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.

What prejudice would that be?

Your prejudice against gay people, which you call morality.

Good way to kill spare time.

Quack therapy or not (I have made my feelings on the matter clear), is this issue [ireally [/iabout the quality of the therapy itself? For example, do you think Boris would have pulled homeopathy adverts, or silenced Chinese therapies claiming to get rid of warts?

The answer is obvious.

This was a clear political statement, made days before the London Mayoral Election. The advert had been passed by the relevant advertising standards authority, but Boris sought to use his discretionary veto to pull the ads and gain support amongst the left whose votes he needed to return him to political office.

Brilliant.

Kirkstaller, when did you choose to be straight or when and how did you contract heterosexuality?

Good question, I look forward to the skirtlifter's response.

It certainly is to me.
Do I have a problem with Boris pulling an advert that is based on an unscientific notion that something can be cured?
No, I do not.
Would I have a problem in him banning ads for homeopathy or any other quack remedy?
No, I would not.
Any ad that is based in mere conjecture but claims otherwise deserves to be banned.


Are you seriously saying that lefties voted for Boris because of this ban?
Or that it was intended for lefties to do so because of the ban?
If so, you are deluded.

I think that there are people out there who voted for Boris who wouldn’t have if he hadn’t intervened in such a dramatic fashion. Not necessarily your typical socialists, mind, I'm referring to more well-heeled Londoners with a liberal agenda.

It’s important to look more closely at Boris’ voter base. For a Tory, he seems to enjoy an unusual level of support across all social classes. This is mostly to do with his character and personality, but also his persistent attempts to disassociate himself with the parliamentary Conservative Party, which is considered toxic by most people in more socially-deprived areas of London. What you must understand is that, for Boris, it’s all about him; win at all costs. He does this by appealing to as larger voter base as possible. Sadly, in my view, the gay bandwagon is very popular with the masses at the moment, and when Boris spotted the opportunity to champion their cause and prevent the desecration of iconic London buses, right before polling day, it was just too good to miss.

So yes, the decision to attack the Christian campaign was pretty much motivated by Boris’ desire to appease the liberal left.

You know, I could have understood it if you'd said that Boris had it pullled (fnaar, fnaar) to avoid losing the pink vote that might be otherwise lost by letting it go ahead.
But no, you love that feeling of persecution by the liberal left.

I love the way you label it as a "Christian" campaign even though the group concerned is a tiny minority of Christians.

The pink vote is miniscule and is not really worth curtailing any principles over. However Boris, being the clever clogs he is, recognised the fellowship which has been engendered between the progressive Guardianistas and the Soho cruisers, and decided that this was pretty much an open goal.



The Core Issues Trust is a small organisation but that doesn’t make their actions any less Christian, nor does it preclude wider support from the Christian community.