...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.

I find what they say, stupid, crass, offensive and just plain wrong. But don't feel they should be banned from the UK.

As others have said, they are not inciting violence, forcibly 'curing' gay people, picketing gay bars, going gay bashing or waving 'God hates fags' placards or anything like that. The mere fact you say something other people disagree with isn't itself stirring up hatred.

People should be able to peacefully articulate whatever views they like and others are free to object to them, the fact that you or I vehemently disagree with them shouldn't be a reason to ban them.

What's that old chestnut about 'I hate what you say, but I defend your right to say it.'

ComposHat

I agree with what you say.

I have had a bit of a backlash over my comments about freedom of speech. I am 100% behind freedom of speech, I can't make that clear enough. What we do need to do in this country though, is make it clear to groups like this one that their views are unacceptable, make it an unsuitable environment for them to sell (cos that's what they're doing) their woo. I said some of the stuff that was being said about freedom of speech was bollocks. I will repeat, as part of our right to freedom of speech we need to ensure we do not tolerate intolerance, freedom of speech does not come without responsibilities.

No one, except a very few BNP followers and other assorted racist wankers, uses the words nigger, wog or coon anymore. They're widely held as being discriminatory. No one, again except a very few extreme chauvinistic wankers, would deny women the right to vote anymore, or in fact the same rights as men to anything. Society made it very clear that the above was not going to be tolerated.

Why is the same not happening for homosexuals and lesbians? Because the churches still have too much say in policy. I fucking hate David Cameron, with a vengeance, but he's actually started the ball rolling on some real debate over same-sex marriage. We'll see how it goes. Hopefully one day gay men and lesbians will have the same rights as the rest of us enjoy and the mere thought of a group like this peddling their views will not be tolerated.

I don't agree that homophobia is tolerated in a way that other prejudices are not. I still hear people making racist remarks and using racist language all the time. I see people on public transport threatening people in a racist way. If anything, I hear more racism now than I did 20 years ago. Similarly with sexism, there is loads of it around. It is around in general society and it is definitely around in religious groups. Religious groups set up events at universities all over the country that are designed to constrain and change women's sexuality. The situation for disabled people isn't great either.

And people in general don't care a great deal, or certainly not enough to go out and do something about it. I am quite sure that this leper event will cause some of the young participants huge psychological problems and is an utterly vile event. But to make out that people not getting angrier about it is because people feel it is more acceptable for gay people to be treated poorly than other groups is a nonsense. There are still lots of horrible things said and done to lots of people from different groups; the existence of the Equality Act hasn't made it all just go away.

Er, I'm pretty sure that words like 'paki' are used far more than ones like 'fag'. Lots of people are bigoted. What's the news?

And while I'm sure that you can be racially attacked or homophobically (?) attacked, I don't think this has far more to do with chav scum than visting evangelicals....

Saying that someone is wrong, either in their actions or beliefs, is nit the same as inciting hatred or violence towards them. Otherwise all the posters on this thread saying they disagree with this organisations views are in the same position.

Broadly, they think you are wrong and you think they are wrong. Why does that give YOU the right to silence thme but not vice versa?

This is not directed at any one poster btw, just a general question.

When there are two oppposing views, how does society decide which one gets " freedom of speech" and which one doesnt?

"ClothesOfSand"

"I don't agree that homophobia is tolerated in a way that other prejudices are not"

This is frustrating, you're missing my point and misinterpreting my point. I never said racism isn't happening, I said it isn't tolerated, their are laws to protect people from racism. And the words I mentioned have stopped being used by all but the blatantly racist, they were at one time in common use. And I specifically said that women now have the right to vote, not that they don't suffer from sexism, I am quite aware they do, again there are laws to protect women from being treated unequally.

The only minority groups that cannot enjoy the same freedoms as everyone else in society are the gay and lesbian groups. They cannot marry because churches have influenced the law and said that marriage should be between a man and a woman. They cannot even have a civil marriage, they have to have a civil partnerships, although I hope that is about to change.

What message does this send? That same-sex couples are 'different' aren't entitled to the same as everyone else, that's homophobia, legally sanctioned at that.

People are getting two things confused...

1. Hate language/incitement to violence placards with 'Gays must die' or statements like 'Let's go paki-bashing' are illegal and rightly so.

2. Statements like 'I don't agree with homosexuality' or 'I think white people should get priority when it comes to immigration' are objectionable to many, but are not an incitement to violence. Most of use would class them as homophobic and racist, but they are not inciting violence to anyone and people should and are able to express these views freely in a public forum.

I don't think that I did misinterpret your point. Society has not made it clear that people that discrimination against various groups is unacceptable. There may be protection in law, but that doesn't mean those laws are really enforced in the majority of cases where they are broken. Examples like racial slurs are an entirely separate issue from gay marriage.

As for gay marriage, while I support it, I don't think that gay people are the only group who don't have the same rights as heterosexual married couples. Being married gives people special rights. Those rights are denied to anybody who doesn't have a way of forming relationships that are primarily about romantic relationships. Why should a person, be they gay or straight, have more rights to decisions about medical treatment, to care of children, to pensions and other benefits simply because they base their live on a monogamous sexual and romantic relationship with one other person? Why should I not be able to sign a civil partnership with a close friend, or two lovers, or a sister, or an adult son? What rights do people who are asexual in either sexual or romantic desire have? What rights do people who are sexual but have other forms of relationship that they feel more important have?

Of course if the situation is either better rights for heterosexual couples or equal rights for heterosexual and gay couples then we should go for the latter. But either is still an argument for demonising loads of people like single parents and making out that romantic couples in general are somehow more deserving of rights that give them economic and social security and everyone else doesn't deserve those rights because we have the temerity to feel that being in a couple doesn't define who we are or how we relate to the world.

I have no idea how you came to all those conclusions from what I said, you're getting a bit carried away tbh. I didn't say anything about special privelages for married people, I would have thought that I'd made it quite clear that I believe in equality for all.

All except evangelical christian groups who believe homsexuality is a sin and can be cured.

You don't believe in equality for them

I don't like what they say and I think they are bonkers, wrong and unpleasant. But they do have the right to hold that view, regardless of how offensive and wrong I find it.

I give up!

You said:

'The only minority groups that cannot enjoy the same freedoms as everyone else in society are the gay and lesbian groups.'

I'm simply pointing out that is not the case.

And I didn't agree that they should be banned from preaching. Not once.

I'm also not sure that you simply not mentioning special privileges for married people is equivalent to believing in equality for all.

Married people have special privileges. You want those privileges extended to married gay people in the future.

That is a very different sentiment to wanting the privileges of marriage extended to all people, which you have never mentioned. I cannot assume from your support for gay rights that you support all forms of human relationships being given the same legal status as marriage. Many gay rights activists do support such a change, but I can't assume that you are one of them.

If all animals, including us, have a purpose, is the Nematode worm that causes River Blindness' purpose to blind people by living in their drinking water?

Shit, ignore that, wring thread

I love it when people do that notfluffy - it often produces such utterly surreal results. I think it's particularly appropriate that you've inadvertantly compared fundamentalist christians who preach intolerance and hatred to a river nematode that causes blindness!

Yes, and I want to see the other thread! Where is it?

Lol, it was a happy accident!

Why-do-some-people-find-it-hard-to-believe-in-God, no idea if linky will work.

"Why should a person, be they gay or straight, have more rights to decisions about medical treatment, to care of children, to pensions and other benefits simply because they base their live on a monogamous sexual and romantic relationship with one other person?"

I absolutely agree with you here, my use of the word 'only' in saying that homosexuals were the only group affected was an wrong.

"Why should I not be able to sign a civil partnership with a close friend, or two lovers, or a sister, or an adult son? What rights do people who are asexual in either sexual or romantic desire have? What rights do people who are sexual but have other forms of relationship that they feel more important have?"

I'm not sure I'd want to marry my bessy mate or my sister but you're right, it's up to the individual.

My personal view is that marriage is in fact an outdated institution, I'm quite open about the fact that I only got married because my partner and I could get a married quarter from the MOD. You're absolutely right, I shouldn't have had to do that. I was just limiting the discussion to gay people though, I will accept that I was wrong.

*"....but it does sometimes involve having different opinions to popular culture on some things."

Even if that different opinion is discriminatory towards a minority group?*

Notfluffy - An opinion can't be discriminatory. It's a thought, an idea - it's only potentially discriminatory if it's actioned.

MrsDevere - I wasn't being obtuse, I was merely suggesting that if a person is a Christian, then I would imagine they wouldn't dismiss scripture so lightly as you seemed to in your statement. It's not just some add on that you pick the highlights from. The difficult bits are there whether you (or I) like them or not (and some of them, I don't either!). But they need to be engaged with (thought about, I mean) and not dismissed with a hand-wave. (If you're a Christian, I mean.) Just saying.

I'm actually talking about changing the culture, so changing people's 'prejudices'. I used the examples of racist language that was once mainstream in our culture which is now unacceptable, it was once accepted by the mainstream that women weren't capable of having the responsibility of voting, that's changed.

Fucking shoot me. Now I seriously do give up.

So what do you do about religion Not Fluffy? It's not fair that Muslim men aren't allowed to practise polygamy here - that's discriminatory to them. But wait - if they do, that's discriminatory to women. Oh dear...what a pickle we're going to get into .