in thinking jesus can NOT cure homosexuality as it is NOT an illness

[thefinerthingsinlife]

christian lady has written a book claiming jesus can cure homosexuality

I'm not getting into the debate of wether there is a God/Jesus etc. It just this has really mad me angry, how can you cure something that is NOT an illness. I find this extremely insulting and judgemental.

Something perhaps pertinent to this occurred to me this morning while watching that would-be foster couple and the 'concerned christian' (or whatever they call themselves) woman being interviewed on TV this morning (I was at the gym, dont usually watch sofa stuff!)

She was complaining about the rights of homosexuals 'trumping' the rights of the religious.

I realised that the reason this has to be the case, where the two are incompatible, is simply that what someone is has to take precedence over what someone believes.

(sorry, bolding went weird. Meant to bold 'is' and 'believes')

I absolutely agree that someone shouldn't say that you - as a gay person - should not exist. It is sinister and threatening and reminiscent of what the Nazis said about Jews and what the Hutus said about Tutsis. That is not what I mean by respectful.

By not compatible, I mean that certain religions are quite clear that homosexuality is a sin. (Not my view, I'm just relaying their view.)

But consider this - a Muslim parent genuinely believes that homosexuality is a sin and they genuinely do not believe that one is born gay. They are concerned that their son might be gay and whilst they love him, they do not love what they consider a sin. They post for advice from other religious parents on how to promote the teachings of their religion with regard to homosexuality.

That's what I meant.

You might not agree, I might not agree but so long as they're not descending into hate speech or advocating any crime then I believe that they have a right to their opinion and a right to express it.

"I know what you are saying but what you are saying is there should be a safe space where that approach should or could be validated and I just cannot agree with that."

NO! I'm saying that EVERYWHERE should always be safe for free speech regardless of the topic and regardless of whether the majority are in agreement with the views being expressed. I do not have to agree with the opinion, or indeed even care about it, to think that.

"We cannot facilitate allowing people to think that with the right teaching or instruction a gay person can be made not to be gay and then provide them with the space to discuss how to do that."

It's got nothing to do with facilitating that particular discussion - it's about respecting everyone's right to free speech. My view is the same as that quotation from Voltaire, "I may not like what you have to say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Rhinestone, I see what you mean, but would you think it OK if someone had a religious issue with inter-racial marriage and wanted to ask other parents for support with that?

Also - any belief which is demonstrably wrong should always be challenged. People 'genuinely believing' that people are not born gay need educating not to be supported in a false belief.

Re inter-racial marriage - No, I would find that fucking offensive and I would exercise my right to free speech to tell them so. And I'd probably go so far as to call them cucking funts! But that's my point - free speech gives us that right! (Ok, that's probably getting beyond free speech into rudeness but they'd deserve it don't you think! )

And OF COURSE we have the right to challenge other people's opinions. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT! But I just don't think we have the right to tell people they can't express that opinion.

Rhinestone - This fundamentalist approach to Free Speech is out of step with pretty much all standard and legal precedents.

If I create a forum about Bananas for people to talk about Bananas then someone comes along saying "Bananas are SHIT! Apples are where it's at!" then I have every legal and moral right to ban them.

If they some along and say "The Labour party are rubbish", I have every legal and moral right to ban them.

If they come along and say "Yes Bananas are ACE, lets talk about them!", but I just don't like them, I have every legal and moral right to ban them.

Because it's my forum.

What I DON'T have a legal or moral right to do is to stop them setting up their OWN forums.

This is Mumsnat forum - they can set whatever rules they like. It is not a free speech issue.

Coalition - Really rather astonished that you consider support of free speech a 'fundamentalist' approach. I bloody hope that you're not really a politician or anyone with any access to the wheels of power in this country as you seem rather totalitarian to be honest.

I note that Mumsnet has not deleted any posts on this thread.

"..out of step with pretty much all standard and legal precedents."

Really? Have a look at the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 18 and 19, here . With the greatest of respect, you don't appear to know what you're talking about.

On the schools question - we have compulsory education in this country - to count as a school even private schools have to meet minimum standards determined by the state, so they are not fully private in the same sense.

Rhinestone - What you are advocating is NOT Free Speech - it's forced listening.

You don't seem to like my forum examples. Let me try a different one.

If I have a party, in my house, and one of the guests starts calling me a cunt, am I infringing their right to free speech by asking then to leave?

If I have a party, in my house, and one of the guests starts chatting up someone my mate fancies am I infringing their right to free speech by asking then to leave?

Show me where I've advocated forced listening! Quote my exact words! You can't because I haven't.

OF COURSE one doesn't have to listen to, or read, anything one doesn't want to.

Your point about Section 28 was that you couldn't enforce it in state schools and now you're backtracking to include all schools. And just so you know, attendance at school is NOT compulsory.

I note you haven't responded to my point about the Universal Declaration of Human RIghts.

Your argument is ridiculous.

Neither article 18 or 19 say that anyone who disagrees with someones opinions is obliged to publish them or listen to them.

I think you might actually be Gordon Brown due to your random outburst about banning someone who criticizes the Labour Party in your banana forum example.

"I'm saying that EVERYWHERE should always be safe for free speech regardless of the topic and regardless of whether the majority are in agreement with the views being expressed."

So correct me if I'm wrong, but are you not saying here that anyone should be able to say anything anywhere? So if the BNP come to my house I HAVE to listen to them?

I was struggling a bit for a "sensible but off topic comment in a forum" example there.

I don't think Rhinestone is advocating forcing people to listen, but I think means that people should be able to say what they think (I assume excluding inciting racial hatred, etc)but others have a right to respond.

Eg.

Person 1: I dislike [insert marginalised group here] because [insert irrational reason here].
Person 2: I disagree with you because [insert rational response]

Yes, but there is no legal or moral obligation for mumsnet to allow that HERE.

Rhinestone is saying any legal comment HAS to be allowed to stand regardless of how accurate, offensive, disruptive, off topic or damaging to their commercial interest it is otherwise freedom of speech is being infringed. This just isn't true.

I agree that posters should follow MN guidelines. MN have the right to decide what is/is not an appropriate post.