"Not gay! Post-gay, ex-gay and proud. Get over it!"

[Conrod]

Has the Waddington amendment been scrapped?

 

“for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred”.

Ah, but don't let such sage advice get in the way of overly-excitable people manipulating others' words and trying to imply that they said something that clearly was never said.

 

Some people might, for example, make an utterly ridiculous statement such as “ statements which question homosexuality could be construed as objectionable or as infringing their rights, in some cases such statements could be classed as defamatory, and in extreme cases they could be taken as inciting hatred, which as I pointed out earlier, is a crime”. Clearly nonsense, and something the poster made up, because that’s the way they choose to interpret the matter (just to be objectionable it would seem).

 

One can question religion, sexuality, or preferred choice of coffee, but it doesn’t take a huge leap of intellect to realise that there’s somewhat of a difference between questioning something and inciting hatred. Still, an obsessive mind will read what it wants into somebody else’s words, and over-react accordingly – not that I think any contributor to this thread would be so misguided or so unable to apply honest perspective to a discussion, and will be familiar with the straw man concept http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man.

 

Similarly ridiculous would be a comment like “a long history of individually innocuous comments can be taken as a whole to incite just as much hatred as a few posts filled with vitriol”. Another rather weak attempt to twist another's words and intent.

 

I’m sure that if a poster wishes to continue that line of accusation, he or she they will provide evidence of statements which do, indeed, incite hatred or infringe others’ rights. I expect, more likely, just to see another long diatribe using awfully emotive words like 'bigot' as many times as possible.

[medusa]

Ah, but don't let such sage advice get in the way of overly-excitable people manipulating others' words and trying to imply that they said something that clearly was never said.

 

Some people might, for example, make an utterly ridiculous statement such as “ statements which question homosexuality could be construed as objectionable or as infringing their rights, in some cases such statements could be classed as defamatory, and in extreme cases they could be taken as inciting hatred, which as I pointed out earlier, is a crime”. Clearly nonsense, and something the poster made up, because that’s the way they choose to interpret the matter (just to be objectionable it would seem).

 

One can question religion, sexuality, or preferred choice of coffee, but it doesn’t take a huge leap of intellect to realise that there’s somewhat of a difference between questioning something and inciting hatred. Still, an obsessive mind will read what it wants into somebody else’s words, and over-react accordingly – not that I think any contributor to this thread would be so misguided or so unable to apply honest perspective to a discussion, and will be familiar with the straw man concept http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man.

 

Similarly ridiculous would be a comment like “a long history of individually innocuous comments can be taken as a whole to incite just as much hatred as a few posts filled with vitriol”. Another rather weak attempt to twist another's words and intent.

 

I’m sure that if a poster wishes to continue that line of accusation, he or she they will provide evidence of statements which do, indeed, incite hatred or infringe others’ rights. I expect, more likely, just to see another long diatribe using awfully emotive words like 'bigot' as many times as possible.

 

Or, as an alternative, you could have a very short reply from me.

 

Freedom of speech doesn't exist on SF because we are a private forum where we keep things both family friendly and non-offensive.

 

If you want to post in another way then you're perfectly free to do it, as long as you do it somewhere else.

 

Post hate language, bigotry or inflammatory language on SF and you're very likely to find that you can't post anything else at all.

[esme]

Deary me Mr Conrod, did you really think that my statements were ridiculous, that I was twisting things ?

 

I did point out that this is a privately owned and operated board and that you didn't have free speech on it didn't I ?

 

And as for the rest I was merely pointing out that there are laws against defamation and hate crimes.

 

Also that it's very difficult to lose information on the internet.

 

And that some people have gone to jail for exercising what they thought was free speech on similar message boards, twitter as I remember.

 

At no point have I twisted anyone's words or levelled any accusations at any individual.

 

And I've now made an entire post without mentioning the word bigot once.

 

Ooooooooo, sorry, does that last one count ?

 

Oh well I've done it now, in for a penny.

 

If you are aware of anyone who is exhibiting signs of obsession and bigotry please urge them to seek appropriate psychiatric help, it may help prevent another Anders Breivik.

[Conrod]

Or, as an alternative, you could have a very short reply from me.

 

Freedom of speech doesn't exist on SF because we are a private forum where we keep things both family friendly and non-offensive.

 

If you want to post in another way then you're perfectly free to do it, as long as you do it somewhere else.

 

Post hate language, bigotry or inflammatory language on SF and you're very likely to find that you can't post anything else at all.

I don't have a problem with that, and I have neither been demanding free speech nor making hateful or inflammatory comments.

That's my whole point - the issue here is that I'm being accused of doing such things, when clearly I haven't. If you peruse my comments, you will see that for yourself.

[esme]

I don't have a problem with that, and I have neither been demanding free speech nor making hateful or inflammatory comments.

That's my whole point - the issue here is that I'm being accused of doing such things, when clearly I haven't. If you peruse my comments, you will see that for yourself.

If someone is accusing you of doing something that you haven't then please report the posts that do this.

[Conrod]

Deary me Mr Conrod, did you really think that my statements were ridiculous, that I was twisting things ?

I did point out that this is a privately owned and operated board and that you didn't have free speech on it didn't I ?

And as for the rest I was merely pointing out that there are laws against defamation and hate crimes.

Also that it's very difficult to lose information on the internet.

And that some people have gone to jail for exercising what they thought was free speech on similar message boards, twitter as I remember.

At no point have I twisted anyone's words or levelled any accusations at any individual.

And I've now made an entire post without mentioning the word bigot once.

Ooooooooo, sorry, does that last one count ?

Oh well I've done it now, in for a penny.

If you are aware of anyone who is exhibiting signs of obsession and bigotry please urge them to seek appropriate psychiatric help, it may help prevent another Anders Breivik.

Yes, he does seem to be a rather messed-up individual.

 

And no, you have not directly twisted anybody's words. And I'm sure that any of your posts which may seem, by sheer coincidence, to imply or insinuate such things are merely coincidental and not in any way the result of a personal attack on another poster, as such underhand behaviour would be quite beneath you both as a morally upstanding member of the community and a moderator.

 

So, attempting to put the thread back on track, do you think the religious group Core Issues Trust is made up of people who are obsessed, mentally ill and a potential danger to society?

[splodgeyAl]

I think they are misguided because they "see homosexuality as a problem of attachment and gender identity rather than of sexuality"

[esme]

Yes, he does seem to be a rather messed-up individual.

 

And no, you have not directly twisted anybody's words. And I'm sure that any of your posts which may seem, by sheer coincidence, to imply or insinuate such things are merely coincidental and not in any way the result of a personal attack on another poster, as such underhand behaviour would be quite beneath you both as a morally upstanding member of the community and a moderator.

 

So, attempting to put the thread back on track, do you think the religious group Core Issues Trust is made up of people who are obsessed, mentally ill and a potential danger to society?

Well I don't have any direct personal experience of them to draw upon however by typing the words Core Issues Trust into a search engine I got

 

the UK Council for Psychotherapy seems to have some concerns.

 

And they did seem to pick a rather emotive name for their conference on same sex relationships - "The Lepers Amongst Us", it could be that with the purest of hearts and best of intentions they, quite by accident, happened upon the idea of describing homosexuals as Lepers and thought this would be a good name and would not cause offence.

 

I've found other references that paint an even less rosy picture ekklesia argues that the church has become obsessed with sexuality, Pink Times seems to view them with deep suspicion but that's not exactly a surprise, nor is the fact that Change don't seem to be on their Christmas card list either

 

There's an article in the Belfast Telegraph about a protest over the "The Lepers Amongst Us" conference

 

However I'm not sure how reputable or reliable you will consider these sources to be.

 

Still from a cursory look it could be that Core Issues trust may have one or two members that seem unusually obsessed with what law abiding homosexuals do in their private lives, who knows they may even have the odd bigot who is unusually obsessed with what law abiding homosexuals do in their private lives.

 

-- EDIT --

 

I forgot to mention this was all on the first page, and the only really positive article seemed to be on their own website, could be a coincidence though there may be some really positive stuff later on

 

Wups sorry I forgot the relatively positive article from the Anglican Mainstream and even they seem to think the title "The Lepers Amongst Us" may have cause the odd misunderstanding, but apart from that are fairly positive

[Conrod]

Well I don't have any direct personal experience of them to draw upon however by typing the words Core Issues Trust int a search engine I got

 

the UK Council for Psychotherapy seems to have some concerns.

 

And they did seem to pick a rather emotive name for their conference on same sex relationships - "The Lepers Amongst Us", it could be that with the purest of hearts and best of intentions they, quite by accident, happened upon the idea of describing homosexuals as Lepers and thought this would be a good name and would not cause offence.

 

I've found other references that paint an even less rosy picture ekklesia argues that the church has become obsessed with sexuality, Pink Times seems to view them with deep suspicion but that's not exactly a surprise, nor is the fact that Change don't seem to be on their Christmas card list either

 

There's an article in the Belfast Telegraph about a protest over the "The Lepers Amongst Us" conference

 

However I'm not sure how reputable or reliable you will consider these sources to be.

 

Still from a cursory look it could be that Core Issues trust may have one or two members that seem unusually obsessed with what law abiding homosexuals do in their private lives, who knows they may even have the odd bigot who is unusually obsessed with what law abiding homosexuals do in their private lives.

 

-- EDIT --

 

I forgot to mention this was all on the first page, and the only really positive article seemed to be on their own website, could be a coincidence though there may be some really positive stuff later on

Well, why answer with 10 words when you can use a hundred.

 

All most informative Esme, thank you, but any chance of an answer to the question?

[esme]

Well, why answer with 10 words when you can use a hundred.

 

All most informative Esme, thank you, but any chance of an answer to the question?

 

I believe that would be in the paragraph before the last edit, I'll quote it for you if you like

...Still from a cursory look it could be that Core Issues trust may have one or two members that seem unusually obsessed with what law abiding homosexuals do in their private lives, who knows they may even have the odd bigot who is unusually obsessed with what law abiding homosexuals do in their private lives...

Oh and I added a bit at the end, I missed a reference, my apologies

 

And my apologies if my answers seem a little long for you to read, I always think it best to be thorough so misunderstandings can be avoided.