...to froth at this homophobic "Conference" being allowed to tour the UK?

[Bossybritches22]

OK re-posted from a less busy section but advised to post here as it'll get more reaction/support, my first AIBU so be gentle with me!

I'm so <img loading="lazy" class="inline-flex mumsnet-emoji" alt="Sad" src="https://www.mumsnet.com/build/assets/sad-q5SIe0Cq.png"> and cross I can hardly type, but here's the gist. 

<a class="break-all" href="http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/973" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">How can this happen in London 2012??</a>

It slipped under the radar as the press didn't get hold of it until after 9am yesterday and the "conference" was scheduled for yesterday afternoon and evening. It has been touring the UK I'm trying to find out where it is going next.

 They believe being gay is a malignancy and can be "cured"

I believe in the past US churches have been banned from coming here and spreading their bigotry  so should this one have been?

It has been pointed out to me that some of the exisiting churches in the UK are just as homophobic, in their own way.However I do think, gradually, there are more that are accepting of gay church members, I know we have a long way to go yet but tolerating this particular brand is particularly abhorrent to me. 
Thanks for reading this.

So I'm now meant to turn up and complain about somebody else's freedom to cast aspersions on gay people, but dressing up as a drag queen (essentially the modern equivalent of the black and white minstrel show) and mocking women is absolutely fine?

Great.

I'm with Peter Tatchell on this one. You have the freedom to behave and say what you want, and I'll have the freedom to call you a misogynist.

I don't agree with them obviously, but I would defend their right to say what they want.

It can't be compared to being black or Muslim or wheelchair bound because there are no holy books that have worldwide followers that condem those things.

I think I'd like to go and use my right to free speech and protest against this. I think I'll turn up in nice-respectable-bourgoise-mother drag. Which is my usual get-up, so I hope I'll get 10/10 for "realness" there. Seriously, though, this conversion course thing really gets my goat. I'm afraid I do see it as a kind of violence. I want a world of acceptance, so it's worth going out and asking for that.

MMMarmite has posted about what worries me most.

The sort of pyschological damage this sort of thing could do to young LBGT people struggling with their feelings.
People from religious backgrounds who are gay but are coerced into going to these conferences or their families going and coming back feeling justified and ready to 'cure' their relatives.

There has been an upsurge in christian fundamentalism IMO. Churches like the UKCG (?) who take over huge buildings and send out newspapers telling women how to behave, instructing people to pray for financial success and telling people they can cure aids. At the same time allowing children to be abuse and killed - Victoria Climbe.

Its bloody awful. I am a Christian. I dont recognise any of this crap as part of my religion. Yep I am a wishy washy Anglican but rather that than be part of some sect that says they can cure gayness.

OP YANBU. People should froth about it. Its wrong.

I guess it's just bad luck that there's a holy book condemning me then

And there are no holy books with worldwide followers that condemn being Muslim? The bible condemns those who aren't christians, the koran condemns those who aren't muslims.

(that was to kitchenroll)

Looking at the above I think I've been a bit too scathing of religion - I think many religious people do great things, but there is also material in most religious texts that can be used / twisted to claim some very harmful viewpoints. I don't think hate speech or dangerous advice should get a special pass just because people back it up by a holy book.

Thanks MrsDeVere, I'm glad you care about this :)

I'm not saying I'm right, I guess Im saying that if a big enough group of people genuinely believe in something then it would be wrong to silence them.

Clearly, their opinions are bollocks. Plenty of religious people would think that too. But think back to when homosexuality was a much bigger taboo and much less accepted than it is now. Would it have been ok to silence the voice of the gay people that wanted to make their thoughts known? Of course not. Even though at the time, popular opinion might have been that homosexuality was wrong.

Nowadays, the popular opinion is that homophobia is wrong. But it would also bearing to silence the voice of those who hold the minority opinion.

We cant have things nth ways unfortunately. If it weren't for free speech, women would still be in the position they were in in the thirties, black people would still be in the position they were in as slaves.

It was because people had a voice that things changed for the better, so it is essential that we never lose that. Even if it means taking the bad with the good.

I don't think it would be right to say that free speech is only allowed if it agrees with popular opinion and it is 'nice'. That would defeat the point.

I think protesting it is a great idea. These people should know that a lot of people disagree.

At the same time, if you ban groups like this, sometimes it just gives them more power, cos they see themselves as some sort of vigilante loan wolves who are being kept down by the system.

Bearing = be wrong!

"I don't think it would be right to say that free speech is only allowed if it agrees with popular opinion and it is 'nice'. That would defeat the point."

Yeah, I do take your point about that kitchenroll. Judging that only some free speech is allowed could have very bad consequences. It's just hard for me to stomach when these homophobic views have such bad consequences for LGBT youth. It doesn't feel like some academic argument to me - there are still people being beaten up, murdered, or lost to suicide due to homophobia in Britain.

I guess it would help if more people, including straight people, actively condemned these activities, and actively helped ensure all kids are given positive messages about being gay. I'm surprised at the number of people in this thread who said we should just ignore this rather than give it publicity. I feel homophobia is too dangerous to ignore, it needs to be fought and condemned.

On a side note, I do wander how these 'reparative therapies' can be legal: you wouldn't be allowed to market a therapeutic drug that has no positive effects and some very dangerous side effects, so are people really allowed to offer 'reparative therapies' that are useless and can be dangerous to the recipient?

I don't think anyone is making an academic argument. All the arguments are about real life, everyday examples.

You're right, MMMarmite - more straight people should stick up for gay/bi people. I've had loads of shit for being bi - a "friend" said recently "you're not ACTUALLY bi though, you just do it for attention".

A straight friend gave it to him with both barrels cos I was too shocked to speak - I'm so grateful to her and hopefully it made him think a little bit.

Homophobia is such a massive problem today and I really don't think enough is being done about it.

You are right, the message these people are sending out does need to be actively condemned and the louder voice of free speech needs to be one that is actually beneficial to people.

I wonder if the 'reparative therapies' are just regarded as the same as other alternative therapies? I think offering a therapy is somehow different and more offensive than just plainly disagreeing with homosexuality. There is a difference between saying that you don't agree with a lifestyle choice and saying you think someone is ill or cursed in some way.

I wonder if they would actually be allowed to advertise the therapy because of advertising laws or trading standards? Hopefully some line of defence would automatically kick in there.

This article says they found there to be a marked difference between ?the perception and reality? of the event.

www.irishcentral.com/news/Gay-Activist-encouraged-by-conference-on-gays-called-The-Lepers-Among-Us-138033048.html

I'm pretty sure that in a Christian context 'leper' is not an insult. Jesus is recounted as having stayed with Simon the Leper in the Bible, which would have been taboo at the time, and also as having healed lepers. So they are saying that homosexuality is an illness that can be cured, and that homosexuals are still loved by God.

This might be an incorrect perspective, psychologically, but it doesn't qualify as anti-gay 'hatred', which is illegal, you would not seek to heal people that you hate.

And according to TotemPole's link above, '?It was an unfortunate choice of words,? said MagLochlainn about the title. ?Jim is a very affable person. I agree with him that the church has treated the gay community like lepers.'

Anyway, people have a right to protest, and they have a right to be wrong, but there's no evidence of 'hatred' in the programme schedule: [http://www.core-issues.org/uploads/TLAUmike_webpdf%2811%29%20Adapted%20Dec%2019.pdf] The people attending this course are plainly not going to come out of it and go out 'queer bashing' as a result.

This is a summary of his book:

www.xulonpress.com/bookstore/bookdetail.php?PB_ISBN=9781602669338

The Lepers Among Us sends a call to the Evangelical Church to stop treating believers who struggle with homosexual sin as lepers.

Book is on 'Google Books'

books.google.co.uk/books?id=dj06umh1SKYC&pg=RA1-PR2&lpg=RA1-PR2&dq=The+Lepers+Among+Us+Homosexuality+and+the+Life+of+the+Church&source=bl&ots=lVPCnvdkWc&sig=GLepHSuyYLm7ch9IXoSmxEjz6UU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=u7UkT5-hOtTf8QPEg7xb&ved=0CB8Q6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=The%20Lepers%20Among%20Us%20Homosexuality%20and%20the%20Life%20of%20the%20Church&f=false

quote: 'Those who come to me confessing their struggle with homosexual sin do not embarrass me. I am embarrassed, however, by the church's refusal to openly practice Christian hospitality toward the precious people who struggle with same-sex sin'.

It says that homophobia is 'irrational', and says that homosexuals can be 'redeemed' (i.e. become straight). It says that intolerance of homosexuality is hypocritical given the relative tolerance of heterosexual adultery.

These people are dangerous. I had a friend who got caught up in this. They drove him to a nervous breakdown and he ended up in hospital. This stuff is spiritual abuse and it should be stopped.

If they are not breaking any laws then there isn't a whole lot that can be 'done'.

They sound like a bunch of pricks.

The joy of free speech is that you also have the freedom to call them a bunch of pricks, go and protest out front.

They can call gay people lepers and I can call them fucking morons. See how that works?

The issue is that whilst they are saying something that is almost certainly factually incorrect, there are loads of other people doing the same.

eg you could say that promoting homeopathy should be banned because it could endanger people who think it really works and go and get it instead of proper, evidence based medicine and then die.

There's no law against talking bollocks, so the best approach is just to ignore them, they same way you would with the "End is nigh" people or the lucky heather sellers

Free speech. However sick they are, we all have it no matter how heinous the view.

Oh, I see, that's ok then. What it's actually saying is "Come along to our church and we can cure you, like jesus cured the lepers, you poor sinner" to people who themselves feel they are sinning because of the drip feeding of homophobia in mainstream religion which is sanctioned by law.

I rest my case. Even some gay people in our country have been so brainwashed by the drip feed that they allow it to continue.

And can all this bollocks about free speech please stop, people seem to feel that while abhorrent people's right to say how sinful homosexuality is their right. Would you go back to the days when it was ok to call black people 'niggers' and generally take the piss about 'wogs' and coons'? Don't tolerate intolerance. Free speech can be absolutely allowed but it needs to be made absolutely clear that the language used about gay people is not going to be tolerated.

I keep waiting on the real 'gay movement', like the black rights activists and the women's rights activists, but it never happens. Is that really because they respect the right of some religious people to hate them?

YANBU.

This is one reason why I go along to support the quiet, middle-of-the-road local church. If there's no ordinary mainstream church, these bigoted fundamentalists could become the only representatives of Christianity in this country.

And can all this bollocks about free speech please stop

It's the most important right we have.