Hang on, you said it was all pre-determined. So there's really nothing we can do to be 'reconciled with God' - if he decided at the dawn of time that we were going to heaven, we're in. If not, we're screwed no matter what we do. You can't have it both ways.

And it's where all the cool kids go. Who wants to spend an eternity in heaven with tedious s like Kirkstaller?

OK, we'll put that down to "No, you can't enumerate the minorities you were moaning about".

Just for future reference, you understand, for when you make wild statements with no substance again.

If Jesus is God why did he address himself as father?

Because the notion of the Trinity wasn't in his head at the time.

It ws invented later ... despite all the the dubious "inferences" various people claim to derive from the New Testament.

[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/gay-cure-group-takes-tfl-to-court-over-banned-advert-8514575.htmlNutters banned from advertising their harmful 'therapies'.[/url

From your article:



"Those individuals who are post-gay or ex-gay are a sexual minority suffering discrimination because they are outside the purportedly ‘normative’ homosexual paradigm. It was a mistake to assume these views we were expressing came from entrenched homophobia, and failed to recognise that people who want to walk away from their homosexual feelings are a group in their own right.”



As I argued from the outset - where do you draw the line? Who decides which minorities are OK and eligble to claim discrimination from all corners and which are not and are fair game for discrimination by those who are anti-discrimination?



Additionally, when people use freedom of speech to promote their views but then seek to deny it to others we are getting into dangerous territory.

Who is he saying is being discriminated against ... and by whom?

Sounds like a load of waffle to me.





Well, I AM surprised, that's possibly a fair point.

Except, in this instance, it's not. Anyone who knows anything about the subject - that is, actual doctors and scientists - have repeatedly discredited the idea of 'curing' homosexuality. Indeed, the very idea that it's something that actually requires a 'cure' is both ridiculous and offensive.



So, it's not a freedom of speech issue at all. It's about people promoting a 'therapy' that is not only likely to be psychologically harmful, but that is for a 'condition' that does not require 'therapy' at all. Not only should they not be allowed to advertise such a 'therapy', it should be banned altogether.

See Rock God's comments and ...



Religious fundamentalists themselves should perhaps remember not to attack attack freedom of speech by rioting to close down plays, issuing death threats over [iJerry Springer: The Opera[/i, stopping poetry readings, burning books and issuing more death threats – and oh so many more such delights.

It's not about minorities, you dolt. It's about peddling the idea that, not only is homosexuality a condition that requires a 'cure', but that they have the necessary expertise to deliver that cure. Homosexuality is a natural part of human variation. They might as well be advertising a 'cure' for black skin or ginger hair.

I've met many people who previously experienced same-sex attraction and called themselves gay. They are now Christians, have changed their ways and have solid heterosexual marriages.



Most armchair experts would say that they were never gay in the first place.



When is a No True Scotsman fallacy not a fallacy? When it's committed by liberal bigots, of course!

No I am afraid it goes much more deeply than homosexuality, it's about the principles on which any sustainable society needs to be based. It's about where lines are drawn. It's about freedom of expression. the fact that you refuse to see that shows that either you cannot see the bigger picture beyond the end of your nose or you just prefer name calling over inconsequential issues.

so long as the freedoms being expressed fit in with your homphobis bigotry, you mean?

Well indeed. They might be/have been bisexual.

This shows either a misunderstanding of freedom of speech or a deliberate attempt to pretend that freedom of speech can exist in a vacuum that involves no responsibility.



So, in your version, it becomes entirely acceptable to yell 'fire!' in a crowded building.



There is no evidence that sexuality is something that is chosen, or that it is a disease and can be 'cured'. Experts in the field support this.



Thus to advertise such 'cures' would not only be in contravention of advertising standards etc, but more important in this sense, it could do damage to vulnerable people.

If it's harmful, I agree.

It most assuredly is [inot[/i about freedom of expression.



There are two issues. One is that it is not acceptable to refer to homosexuality as a disease any more than it would be acceptable to refer to black people as being 'disabled' solely by virtue of their skin colour. The other (and arguably the most important) is that, if you are going to advertise a 'therapy', it ought to be independently medically proven to work. And it ought to be for a condition for which therapy is required.



Because of people like you and Kirkstaller, there are gay people out there who are reluctant to admit their true sexuality, even to themselves (your son being a prime example of this). These people are vulnerable to scumbags like those in the article and could be subjected to great psychological harm in an attempt to make themselves more 'normal'. What homosexual people who are struggling with their sexual identity need is help and support to accept who they are and to be comfortable with the way they were born. They don't need telling that they have a disease and that they can simply 'pray the gay away'.

Well, I'd imagine that those taking advantage of such a 'service' won't be people who are secure and happy in their sexuality. The 'therapy' is likely to be accessed by those who have been brought up/brainwashed to believe that being gay is in some way immoral or abnormal, and who are struggling to reconcile this with the feelings they're experiencing. The vast majority are probably already in a great deal of emotional turmoil, and for a bunch of religious nuts to then set about 'curing' them of their homosexuality would be as good a definition of harmful as one could imagine.

If someone is LGB – or thinks they may be – and is so unhappy with this that they are likely to consider a 'cure', then it would seem fair to consider them as vulnerable and not in a particularly healthy mental/emotional state.



This sort of thing exploits that – and could do real harm.

I might set up a charity "curing" poor deluded souls that believe in the Sky Pixie, do you think I'd get a Lottery grant?

I like the idea.



But that takes us back to the extraordinary deference that is shown to people of all religious faiths. And I still don't get it, even having been one of that group for the bulk of my life.

Why is Jesus bothered with somebody's gardening in Yorkshire and he couldn't find the time to tell MT about medicine?

When my ex was in one of her "priest-baiting" moods, she visited a church only to be pounced upon by the resident god-recruiter in chief. After a 30 minute discussion of how good Jesus was she decided to let them know she was transsexual, only to be met with "Gemma, why on earth would you want to become a man?". She just grinned and walked out

You know when I said you had, possibly, a fair point?

I was very wrong, you didn't.



Freedom of speech is valuable and necessary, but quack therapies are wrong, whether they purport to de-gay people, cure cancer or reduce obesity.

It's not freedom of speech that's the issue with quack therapies, it's the fact that they are quack therapies.



The failure to see the bigger picture is yours.

You cannot see beyond grasping at straws in attempts to validate your prejudice.