Mr Cowan, everyone else has the right to think they are pathetic excuses for either Christians or human beings.
Also- bit crass but you may like this facebook group lovingly entitled 'Lets tell Iris Robinson where she can stick it!':
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=29343385488
Ta ta!
"leant on over the breakfast table?" oo-er, sounds a bit rude.
That's not just the most anti-gay MP, that's the most anti-gay thing I've ever read. She actually states that child abuse is better than homosexuality. I don't think you can get much more anti-gay than that. In fact you could infer from her wording that cold-blooded murder would be a lesser crime. What a disgusting idiot.
Zeddy said...
Wonder if Christ reads Iain's blog. If so, he's probably reading Stewart Cowan's contribution to love and understanding and thinking: "that was one wasted crucifiction".
Christ told His followers to warn sinners to repent.
It is not my fault if politicians have turned right into wrong and vice versa so that the meaning of sin has been lost by many.
We need Christ's atonement badly, but we have to rekindle our spiritual side and recognise that some things considered 'normal' are in fact sin, made palatable by decades of conditioning by liberal media and education.
The Lord also said,
"It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."
It is child abuse to brainwash children with these books and clearly there is a high price to pay for this offence.
It is a fundamental law of the universe that you reap what you sow, but the world has a long tradition of killing the messenger.
"No viler act" ? Does she mean "no act more vile." Oh dear, the God Squad were never big on education.
But if the God Suad are so bothered about it, why don't they just pray everyone straight. After all it worked on Ted Haggard (allegedly)
After that episode I posted a question on a U.S. website asking if they could pray me tall. I have condemned myself (again) to burn in hell it seems.
Hasn't she got previous in this? She was on Ulster Radio mouthing off similar a month ago: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7439661.stm
The real trouble may be that the universe, life, is not "gay" and never will be. Some people find reality itself offensive and think they can change it into something more congenial to themselves simply by pretending it is different. Every now and then there will come a sharp reminder.
Stewart Cowan - so you hate the thought of homosexual acts? So don't indulge in them yourself.
So some gay activists are against normal families (are they really?), well there are some pretty peculiar heterosexuals too, with some pretty horrific ideas as far as I'm concerned, like believing they are in Government to fulfil 'God's wishes', ie to impose their own crank notions on unsuspecting others.
But apart from all that she's all right on everything else?
Is it wrong to say you don't like anal sex? It does damage your sphincter. I think not.
Is it wrong to say you don't like same sex kissing. Yes it is.
Is is wrong to say you find child abuse as wrong in the law as sodomy ? Yes it is.
Is it wrong to say find child abuse as sickening as sodomy. No it is not. If that's what makes you sick, wll that's what makes you sick.
It is wrong to say you are repulased by both acts. No it is not.
Is it wrong to compare the two as vile without saying what sort of vileness (personal/moral/legal). Not sure. It depends on the context whethr offence is given or taken.
She's spouting pathetic, ill informed nonsense, but sadly a few others on this board seem of the same mould (albeit not as extreme).
Of the comments, two struck me in particular:
"It will not be long before homosexuality will be mandatory!"
I cannot believe that there are some who allow themselves to be caught up in some collective paranoia about the society they live in. To assume that we are all weak kneed to some perceived media agenda is nonsense to say the least and rather makes me question their ability to be representative of their fellow citizens.
And then this one must rate as one of the most bonkers sentences ever to have been committed to print:
"Weren't the 70s generally far nicer times, apart from the fashion?"
Really? 3 day week, Power-cuts, militant unions, massive unemployment.... words fail.
Ultimately, dontcha think that when someone makes comments like this, they look sooo stupid that you don't even need to comment?
She is crass.
I note that the next speaker up was Christopher Fraser (South-West Norfolk) (Con), who does not appeared to have either been listening to his predecessor or been bothered by her remarks. Perhaps the next time you run across him, Iain, you would ask him which it was.
Iain, you really must stop getting so excited every time anyone says anything anti-gay. Why shouldn'tthey? If gay people want to be accepted as totally equal members of society they must not surround themselves with a wall of political correctness that prevents any adverse criticism. Just look at the language flung at Mrs Robinson - "bigot, nasty piece of work, infantile, offensive" just from the first few blogs.
Grow up gay men!
Iris Robinson said that sexually abusing a child was the most sickening thing she could envisage. Of course, this is absolutely the case - and surely no-one would view it otherwise. [in my opinion, the legal penalites are still insufficient for this most heinous of crimes].
I do not, however, believe she was equating paedophilia with homosexual acts, but only saying that both are an abomination. In this I agree with her. Homosexual practice IS a perversion and an abomination.
People are not anti-gay because they hold this opinion. You can accept the person but not the practice.
@ Anonymous 7:14 PM
In your haste you may not have noticed my further comment "They are not required to 'correct' La Robinson, surely?". 'Required' being the operative word, of course.
I suppose it's an arcane form of entertainment, then.
That said, if this is the quality of debate and thought in Committees in NI then both sides of the religious divide are in deepest and unfathomable manure.
Forgot to add earlier, after Robinson's "homosexuality can be cured by counselling" rant, one of Belfast's gays clubs came up with a good way of getting back at her. It organised an "Iris Robinson Night" with prizes for the best Iris look a likes.
That's probably the best way to deal with this fruitcake. Make her an object of public ridicule and a gay icon to boot!
What a brave and principled woman. I wish we had some like her in England who are not afraid to speak the truth.
Sodomy and the sexual abuse of young children disgusts us all.
There is a difference between using inflammatory language, which is unhelpful, and holding a view. Remarks lile Iris Robinsons help no-one, being in the same camp as using racial epithets to describe immigrants. The effect is to stifle, not provoke debate. All they do is widen unnecessary divisons.
I am a Christian, and the New Testament, as much as the old is clear that homosexuals are among those who wil not enter the kingdom of heaven (1 Corinthians 6). However, before everyone else pats themselves on the backs like good little Pharisees, neither will revilers, extortioners or drunkards. We all miss the mark, just because some of us are respectable sinners who are particularly good at hiding our sins doesn't give us all a free pass. Every man, woman and child in this world needs to be washed in the blood of the lamb and to repent of our sins.
The trouble is that in mainland Britain today I could be subject to an investigation by the Police if I aired such views in some quarters. Apparently certain perons are unable to see the difference between praying for lost sinners (which we all are by nature), and beating someone's head in for being 'queer'. After all, 'Thou Shalt do no murder' is one of the Ten Commandments.
Comparing homosexuals to child abusers is obviously wrong. But there appears to be another problem emerging - no one's allowed to have any views that don't coincide with the liberal elite that govern the Tories and Nu Lab. See the way the Nigerian lady was bullied in Islington. I actually heared what Mrs Robinson said when I was in Ireland, it wasn't as bad as you've put it.
In a free country it's ok for people to have differing views on any subject without being villified.
i'm hetrosexual - its a real nuisance - can it be cured ?
"Upholding God's law?" For Pete's sake, when are we to expect the first Northern Irish fatwa?
... on second thought, maybe that happened already a while ago...
I was listening this evening to an academic attacking the Channel Four Prorgamme "The Great Global Warming Swindle". His line seemed to be, "how dare these people say something that I disagree with and that mine is the only true opinion".
The arguement he used seemed so similar to the arguement this evening. For myself, I think Mrs Robinson is wrong but is fully a
entitled to take her stance and indeed publicise it and offer herself to the electorate. If the electorate accept that, I may not like it but that's democracy for you-after all a similar electorate elected Gerry Adams all of whose views are far more repulsive than anything ever advocated by Iris Robinson
The fact is there is a large section of public opinion in the mainland and in Ulster agrees with her and if democracy and freedom of speech is to remain then so be it.
However, the correct people to judge her actions are her electorate in Strangford
I do not go along with the evangelical-gay lobby but they also have a right to advocate their beliefs but to censure someone who does not accept their agenda is just as sinister and judgemental as any anti-democrat.
I still say she has the right to say it but she is wrong
By the way the comments on her picture are quite accurate but on the Belfast Telegraph web site in the picture there she looks quite a tasty MILF
(well there's me on a DUP contract then)
whats the difference between a bigot and a Puff.
the Bigot puffs up and the puff big..got
Sickening. Only in NI...
Nasty bigot.
So, what is so wrong with being ANTI GAY?
Remarkable and utterly, utterly outrageous, but not exactly surprising - I assumed it was going to be a DUP MP as soon as I read the headline.
I don't really know what can be done to change the level of discourse in NI on both gender and sexuality to the degree that it has changed here in England, Wales and Scotland. It really *should* matter to the press in London, but they've historically treated NI as strange, foreign and somehow irrelevant - and not particularly British. Deeply depressing stuff.
Ian.
Every proper job christian and Moslem is anti gay. Hate the sin, love the sinner.
Zeddy said...
"Actually, only the bits that fit in with her prejudices. Can't see her picketing her local pork butcher."
She is a Christian not a Jew or Moslem.
This is an utterly vile and disgusting thing to say. I'm shocked that she thinks homosexuality is worse than child abuse (and she clearly does) and being a Christian is no excuse.
She should be made to resign and condemned by every media voice possible.
It's not her first offence, she is a serial offender.
She is an evil, poisonous wman who has no place in a democratic parliament. And to think she was one of the people GB gave concessions to over 42 days. It's despicable.
Too often, people in Britain shrug their shoulders and say "well, it's different in Northern Ireland".
We've been saying that for years over terrorism, religious bigotry etc.
Well, why the hell should it be different? She wants to be part of the UK doesn't she?
She is a disgraceful, disgusting woman. And the tragedy is, of course, her views are based on nothing more and nothing less than complete, total, absolute ignorance.
Well done, Iain for standing up to her (you heard the recent spats she had with Stephen Nolan?) but she needs getting rid of at the next democratic opportunity.
I feel so dirty writing about her I am now going to have a shower to cleanse me of her filth.
God forbid a politician should be honest and express what they think about sodomy and homosexuality. Principles and beliefs have no place in modern politics.
Two things:
1. She should be entitled to think what she wants to and say what she wants to. I think it's sad that bigotry is not allowed to be dissected and skewered openly. Because you're not allowed to express bigoted ideas openly, they sit and fester and become part of your personality.
2. She looks like much more of a man than I'll ever be.
Stewart Cowan, if you object to gay sex so much, I've got a simple solution for you: DON'T HAVE ANY!
Iris Robinson should be ashamed for making such an offensive and un-Christian remark.
Iain Dale's Diary;
The most Victim-centric blog on the web.
"Ist", "ism", "phobic", "anti", "offensive"....what a dreary parroting of the last 30 years' zeitgeist.
For Christ's sake, what's "normal" about one man putting his reproductive organ in another man's rectum?
Careful here iain, you`re making too much of this. Essentially no matter how repulsive her comments are, we still live in a country where there is free speech. She is entitled to hold these views. we are getting nearer the point where we will all have to have our opinions checked by the Thought Police and if they differ from the only one allowed we will be prosecuted. We can see examples of that already. Recently a Bristol Councillor tried to get some scrubland cleared on Durdham Downs to tidy it up and also discourage it being used by the local gay community for sex. It was close to houses and i`m sure you`d agree that you wouldn`t want that outside your front door whether it was heterosexual or homosexual activities. Cue the full force of the Gay brigade such as Stonewall getting themselves involved and accusing this councillor of disgusting homophobia and asking him to resign. It seems that in todays world some people are more equal than others.
To the people who say she is entitled to have her views and we all agree with free speech...
just substitute 'homosexual' for black, jew, muslim, ginger-haired, left-handed, ugly, disabled, etc
and of course someone will come ot with a biblical quote to support their fascist-bigotry, but hey, it's appalling, it's disgraceful, and she should go.
For once, it would be refreshing for liberal elite to actually engage in an argument rather than slinging insults at those who disagree with them.
Iain, take note. Calling someone names because you don't like what they say is pretty pathetic. And don't take things so damn personally.
I note that comments refer to homosexuality OR child abuse, much child abuse is homosexual..... and much of that has been by RC priests.
Other posters make comments about Christianity while knowing little of Christian beliefs, and even think of some church leaders as being Christian.
With all of the outrage expressed about the crime of sexual abuse of children you would think politicians would be more keen on stamping out the 'culture' of underage sex/marriage in the Muslim population ( following the example of their cult's founder) than worry about people not liking poofs or poofery.
Will you be posting on this matter or is it a case of yes we know it goes on but let's not alienate the Muslim vote?
She has a proven track record:-
Police to investigate Iris Robinson over homophobic comments
By Tony Grew • June 7, 2008 - 16:40
Northern Ireland police will investigate if Iris Robinson committed a homophobic hate crime
The Police Service of Northern Ireland will investigate whether the wife of the province's First Minister is guilty of a hate crime after she called homosexuality disgusting, loathsome, nauseating, wicked and vile.
Andrew Muir, the vice chair of Gay and Lesbian across Down, visited Bangor Police Station yesterday evening to report Mrs Iris Robinson MP for stirring up hatred and arousing fear as a result of her comments earlier that day on BBC Radio Ulster.
His hate crime report has been passed to South Belfast police for investigation.
Mrs Robinson is married to Peter Robinson, who took office as the First Minister of Northern Ireland on Thursday.
She is MP for Strangford and the chair of the Northern Ireland Assembly's health committee.
Speaking on The Nolan Show, she was asked to comment on a homophobic assualt that took place in Newtownabbey.
Stephen Scott, 27, was attacked by a gang of youths on Wednesday and suffered head and leg injuries. The police are calling the incident homophobic in nature.
Mrs Robinson suggested that he should consider therapy to "cure" him of his homosexuality.
She condemned the attack on Mr Scott but added:
"I have a very lovely psychiatrist who works with me in my offices and his Christian background is that he tries to help homosexuals trying to turn away from what they are engaged in.
"And I have met people who have turned around to become heterosexual."
Mrs Robinson turned down an invitation from gay rights group Rainbow Project to meet with gay and lesbian people and hear about their experiences and concerns.
"I do not need to put my hand into the fire to know I will get burned," she commented.
"Homosexuality is not natural. My Christian beliefs tell me that it is an abomination and that is very clear.
"It is an offence to God, an offensive act and something that God abhors.
"My Christian beliefs tell me to love the sinner but hate the sin, so I condemn the people who went out and kicked that gay man.
"I am clearly not saying that I want people to thrash the living daylights out of a homosexual man or women, because I don't."
There have been calls for her husband, who as First Minister has departmental responsibility for gay rights, to publicly distance himself from his wife's comments.
The psychiatrist in question, Dr Paul Miller, has claimed he can turn gay people straight.
A born again Christian, health adviser to Mrs Robinson and consultant psychiatrist, he gave an interview to the Belfast News Letter.
"First, no one is born gay because gay identity is a complex interaction between genetics and environment," he told the paper.
"Second, no one chooses to experience who they are sexually attracted to; and thirdly, change in sexual orientation is possible.
"As a therapist, I have to say that it's like anything - there are some people who engage in therapy and they just find the change process too difficult."
Dr Miller told the paper that a study by American psychiatrists Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse provides proof that conversion is possible.
His superiors disagree.
Professor Michael King of the Royal Society of Psychiatrists said:
"There is a lot of evidence going back 50 years to suggest that attempts to change people's sexuality in either direction are not possible.
"Such treatments do not work and can actually cause quite a lot of harm. Homosexuality is a state and a sexual orientation and is not a question of behaviour."
The portion of Mrs Robinson's radio interview that was reported to the police as a hate crime was the following:
Stephen Nolan: Do you think for example that homosexuality is disgusting?
Iris Robinson: Absolutely
Stephen Nolan: Do you think that homosexuality should be loathed?
Iris Robinson: Absolutely
Stephen Nolan: Do you think it is right for people to have a physical disgust towards homosexuality?
Iris Robinson: Absolutely
Stephen Nolan: Does it make you nauseous?
Iris Robinson: Yes
Stephen Nolan: Do you think that it is something that is shamefully wicked and vile?
Iris Robinson: Yes, of course it is, it’s an abomination.
Mr Richard Nixon at 7:45 PM said:
'Why is it that gays and other abnormals just can't about their business quietly? '
Could it have something to do with constantly being told by the religious zealots and generally ignorant muppets that wander this fair earth that they are abominations and freaks? Most gay people aren't defined by their sexuality and couldn't give a flying f**k whether other people are gay straight or sideways- let them get on with their lives and be treated as human beings and i doubt you would hear much more about it.
Also- it is worth noting that (according to a quick google search) only 44% of people in the UK say that they believe in God- so the intolerant wing of any religion should watch who they are calling abnormal.
For the record- I'm as straight as a particularly well hung portrait (tee hee- well hung :-))
Just shows that some prejudices are more equal than others. A disgrace.
So, next question is: will Gordon Brown strike a deal with the BNP to get his legislation through next?
Over-reaction...on both sides.
I have my own opinions which I sometimes express a tad forcefully, as it seems do also most commenters. What grown people do concensually with each others bodies concerns me not a bit except that some of it is, in my view, disgusting...'Natursekt' comes to mind.
What truly gets my goat (no no no!) on the other hand is the 'in-your-face' attitude of 'minorities' be they black, gay, blue, feminist, islamists, towelheads, carolingians...you name it. Gay Pride...WTF? Black History ditto
Imagine the bleating if there were a Straight Pride movement...ROTFFL. White Awareness Week (not really a bad idea) etc.
You have freedom of expression, the freedom to insult & to be insulted. Grow up.
Homosexuality and sodomy of children are often related if you believe the criminal records. The vast majority of child molesters are homosexuals.
Of course the molestation of a child is worse than homosexual acts between consenting adults.
This does not mean we have to like homosexuality, we merely tolerate it
"For Christ's sake, what's "normal" about one man putting his reproductive organ in another man's rectum?"
As normal as pumping poisonous alcohol into the gut?
Remarkable to see how bigoted claptrap is deemed OK as soon as someone wrote about it over 2000 years ago.
I'm quite sure that those people flying into the WTC on 9/11 were of the deepest religious conviction.
But here's the catch: religion isn't, and shouldn't be, a free-for-all. Saying that I did this or that because I'm a Christian shouldn't gain me automatic respect out of some misplaced esprit-de-corps if it's cobblers.
And, people, this is cobblers.
p.s. and don't start about the 'silent majority' please - it's a pathetically transparent plea common among marginal groups to suggest that they're larger than they actually are
The Unionists, hmmm weren't they once the natural allies of the Conservatives, didn't they albeit in a slightly different form take the Conservative whip!
Isn't it still called the Conservative and Unionist Party?
A crusade for you Iain, start a campaign to have the word Unionist removed from your own party's title: dare you, In fact I double dare you.
Well Mr Dale. You have certainly broadcast her words to a much wider audience. I do not believe you have had the response you expected either!
Free Speech is just that or it is not.
Anonymous who wrote "just substitute 'homosexual' for black, jew, muslim, ginger-haired, left-handed, ugly, disabled, etc"
makes the point that,perhaps, we do not live in a land of 'free speech' surely we must all aspire to ensure that we all have the right to speak truly. If it offends some so be it.
who was it who said. I may not agree with what they say but I will defend to the death their right to say it"
It appears, Mr dale, that you want free speech, when it comes to matters you wish to discuss, but want censorship when it 'offends' you.
You cannot pick and chose when it comes to FREE speech.
I am surprised that a tory 'publisher' should have such stalinistic views.
Anonymous said...
"More like a century. Backward and bigoted on all sides of the political and religous divides."
And they're so self-righteous, especially the women.
Just have to look at that bird's picture to know what she needs.
This thread makes me proud to be an atheist. Stunning that so many people are still so bigotted and I suspect they are not all in Northern Ireland.
I agree completely on freedom of speech. Iris has the right to say all these things provided she stays within the law. Look on the positive side though, by doing so she just exposes how appalling she actually is and makes herself look a total prat.
Despite holding firm to Biblical Truths the 9th Commandment also seems to have passed her by. When confronted by her speech in the House she alleged that Hansard has misquoted her and that she never used the words attributed to her. They checked the tapes. She did.
She then changed her position to 'ah yes but thats not what I intended to say'.
But if you want to see into the soul of the real Iris have a look at Suzanne Breen's interview with her
http://www.tribune.ie/archive/article/2008/apr/20/the-world-according-to-iris/
Along the way just remember that everything she mentions has been funded by the British taxpayer through the salaries of 2 MPs who are also MLAs in Northern Ireland!
And politically it is a measure of how desperate this Government is that they are in bed with this lot? Iris was one of those crowing how they helped Labour win the 42 day detention vote. What price did Gordon have to pay?
anon@8.30 - go back and read Iain's comments properly. You will see that nowhere does he ask for Mrs Robinson to be censored, he is commenting (as he is entitled to do) on her views.
And if these God-botherers are going to get so het up about sexual issues, perhaps they could put to one side their dislike of what CONSENTING ADULTS get up to, and address themselves more to the issues of heterosexual rape, and heterosexual child abuse, and the insidious sexualisation of children by society.
"I grew up in Paisley's constituency, and most of his flock was pretty nasty and stupid bigots. Many believe him to be a profit from god."
PROFIT from God.
A Freudian spelling slip?
"For Christ's sake, what's "normal" about one man putting his reproductive organ in another man's rectum?"
What's abnormal about it? All other species do it. Giraffes show a marked preference for homosexual sex over heterosexual encounters.
But let's, for a second, say you're right (you're not). What's 'normal' about Mozart's Requiem? What's 'normal' about a gin and tonic? In fact, WTF defines normal anyway?
And since when did all homosexual men engage in anal sex?
Personally, I dislike the Tatchell / Stonewall brigade, and if you have a problem with gays then that's fine with me, but at least be man enough to say "I have a problem with gays", rather than try and invoke selected passages of Leviticus (tactically ignoring the rest) or claim that it's 'unnatural ', or even that 'unnatural' things are intrinsically bad.
"Welcome to Ulster Iain. You won't find a more bigoted place this side of Moscow or Istanbul."
When the Belfast Telegraph ran this story yesterday their comments section got hundreds of replies and interestingly the vast majority were totally against Robinson's views. At a guess I would say a far higher % were against her there than on this blog.
Oh still have our bigots but either things are getting better, many of them are too thick to use the in internet or think its the work of Satan as they might accidentally meet a non-believer / be exposed to alternative views.
Yes, its appalling and ignorant. But by comparison, not one word is spoken in the HOC against the bigotry and nastiness of the Scots about the English.
This week, they are encouraging people across the world the destroy all symbols of Englishness, from Shakespeare books to china tea cups.
Not one MP has spoken out in our defence in an effort to stop this rot and evil from that nasty nation. Including you.
Only one article mentions it and then it doesn't even take sides. Only the English are treated this way in Britain!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/forumOtherInsertThread.do;jsessionid=FD3E2359F66C5C1706565EEF69930EE0.vptomcat8
I am not outraged by the lady's remarks.
Trouble is, the Old Testament is unambiguous on the matter. As Not The None O'Clock News had it, the God of Abraham 'hates poofs'. This of course makes her attempts at backtracking all the more pathetic.
Quite how any sane person could use the O.T. (with all its God-mandated child sacrifices and bloodbaths) as the ultimate source of moral guidance is beyond me. Even God's man in Sodom offered his own daughters for rape.
I seem to remember the colourful Nicholas Fairbairn expressing some similarly forthright views on the matter. Whatever Mr Fairbairn said of course, he always had the defence of being pissed at the time.
As for the 'what's normal about putting...' commenter, who defines what 'normal' heterosexual practice is? Don't think the Bible went into much detail on that one. If it's only that which results in conception then await the Chief Inspector of Infernos report on Hell overcrowding.
It's time people calmed down about this.
Some have expressed surprise at the reaction to the piece. I am not. Every time a "gay" story is posted you get the usual rag bag from hangers and floggers to precious poofters claiming martyrdom.
Its easier than that. To start with, there is the issue of so called "hate crime" what is a "hate crime"? If you mean that someone is abused, physically or mentally because of some physical state or orientation, then that is rubbish. Abuse is abuse. Violence against a person is violence regardless of the reason, specious or not. In my book, if you beat someone up because they are gay it is no more and no less a crime than being beaten up for your Rolex. There should be no member of society, black or white, rich or poor, gay or straight, religious or not, etc, who should walk the streets in fear of their life and liberty.
The second point is about personal preference or personal opinion.
Anyone who supposes that the public airing of opinion should be none controversial is evincing a totalitarian view. Iris Robinson has a right to her opinion and a right to voice it. In the same way, Gays have a right to voice their opinions. That is the cost of freedom. Freedom to express opinion and freedom to disagree.
Thirdly, it's personal.
I think smoking is disgusting. My daughter smokes. I tell her it is disgusting and when she visits me she smokes outside. I personally do not think that being gay per se is disgusting, but there are elements of the lifestyle that put me off. It's a personal opinion. Personal experience has taught me not to trust gays in general. I personally find gay people unreliable and inclined to favour gays at the expense of others. I have found them true to stereotype; vain and self-regarding. It's not prejudice, it is not hate, it is my opinion gained from over 30 years experience. Try not to act shocked.
I am entitled to my opinion and entitled to tell you it. What I am not entitled to do is to give the impression that my opinion is more valuable or is morally superior to yours, or that it carries authority.
So, one must try and see the difference between personal preference, based upon personal experience, and incitement to violence predicated on moral or ideological considerations.
So where does this woman stand?
I think that, given her position in life, her potential influence, and the socio/historical context of Northern Ireland with its propensity to sectarianism and knee capping, Iris Robinson has crossed the line. If there is one scintilla of potential for her remarks to be seen as a green light for violence or persecution against a section of the population, she must be condemned.
Finally, I can see that some might try and argue that drawing a parallel with the value of a Rolex and sexual orientation is abhorrent. I am not here to argue for a value judgement.
Mr Dale,
I have a question for you. Do you consider that this MP is allowed to say: "I find homosexuality abhorrent"?
Is she even allowed to think it?
I'm genuinely interested in your opinion.
Thanks
Can't really be bothered on this one Iain - shouldn't argue with fools. If she had any wit she'd be looking over at Lambeth. Scriptures my foot - if she cared so much she'd help people rather than preach from her home made pulpit. Uuurrgghh. Keep the pressure on bud, this can't be left dormant.
To those in these comments who think I would restrict Robinson's right to free speech, think again. You clearly did not get to the end of my piece before you jerked your knees. I wrote...
"It's a free country and I fully defend Mrs Robinson's right to come out with such bigoted, ill judged claptrap."
But I am also free to condemn her.
I think if we were all to take Leviticus seriously, we'd have the death penalty for eating a prawn cocktail.
Iain, although this story is ages old, I am glad you picked it up. All very worrying that people can get away with this.
She looks like a lesbian anyway.
There is a Downing Street e-petition with regards to her comments...
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Robinson-Gay/
It has over 10000 signatures and in the 'Top10' e-petitions too!
Jesus was so concerned by homosexuality he never once mentioned it.
Fundamentalist’s views are informed by their bigotry first and their religion second. What is sad is the inability of the majority of Christians to denounce these unchristian attitudes.
Iain Dale said...
"It's a free country and I fully defend Mrs Robinson's right to come out with such bigoted, ill judged claptrap."
But I am also free to condemn her."
And we are free to condemn you for er...condemning her.
I will be investigating how I can contribute to Mrs Robinson's next campaign. If only our mainland figures were as courageous in the face of moral depravity.
Iain
I think you need to accept that some people will always be anti gay and it is their right to be so and express an opinion. The sooner gays stop drawing attention to themselves perhaps we could all move on
My favourite t-shirt from RightWingStuff.com: "Definition of a Bigot: A conservative winning an argument with a liberal".
Condemning homosexual behaviour isn't bigoted. Being repulsed by homosexual acts isn't bigoted.
Condemning as hateful or bigoted those whose opinions you disagree with IS hateful and bigoted. Allowing ad hominem attacks does give succour to those who would engage in other attacks.
Iain,
Thank you for your blog - finally someone talking some sense.
How can this woman be allowed to continue in her post? I understand the right to free speech - but there are limits - if we replaced the word Homosexual in her speech with Muslim or Jew do you think this would receive so little outcry.
Methinks the lady protests too much? Perhaps we have a lady version of Paul Berry?
Condemning homosexual behaviour isn't bigoted.
depends how you do it. If you say "I do not agree with homosexual behaviour and I think it is wrong." then no, it isn't.
Making a direct moral comparison to sexually abusing children is bigoted.
Condemning as hateful someone who does that is neither hateful nor bigoted.
As I said, I'm no fan of the Outrage! lot, but to be fair the sanctimonious morality lot were allowed to oppress everyone else for centuries. So I can't work myself up to feel sorry for them now they feel they're on the receiving end.
rebecca, if you replaced the word homosexual with Muslim or Jew it would make no sense at all; she was talking about disgusting acts.... not religion. Of course she could point out that Muslims have carried out some vile and disgusting acts.
As you compared homosexuals with two religious groups perhaps you have wandered in here from CiF and actually think that being gay is a religion....
Iain,
You wrote:
"While I am sure Mrs Robinson, being a good Christian, would never condone any form of homophobic attack,"
Was the sarcasm intended? I am a 'good Christian' and I can assure you her views are not set in stone. There's much scriptural evidence in favour, yes in favour, of homosexuality (David and Jonathon for starters). Please do not tar all of us Christians with the same brush.
Mr Dale, as it happens many people still see homosexual acts as not equivalent to heterosexual acts, even if they do not use the word ‘sin’. Here you (and other pro-gay advocates here) are using intemperate and extreme words like 'bigots' to describe those who still hold, and dare to express, the traditional view of sexual practice which has been held for centuries until we have been intimidated to change our views. Words like ‘bigot’ and ‘homophobia’ are used to silence opponents of the gay agenda, and some here want any who hold them hounded out of office – just for holding and speaking centuries old traditional views!
You say expression of such views such as Mrs Robinson’s can give succour to those who commit homophobic attacks etc. (I wonder if you really do believe in the freedom to express views you disagree with you on this subject – I’m surprised how you can be a Conservative). But surely the words that you use to describe Mrs Robinson’s views as “bigoted ill-judged claptrap” are just as provocative and could they give succour to ‘christophobia’ or whatever.
I don’t agree that homosexual acts are worse than other sins such as sexually abusing children, and I would condemn homophobic attacks (and violence against anybody). But bearing in mind that (as has been pointed out by someone else here) part of the gay agenda is to weaken families, perhaps its about time more had the courage of Mrs Robinson to defy the pro-gay agenda to speak out the traditional view.
(tom hatton, where does scripture actually say David and Jonathan engaged in homosexual acts?)
I very much doubt that she is the most anti-gay MP.
It's just that the others know that these days it is best to keep their true feelings about homosexuality to themselves.
Tom Hatton said:
"There's much scriptural evidence in favour, yes in favour, of homosexuality (David and Jonathon for starters)."
I have never heard such lies.
I believe it could also be blasphemous.
Men are able to love one another without sexual arousal being an issue. Do you love your dad/brothers/grandfathers/sons/uncles/nephews/male cousins/best friends?
The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah gives more than a clue as to what happens when a society falls into irreversible depravity.
How far are we from the same fate I wonder?
Who will listen?
They didn't back then and history seems to be repeating itself.
The Almighty even has the grace to make the internet possible so that people in these dark days of confusion can learn more and discuss the issues and repent and believe and receive salvation through the Blood of Christ.
I suggest that when somebody cries "homophobe" they are really saying, "I'm too entangled in sin to give a reasoned reply."
These are very precarious times to be on the earth without the Saviour's strength against temptation.
'Pro-gay agenda', LOL. Paranoid bigots and conspiracy theorists are alive and well, and not just in NI unfortunately! We'll have the 9/11 nutters along next..
I think she is entitled to her views, and to express them. Anyone who disagrees should spend some time in China or Zimbabwe and discover where such prejudice and bigotry lead.
I think Ms Robinson needs to be a little careful about equating what she finds vile and repulsive with what is objectively wrong. Would, for instance, she object to the following statement were it to be uttered by a conservative Catholic:-
"There can be no viler act... than the rebellion against God and the Church practised by those schismatic and heretical Christians called Protestants. There must be sufficient confidence that the community has the best possible protection against such perverts, and it is important that there be a mature public debate on the issues, but the security of our citizens must be our overriding priority."
I can well imagine that such a statement would have been happily uttered by many millions of Catholics during the Counter Reformation period and for centuries thereafter, for whom rebellion against God and the Church in such a way (through schism and heresy) would have been seen as securing for the rebeller eternal damnation - what viler act could be imagined? I suspect however that the Protestant Ms Robinson might disagree with such a view.
To base morality upon personal revulsion is a path fraught with danger. The revulsion must be justified by external authority. Ms Robinson would doubtless cite Scripture as such, but that of course leads us to the very tricky issue of the authority of Scripture, an issue which is so exercising the minds of a number of persons currently gathered at Canterbury.
These are all biblical quotations. Read the story if you don't believe me:
"took great delight in David"
"Jonathan loved him as his own soul."
"Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David"
When referring to sex in biblical stories the Bible is very reserved and rarely states it openly. As far as i'm concerned the above quotes are clear: the men were engaged in erotic love.
Also, the scriptural evidence to the contrary of my views is usually discarded when it comes to other issie, for example, in Paul's letters it says women should not speak in chuch. Why ignore that, but not ignore it when it condemns homosexuality. The anti-gay lobby is hypocritical and misguided. My advice....
Read the Bible and read it properly.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone in this day and age who is gulliable enough to believe that a virgin gave birth and all that nonsense is an obvious nutter, and anything they say should be taken with a large pinch of salt. If she is entitled to her opinion about gays then I am entitled to mine about Christians.
Aren't her statements illegal?
Is it possible that her doctor could turn her into something other than a bitch?
Fancy waking up each morning and seeing her face next to you. It's no wonder Peter Robinson is such a happy soul...
Stewart Cowan said...
"These are very precarious times to be on the earth without the Saviour's strength against temptation."
You silly little boy. Grow up, have sex, get a life.
Tom Hatton wrote:
>>>These are all biblical quotations. Read the story if you don't believe me:
"took great delight in David"
"Jonathan loved him as his own soul."
"Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David"<<<
Sorry, but anyone who reads this and imagines "the men were engaged in erotic love." needs a little bit of help!
Please don't bastardise holy scripture with political correctness.
Sorry, I must reply to this cowardly anonymous comment:
Stewart Cowan said...
"These are very precarious times to be on the earth without the Saviour's strength against temptation."
You silly little boy. Grow up, have sex, get a life.
Sometimes you read the Bible and think, surely people weren't as stupid as that in the old days.
Things like worshipping a golden calf instead of the living God.
Like worshipping phallus-shaped objects.
Here we are in 2008 and people are still just as confused and worshipping sex.
Like the ancients who killed the prophets for warning against sin, the people now cast metaphorical daggers into God's people for doing the same.
Their abrupt rudeness is an automatic response of being reminded of sin. Their pride causes obstructions to proper debate, so they lash out.
Pride cometh before destruction and only One can save you from destruction.
This is all I will say on this subject.
I wonder what she does in bed that she's proud of.
Their abrupt rudeness is an automatic response of being reminded of sin. Their pride causes obstructions to proper debate, so they lash out.
I'm sorry Stewart, but that simply won't wash. "It's wrong because God says so" is not 'proper debate' nor is it 'reasoned' (a word you used earlier) in the sense of rational. It is thoroughly irrational to base your view of something on what a supernatural being might or might not think about it. Not wrong, necessarily, but hardly rational.
You are very free to express your dislike of homosexuality, and others are free to think you bigoted for so doing. You may wish to argue 'reasonably' that it is detrimental to family life, and they may disagree. You might suggest that homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals and spread venereal diseases, and someone might ask for your evidence on either fact. Both of those are rational points of debate, whether they are correct or incorrect. But 'God says' is not. Even if the God you believe in does. Because it is a matter of faith.
I'm pleased that you are secure in your faith. Myself, I would dispute your theological view and question your lazy and fundamentalist literalism on doctrine. But don't paint yourself as the defender of rational debate. That is so disingenuous as to be almost an outright lie.
Stewart Cowan said...
"This is all I will say on this subject."
Praise the Lord. Then save your money to pay a lady to teach you a thing or two.
Erm, she conflated homosexuality with child abuse there, that's not 'free speech' that's incitement -- it sort of comes close to 'jews poisoning wells' style kind of slander in fact the pedophile label has been used in many countries for many years to whip up hatred against gays.
I want to add that I don't want to see her prosecuted at all, just that I want her to be roasted over to coals for trolling with intent to stir the pot.
People could die to this kind of talk, that's why, because some of the morons who listen to her kind are dangerous people in their mindlessness.
Post a Comment