大象传媒

I am not surprised to hear Poot's comments. Everytime the DUP are in trouble they raise moral objections to gay people in order to rally the DUP faithful.

It's pathetic and disgraceful using a minority to overshadow current troubles in relation to Ian Paisley Jnr, Dromore by-election and Maze Stadium.

Edwin Poot's was asked on Friday at the Assembly what his department was doing to tackle homophobia in sport.

His recent comments prove that he is ignorant of the problem and is actually making it worse!

A recent report found that 43% of gay people would conceal their sexual orientation if working in sport.

The Minister should be supporting Ulster Titans not condemning them.

People naturally form themselves into social groups around one key factor e.g. Women's Darts Team.

If he truly believes what he is saying he should be calling for abolition of the Orange Order!

And men-only teams? Apartheidt?

I am amazed. When I went out to get some groceries this afternoon, my pb asked me to post a letter for me on my way to the shops. I asked what it was. It was his application for the Belfast Titans!

Just think, after all the rabid homophobia pb has spewed on this blog in the past (he can be deeply troubled and in denial about himself), he is now joining the team. That is so sweet. Sport has a wonderful way of removing barriers between very different groups, doesn't it?

OK...I'm confused...

If it's a "gay rugby team" but heterosexuals are allowed to join, what makes it a "gay rugby team?" Presumably lots of sporting teams have a mix of gay and straight members without calling themselves "gay" or "straight". What makes this one "gay?"

S.

Stephen,

It's a fair question you ask. Think of Gay Pride Parades. Straight people are welcome to join and are encouraged to do so, but it's still a gay pride parade. In tis case, what makes this team a "gay" rugby team is the league the team plays in. The team competes in the gay rugby league. Straight people who are supportive of gay rights and wish to be identified with that cause are welcome to take part in the team. That is an inclusive team. Similarly, gay pubs have many straight people who are customers. Perhaps they like the music (it's better by far), the atmosphere, the type f entertainment on stages or the bar food. Perhaps they go along because they have gay friends and like to hang out with them. Gay pubs welcome their regular straight customers, but they don't stop being gay pubs for that reason. I appreciate your sensible question. I hope this answer helps.

Stephen G:

Good question. Think of gay bars. Straight people frequent gay bars, but they are still gay bars. What makes them gay bars? It's an identity thing.

Then think gay pride parades. Straight people walk too, in support of their gay friends.

As for gay rugby - the team is a gay rugby team because of the league it competes in (gay rugby league). The team is inclusive while maintaining its identity as a team in the gay league. Supportive straight friends can join.

What annoys me so much about Edwin Poots is that he cant seem to be bothered to think through what he says. Had he bothered to think about it for just a second he would have realised he was talking total garbage and that his comments are essentially hypocritical. Its in the same league as his comments about evolution. He obviously has never even bothered to find out what evolution actually is. That is incredibly worrying and incredibly annoying!

What do you expect from a politician in a party that opposed the decriminalisation of Homosexuality in Northern Ireland 25 years ago? And from a politician who voted (in Lisburn Council) against extending the use of buildings to gay civil partners? It's clear that Mr Poots regards gay people as sinners and less than human. His party seems to agree. what's really depressing here is that this kind of comment from a local minister is tolerated. If this was said by a national politician, he'd be out of a job.

Joe and Laura,

Spot on. Our so-called Minister for Culture, Arts and Leisure (!!!), and a member of an exclusively Protestant organisation called the Orange Order, is spouting stupid hypocritical garbage and his homophobic creationism would be beyond the pale y anywhere else in civilised Europe. But this is dear wee nornireland. Remember the pilot鈥檚 instructions to his passengers on arrival at Aldergrove: 鈥渇asten your seat belts and turn your watches back 400 years鈥�. Or perhaps, in Edwin Poots鈥檚 case, to 4004BC.

I think Edwin Poots is doing a useful job in highlighting the inconsistency in liberals' notions of tolerance.

I think any group should be able to come together as they see fit - the problem has been over the years that while women want to be able to form Women's Groups and have women only gyms etc they can't cope with men only golf clubs. Obama Hussein's Church declares itself to be a "black church" and no one questions it. You can bet it Huckabee went to a self declared "white church" the media would be all over him like a rash.

If Poots is inconsistent he is no more inconsistent than so called liberals.

And William - can you fix the site - double comments everywhere and I've a second version of one that didn't appear about the new bishop that now looks like over-egging the pudding.

Smasher -

Inconsistency? What inconsistency? The gay rugby team is open to straight members and was co-founded by a straight person! Some straight people are actually pro-gay, just as some white people are anti-racist.

I can't believe your ignorance of Black churches in the United States. There's a reason why black churches were started - because black people were banned from the pews of white churches! And now you have the audacity to criticize black churches for existing? You think they are racist? I can tell you, I am white, and when I lived in the US I attended a black church and even sang in the choir. I was very welcome.

In one post, Smasher, you have managed to come across as racist AND homophobic. Quite an achievement.

Yes, Minty, according to Smasher, it's ok to be bigoted, intolerant, homophobic and racist as long as you are exposing the 'inconsistency of liberals'. Or, to put it another way, a person's bigotry, intolerance, homophobia and racism are not his responsibility but the fault of those damned liberals who oppose him.

BTW, Smasher, don't knock liberalism: it's still the dominant ideology of the western world, thank goodness. It may not be entirely consistent but no political philosophy is because ideas and rights often conflict, and we have to make compromises.

But it has to be pointed out that individuals struggling for their rights can rarely hope to achieve them on their own, and it is natural and sensible for them to join with like-minded people to take collective action. Unity is strength. Women's groups from the Suffragettes on, Black groups, gay groups are examples of oppressed people who have united to achieve equality of treatment. Few of them have ever been as exclusive as the status quo they sought to change, in which, for example, only men had the vote, blacks were slaves and gays were executed or imprisoned.

And it is wrong to assume that all their rights have been won (e.g. no black or woman President in the US, yet). So, when gays are treated equally by their rugby-playing peers, there will be no need for a Gay rugby team which, in any event, welcomes heterosexuals, unlike the Orange Order which doesn't welcome Catholics. On this last basis, who is Poots to talk about exclusivity?

Smasher Lagru- terribly ignorant comments from you. Immediately you make the cardinal sin of accusing everyone against Poots' rubbish as 'liberal'. There is nothing ostensibly liberal about an obviously rational and logical position. Those who are naturally conservative should be able to see through Edwins incredibly thin logic. Minty is absolutely correct.

Take a look at the Kremlin nightclub in Belfast. It is supposedly a gay bar. However it has been reported by the owners, officially, that more straight people actually go there than gay people. This is a red herring from old Edwin. He is pushing his fundamentalist religious crap as usual.

And your argument about women golfers is pathetic. There are always extremist elements of social groups that have suffered persecution. You have the Black Panthers and you have arch feminists. Perhaps you could give us details of these women who want women only golf clubs??? I play golf myself and any of the courses I know have male and female members who accomadate each other. Women have their own captains and competitions and there are also mixed foursomes competitions every week. Some courses do have women only days (when women have right of play and men can still play on the course) because women tend to play much slower for various reasons and that has to be catered for. Everyone is in agreement. I think you once again are raising an issue that doesnt exist in reality. I want you to provide examples.

Lads, you're all very stressed out; take a chill pill and a deep breath and read what I wrote before resorting to the usual liberal name calling of "racist" and "homophobic".

My point was that it is inconsistent to have churches calling themselves "black", however welcoming they are to whites, when people would be horrified by a "white" church. and the same is true of a "gay" rugby club, even if open to heterosexuals. Quoting the motto of Haiti really doesn't strengthen your argument Brian.

And the Orange Order is a complete red herring - it's a protestant organisation, that's what it was set up for.

As for golf clubs, women in the Republic have gone to the Supremene Court, and lost, in their efforts to become members of Portmarnock Golf Club.

Personally I think sports and churches and most things should be open to everyone with no designations and restricted memberships should apply to things that are appropriate.

Smasher,
You鈥檙e digging a deeper hole. 5 paragraphs and everyone of them a load of tosh. Why should only a 鈥榣iberal鈥� use the term 鈥榟omophobic鈥� or 鈥榬acist鈥�? What on earth does this mean? Does it mean that no one is homophobic/racist? That such attitudes only exist in the liberals鈥� imagination? It鈥檚 silly and just another excuse to have a go at 鈥榣iberals鈥�.

Most 鈥榳hite鈥� churches or 鈥榟eterosexual鈥� sports clubs do not need to advertise themselves as such because they are everywhere and fully accepted anyway. Not so with black people or gay sportsmen. Read Graeme Le Saux鈥檚 autobiography. He says that because he had different interests and because he didn鈥檛 feel comfortable in the laddish drinking culture that was prevalent in English football, it was generally assumed by his teammates that there was something wrong with him. It followed, naturally, that he must be gay. For 14 years he had to listen to that suggestion repeated in vivid and forthright terms from thousands of voices in the stands.

It was all a lie. He was not gay and never had been, yet he became a victim of sport鈥檚 last taboo. The homophobic taunting and bullying left him close to walking away from football. It was even repeated as 鈥榬umour鈥� in the press. He went through times that were like depression. He did not know where he was going. He would get up in the morning and would not feel good and by the time he got into training he would be so nervous that he felt sick. He dreaded going in. He was like a bullied kid on his way to school to face his tormentors.

And he wasn鈥檛 gay, but only thought to be! Imagine this scenario, Smasher, repeated a hundredfold with people who really are gay in so-called laddish sports like football or rugby. Do you know of any Irish or English footballers who have come out as gay? There must be some, on the law of averages. if you ask these questions, then you will understand why the Titans were formed.

You also say: 鈥渢he Orange Order is a complete red herring - it's a protestant organisation, that's what it was set up for鈥�. Well, the same is true of the Ku Klux Klan. So, that鈥檚 all right, then?

It is almost impossible to discuss any aspect of race or sexual orientation without being labeled instantly as racist or homophobic.

I, being a believing Catholic, consider homosexuality a disorder and homosexual acts sinful. That doesn't make me homophobic, it makes me a Catholic, which I think you'll find is still allowed under various laws and consititutions. I don't think homosexual acts should be criminalised but nor do I think they should be encouraged. I believe that marriage is an institution involving a man and a woman and should not be extended to men and men or women and women. I believe rugby is a sport and not an opportunity for ideology.

Smasher- 'I believe Rugby is a sport not a opportunity for ideology'. Exactly, I agree with you! But its a pity that Edwin Poots thought that also!

Smasher,

Either you are hiding behind the Catholic Church or you fail to realise that it is homophobic. A question for you might be: is your personal homophobia enhanced by the church鈥檚 institutional homophobia, or are you just an obedient Catholic who is homophobic simply because the Church says homosexuality is evil, wrong etc?

The definition of homophobia was discussed on this blog a year or two ago. Sometimes it is defined as an irrational fear, dislike or hatred of homosexuals. But, as William indicated then, this is too narrow because not all anti-gay discrimination, for example, is based on fear or hatred, and people are not necessarily 'irrational' when they engage in homophobic behaviour.

We could say that homophobia has two elements. First, it is an attitude. It is moral disapproval of homosexuality and the belief in the inherent superiority of the heterosexual pattern of loving and thereby its right to dominance.

Second, it is behaviour aimed at restricting the human rights of persons who have a homosexual orientation and/or who engage in homosexual activities, based upon this fear, dislike, disapproval etc. In other words, in terms of actions, it is discrimination against gays.

You display these elements in your comment, Smasher. Therefore, in my view, you are homophobic, and it is you who needs to chill out and show more tolerance of diversity.

What I'd like to see is Unionist (of any shade) politicians stand up and be counted and Call Pootsy on his illogical bigotry,

DCAL funds many minority group projects, events, clubs and societies and yet the minister always seems to aim his attacks at gay activities.

Surely he is sailing very close to the wind in terms of breaching the ministerial code that he has signed up to as per the st Andrew's agreement?

Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Going after strange flesh; or "other flesh"; meaning not other women besides their own wives, but men; and designs that detestable and unnatural sin, which, from these people, is called sodomy to this day; and which is an exceeding great sin, contrary to the light of nature and law of God, dishonourable to human nature, and scandalous to a nation and people, and commonly prevails where idolatry and infidelity do, as among the Papists and Mahometans; and arose from idleness and fulness of bread in Sodom, and was committed in the sight of God, with great impudence: their punishment follows.
John Gill

The story of Sodom reminds me of the sexual abuse of Iraqi prisoners including youths by American soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad a few years ago. And here鈥檚 why.

Abraham鈥檚 nephew Lot went to live in Sodom. At the time it was a modern city, and Lot thought it would be a better place to raise his family than out on the plains with the nomadic Abraham. Unfortunately, the city was also full of wickedness, and God told Abraham that it would soon be destroyed. He then sent two angels disguised as men to assess the situation. When Lot saw them in the town square, he invited them to his house for dinner and lodging. He did not know that they were angels, but he seems to have felt a responsibility to be hospitable to strangers 鈥� perhaps because he had been a stranger himself.

That night, when the city dwellers learned that Lot had welcomed two strangers into his house and into their city, all the people gathered at his door. They demanded that Lot deliver the two men to them so they might 鈥榢now them鈥� (Genesis 19:5). Lot pleaded with his neighbours not to do such an evil thing. He even offered them his two virgin daughters instead, but the people persisted. Then the angels struck all those outside with blindness and warned Lot and his family that they should leave the city because God would soon destroy it for its wickedness. The very next day, after Lot had left, 鈥榖rimstone and fire鈥� came down from heaven and destroyed the city and all its inhabitants.

The text of the story tells us that 鈥榚ven the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the men from every quarter鈥� (verse 4) and demanded that his guests be brought out to them. This language is important because it makes clear that the group at Lot鈥檚 door comprised at least all the males of the city, both boys and men. If the text had told us that 鈥榗ertain men of Sodom鈥� or even 鈥榤any men of Sodom鈥� gathered at the door, we might then surmise that these men could have been motivated by homosexual desire. But the text says 鈥榖oth old and young鈥�, all the people from every quarter鈥� gathered at the door.

To suggest that every man and boy in Sodom was homosexual is hardly credible. If all the men were homosexual, then the city would have died out by itself! Any reasonable interpretation of the story must account for the fact that all the males of Sodom (both homosexual and heterosexual), and perhaps even the women, participated in this attack. Something other than homosexual desire seems to have been at work here.

This point is reinforced by another fact recounted in the story. We are told that Lot, in a last-ditch effort to save his guests, offered his virgin daughters to the men at the door. Lot鈥檚 offer yields another important interpretive clue. Suppose you were hosting a dinner party, when suddenly a group of men that you knew to be homosexual began angrily beating on the door, demanding that you send out a male guest from your house. Would it make any sense to offer them a beautiful woman instead? Of course not! If the men were motivated by homosexual desire, offering them heterosexual sex instead would be nonsensical. Lot obviously believed the crowd outside his door was predominantly heterosexual. Why else would he offer his daughters?

From archeological records, we know it was also a common practice in the Near East during ancient times for soldiers to use homosexual rape as a way of humiliating their enemies. When victorious soldiers wanted to break the spirit of their defeated enemies, they would 鈥渢reat them like women鈥� by raping them. The practice was not driven by sexual desire, but by brutality and hatred toward the enemy. And that is where Abu Ghraib and other incidents in Iraq come into the story. Rape or other forms of sexual abuse is not consensual sex but physical humiliation of the opposition and happens today just as it did in ancient times (think of what some terrorists in Northern Ireland did to the sexual organs of some of their victims).

It is this motivation, not homosexual desire, which stands behind the sin of Sodom. Perhaps the men of that city feared that the two angelic strangers were spies. Perhaps the fact that Lot, himself a recent immigrant, had taken them in served to heighten their suspicion. Whatever caused their panic, a mob mentality took over, and before long the people of Sodom were at Lot鈥檚 house clamouring to brutalise the strangers. This is a story about attempted mob violence, not homosexual desire.

In fact, this is exactly the way other authors of the Bible interpreted this story. There are about twenty references, and none of them says that homosexuality was the sin of Sodom. One of the most extensive references is found in Ezekiel, which says, Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy" (Ezekiel 16:49). It is clear from this passage that the abomination of Sodom, according to the Old Testament prophets, was that they behaved with callous indifference toward the weak and vulnerable 鈥� the poor, orphans, widows, and strangers in their midst.

Classical Jewish texts also refer to the economic cruelty of Sodomites and their lack of hospitality to the 鈥榮tranger鈥�. One of the worst was to give money or even gold ingots to beggars, but to inscribe their names on them, and then subsequently refuse to sell them food. The unfortunate stranger would end up starving and after his death, the people who gave him the money would reclaim it.

Why then, Billy, do some Christians interpret this story as condemning all homosexual behaviour? The answer is: homophobia. Many Christians only know the stereotypes they learned in childhood. They buy into the idea that all gay men are predators and that loving relationships between inherently homosexual people do not exist. So they read the story of Sodom and see a stereotype of what they think all gay people are like. They then assume the story must be a sweeping condemnation of homosexuality, because they assume all homosexuality takes the form shown in this story. In truth, it is at most a condemnation of homosexual rape. And, as other Scriptures affirm, it is more generally a condemnation of the mistreatment of those who are most vulnerable, including strangers.

Is it not ironic, Billy, that the story of Sodom is now used by some Christians to justify hatred toward another vulnerable group 鈥� gay people?

"I believe rugby is a sport and not an opportunity for ideology."

So you're just as opposed to the GAA then I take it?

And women's sports teams.

And the paralympics

Ad infinitum.

Billy,

The story of Sodom reminds me of the sexual abuse of Iraqi prisoners including youths by American soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad a few years ago. And here鈥檚 why.

According to the biblical narrative, Abraham鈥檚 nephew Lot went to live in Sodom. At the time it was a modern city and Lot thought it would be a better place to raise his family than out on the plains with the nomadic Abraham. Unfortunately, the city was also full of wickedness, and God told Abraham that it would soon be destroyed. He then sent two angels disguised as men to assess the situation. When Lot saw them in the town square, he invited them to his house for dinner and lodging. He did not know that they were angels and seems to have felt a responsibility to be hospitable to strangers 鈥� perhaps because he had been a stranger himself.

That night, when the city dwellers learned that Lot had welcomed two strangers into his house and into their city, all the people gathered at his door. They demanded that Lot deliver the two men to them so they might 鈥榢now them鈥� (Genesis 19:5). Lot pleaded with his neighbours not to do such an evil thing. He even offered them his two virgin daughters instead, but the people persisted. Then the angels struck all those outside with blindness and warned Lot and his family that they should leave the city because God would soon destroy it for its wickedness. The very next day, after Lot had left, 鈥榖rimstone and fire鈥� came down from heaven and destroyed the city and all its inhabitants.

The text of the story tells us that 鈥榚ven the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the men from every quarter鈥� (verse 4) and demanded that his guests be brought out to them. This language is important because it makes clear that the group at Lot鈥檚 door comprised at least all the males of the city, both boys and men. If the text had told us that 鈥榗ertain men of Sodom鈥� or even 鈥榤any men of Sodom鈥� gathered at the door, we might then surmise that these men could have been motivated by homosexual desire. But the text says 鈥榖oth old and young鈥�, all the people from every quarter鈥� gathered at the door.

To suggest that every man and boy in Sodom was homosexual is hardly credible. If all the men were homosexual, then the city would have died out by itself! Any reasonable interpretation of the story must account for the fact that all the males of Sodom (both homosexual and heterosexual), and perhaps even the women, participated in this attack. So something other than homosexual desire was clearly at work here.

This point is reinforced by another detail in the story. Lot, in a last-ditch effort to save his guests, offered his virgin daughters to the men at the door. This offer surely yields another important interpretative clue. Suppose you are hosting a dinner party, and suddenly a group of men that you know to be homosexual begin angrily beating on your door, demanding that you send out a male guest from your house. Would it make any sense to offer them a beautiful woman instead? Of course not. If the men are motivated by homosexual desire, offering them heterosexual sex instead would be nonsensical. Lot obviously believed the crowd outside his door was predominantly heterosexual. Why else would he offer his daughters?

From archaeological records, we know it was also a common practice in the Near East during ancient times for soldiers to use homosexual rape as a way of humiliating their enemies. When victorious soldiers wanted to break the spirit of their defeated enemies, they would 鈥渢reat them like women鈥� by raping them. The practice was not driven by sexual desire, but by brutality and hatred toward the enemy. And that is where Abu Ghraib and other incidents in Iraq come into the story. Rape or other forms of sexual abuse is not consensual sex but physical humiliation of the opposition and happens today just as it did in ancient times. Think, for example, of what some terrorists in Northern Ireland did to the sexual organs of some of their victims.

It is this motivation, not homosexual desire, which stands behind the sin of Sodom. Perhaps the men of that city feared that the two angelic strangers were spies. Perhaps the fact that Lot, himself a recent immigrant, had taken them in served to heighten their suspicion. Whatever caused their panic, a mob mentality took over, and before long the people of Sodom were at Lot鈥檚 house clamouring to brutalise the strangers. So this is a story about attempted mob violence, not homosexual desire.

In fact, this is exactly the way other authors of the Bible interpreted the story. There are about twenty references, and none of them says that homosexuality was the sin of Sodom. One of the most extensive references is found in Ezekiel, which says: "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy" (Ezekiel 16:49). It is clear from this passage that the abomination of Sodom, according to the Old Testament prophets, was that they behaved with callous indifference toward the weak and vulnerable 鈥� the poor, orphans, widows, and strangers in their midst.

Classical Jewish texts also refer to the economic cruelty of Sodomites and their lack of hospitality to the 鈥榮tranger鈥�. One of the worst practices was to give money or even gold ingots to beggars, but to inscribe their names on them, and then subsequently refuse to sell them food. The unfortunate stranger would end up starving and after his death, the people who gave him the money would reclaim it.

Why then, Billy, do some Christians interpret this story as condemning all homosexual behaviour? The answer is: homophobia. Many Christians only know the stereotypes they learned in childhood. They buy into the idea that all gay men are predators and that loving and consensual relationships between inherently homosexual people do not exist. So they read the story of Sodom and see a stereotype of what they think all gay people are like. They then assume the story must be a sweeping condemnation of homosexuality, because they assume all homosexuality takes the form shown in this story. In truth, it is at most a condemnation of homosexual rape. And, as other Scriptures affirm, it is more generally a condemnation of the mistreatment of those who are most vulnerable, including strangers.

Is it not ironic, Billy, that the misinterpreted story of Sodom is now used by some Christians to justify hatred toward another vulnerable group 鈥� gay people?

D Smyth,

It is a problem for the GAA that they combine sport and nationalism, understandable given its history but still a problem and not good when it keeps out protestants, even if only by self selection.

Women's sport is appropriate given their different physical make up. It would be foolish to force them to compete against men in areas where men have a natural advantage but in some sports they can compete together - darts and snooker.

Same goes for paralympics.

Are homosexuals sufficiently different from other men that they need their own rugby team? Maybe they do. Presumably we'll next see rugby teams for kleptomaniacs, alcoholics and reactionary conservative Catholics. Where will normal people like me play?

For most people, the idea of a'gay' rugby team is - how did William put it? - 'odd, to say the least'! Seems to me that Edwin Poots has a very valid point.

Laura (#11)accuses him (and presumably Christians like him) of treating homosexcuals as 'sinners and less than human'...well, yes and no. Homosexuals are sinners - as are we all. The problem is their massive PR campaign to convince people that homosexuality is normal and acceptable, when common sense - quite apart from the teaching of the Bible - tells us the contrary.

They also stand in need of forgiveness and a changed lifestyle.... like every other fallen human being. Thankfully, the Bible shows the way to that too.
(2 Corinthians 5:17)

Philip Campbell repeats a depressing and offensive line of argument. Let me respond to you directly Philip. I certainly do not accuse all Christians of mistreating gay people. In fact, I am a Christian myself. I object to Christian politicians using their public platform to target gay people and make them a political football.

As for your other point: that homosexuality is not normal. This may seem like common sense to you, Philip, but it is not common sense to most people these days. What do you mean by normal? Do you mean unnatural? Well, same-sex behaviour is found across the animal kingdom. It is perfectly natural in the sense that it occurs in nature. Do you mean that is it not normal because the majority of people are heterosexual? Well, if that was the case, then being Christian would be abnormal since we are a minority in the world.

Can you please stop throwing insults like "abnormal" around? Your comments bring Christianity into disrepute.

Laura,

Smasher (the Catholic) and Philip (the Protestant) are united in their homophobia. There is Irish unity for you 聽鈥� on something negative and destructive. Both regard homosexuality as 鈥榓bnormal鈥�, a disease like alcoholism, when in fact it is normal for 5-10% of the human race.

Smasher (#25) asks: 鈥渨here will normal people like me play?鈥� The question may well be: who would have him on their team? Sport is an activity in which the rules for acceptable and unacceptable behaviour are known to everyone involved. I would certainly consider 鈥榰nacceptable behaviour鈥� to include taunting and bullying other players for whatever reason. But I would go further. For 鈥榩laying the game鈥�, I suggest, also implies playing by rules beyond the game 聽鈥� rules of integrity, tolerance, generosity and good 鈥榮portsmanship鈥�. Does Smasher qualify, I ask myself?

Philip (#26) thinks that Edwin Poots has a good point in complaining about a gay rugby team because it represents sporting apartheid. Why, Philip, do you not complain that Poots and the DUP have been supporting religious and political apartheid for years? Why, oh why, is it worse to have a gay sports team than to have Christians worshipping in different churches or being educated in different schools? I'm not a believing Christian, but it seems to me that you need to sort your Christian priorities out.

Philip appeals to common sense, as well as the Bible. But, as Einstein said, 鈥淐ommon sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by the age of 18鈥�. Alas, some people don鈥檛 grow out of them.

Laura, to put it briefly, Smasher and Philip offer clear proof that words like 鈥榥ormal鈥� and 鈥榗ommon sense鈥� are often poor substitutes for intelligent thought.

Homosexuality is normal or natural behaviour for some in the same way that murder, theft and adultery are normal or natural because it is embedded in our fallen humanness, yes homosexuality is 鈥淣ATURAL,鈥� in the sense that it is an expression of the sinful nature. But the Bible tells us otherwise, 鈥淒o not be deceived.鈥� 1Co 6:9

Billy,

What I find unnatural is your unseemly obsession with homosexuals.

Ps. Do you like movies with...gladiators?

Billy,

Is sex itself, in your view, 'part of our fallen humanness'? Or just homosexual sex? I put it to you that there is nothing 鈥榮inful鈥� about sex in itself, any more than riding a bicycle (鈥渦nto the pure, all things are pure鈥� - Titus 1:15). Both are fun (often? sometimes? occasionally?) and both are good for you. One recent study suggested that men who have sex at least three times a week cut their risk of a heart attack in half.

Moreover, whether it with the opposite sex or the same sex, or whether it is inside or outside a formalised relationship, is not the point. The key questions are whether there is adult consent (鈥榓dult鈥� being defined in terms of from mid-late teens on), and whether anyone else is likely to be affected by it. If this consent exists, and no one else is affected, then we should mind our own busines and find something more important to be concerned about.

Thanks Brian for that classic portrayal of morality as "so long as no one gets hurt".

What you're describing might be acceptible as a description of criminal law - and only might, cos I don't support your age of consent as "mid-late teens" - i.e. people who are in law children (under 18).

And I think it was clear that Billy was talking about homosexuality, not sex. If sex is like riding a bike then homosexuality is like turning the bike upside down and wondering why it doesn't go anywhere.

Thanks Brian for that classic portrayal of morality as "so long as no one gets hurt".

What you're describing might be acceptible as a description of criminal law - and only might, cos I don't support your age of consent as "mid-late teens" - i.e. people who are in law children (under 18).

And I think it was clear that Billy was talking about homosexuality, not sex. If sex is like riding a bike then homosexuality is like turning the bike upside down and wondering why it doesn't go anywhere.

Goodness both Smasher and Billy need to calm down a bit and get over their respective obsessions with gay sex! Perhaps a cold shower(not together I might add!) might help?

One good thing about all this is to see fundamentalist Protestantism and Catholicism coming together...ahhhh!

DD xx

Uhmmm, DD

"fundamentalist Protestantism and Catholicism....... coming together"

There is no need to get so explicit, now is there? The specifics of how Billy and Smasher go about it, is no business of the readers on this blog I feel.

Although if Billy and Smasher need any help then I'm sure pb can sort them out. He's the expert (as you and some of Ulsters gay rugby team know all too well).

Ref: POSTS # 29, 30,

Mad folk are not to be argued with.
Any more than mad bulls. They are not in a condition of mind to
appreciate argument, and should be let alone. To stand reasoning
with a wild bull would be very absurd, and it is equally so to debate with Pinky and Perky.

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Billy,

I think you should adapt the words of a 'John Bull' or, if you prefer an 鈥楨nglish swine', Noel Coward, to address all those annoying megaphone preachers that infest our local towns at weekends:

Mad Dogs and Ulstermen bark their bibles in the midday sun
The Japanese don鈥檛 dare to, the Chinese wouldn鈥檛 care to,
Hindus and Argentines sleep firmly from twelve to one
But Ulstermen detest-a-siesta,
In the Philippines they have lovely screens to protect you from the glare.
In the Malay states, there are hats like plates which the Ulstermen won鈥檛 wear.
At twelve noon the natives swoon and no further work is done,
But mad dogs and Ulstermen bark their bibles in the midday sun.

Hello Peter,

Good to hear from you and glad that you picked up on that point!

Billy,

Well thats nice! obviously I struck a very raw nerve!

DDxx