Gay men pub snogging row rumbles on

Iain Dale had Lynette Burrows on his LBC show. If you haven't heard of her before, she pops up occasionally on TV and radio as a family concern expert. In this dialogue of the hard-of-hearing, she and Iain discuss gay men snogging in pubs. I've heard it and think he beat her on a 70/30 basis. In fact, he sounds quite controlled. Lesser men might have thumped her!

LynetteBurrows by IainDale

The trouble with so called gay rights is that it isn't so much about rights but more about wrongs. Both sides seem wronged by the other. I was very much in favour of decriminalising homosexuality in England (male homosexuality that is, as Mr.Gladstone couldn't bring himself to discuss lesbianism with Queen Victoria!) because the vile crime of blackmail was dehumanising and degrading. Many homosexuals were prone to greedy and despicable  types who saw an opportunity to make financial gain or some advantage. The Sexual Offences Act of 1967 basically allowed "consenting adults in private" to be free from the criminal code. However, now, with a new act and various other laws, New Labour succeeded in giving unfair provocation a legal leg-up.

It is one thing to be persecuted, it is quite another to provoke in order to pursue an agenda. The vast majority of people in Britain are not homosexual. It is estimated that between 5 and 10% are depending on who you ask. I think most who are not gay are happy with private sexual activity, but are not so sure about public displays. This is not homophobic, to use the jargon (although I've thought homosexophobic a far more accurate and literal meaning), just uncomfortable. It goes against a grain.

The publican where the two gay men were ejected apparently objected to them "snogging" at the bar. They claimed it was a first date. Some might think this a bit forward even for a non-gay couple. The point here is that tolerance is not something that should be swept aside by coercion. I got the distinct idea that these two men were trying it on, pushing the boundaries. This is a dangerous road to travel. It may cause a backlash that is ugly and unmanageable.

Lynette Burrows did herself no favours by adroitly linking homosexuality with paedophilia. The kaleidoscopic nature of human sexuality, proclivities and urges is not a basis for this topic. She also sounds so shrill that I get a distinct feeling I wouldn't like her family concern in my family. We all have a sex map, my wife tells me. Having been told that I pondered whether mine was more sat nav than gazetteer or the other way round. None of us is wired conclusively as far as sexual identity is concerned.

However, I think these two young men are better off with discretion being the better part of valour than trying to use a broad brush stroke in their attempts to change attitudes. I once was having a drink in a pub when a young woman got carried away with her boyfriend. I wasn't about to complain, but neither was I that comfortable with it. Details can be witheld but this was far more than snogging!

There's a time and place for everything.

Gay couple end hotel payout claim

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is supposed to be about equal rights but, as in George Orwell's Animal Farm, some are more equal than others in this Brave New World. In the second decade of the 21st century, gay rights completely trump Christian belief in their eyes. However, even they can see that grinding a Christian's nose in the mud is taking it a bit far. The homosexual couple who successfully sued the Christian owners of a hotel who refused them a bed are withdrawing a claim for more compensation, the Equality and Human Rights Commission said today. Legal director John Wadham said, "This morning we withdrew our cross appeal in this case. It was filed initially because of an error of judgment on the part of our legal team." Error, eh?

Mrs Bull, one of the hotel owners, said, "It is obviously a relief that we are not being pursued in the courts for more money. But I can't imagine this taxpayer-funded 'error of judgment' happening to anyone other than Christians." Exactly. John Wadham wouldn't dare try it on with Muslims. Or any other group. Christians are fair game for giving the other cheek a proper smacking!

First gay Episcopal bishop to retire in 2013

Gene Robinson is to retire in 2013. He is currently the Bishop of New Hampshire and has been the centre point of the controversy over homosexuality in the church. Actually, I think Gene Robinson's position is not so much about "gay bishops" rather it is all about authority and the novelty doctrines that are so cherished by the liberal elite in the Episcopal Church. He tells the people of New Hampshire, "I believe that you elected me because you believed me to be the right person to lead you at this time. The world has sometimes questioned that, but I hope you never did." That seems to me the crux of all this. The "world" is the representation of "them out there". I wonder what the "whole company of Heaven", as the Prayer Book puts it, thinks. Surely there must have been a few questions there?

The vast majority of sacramental Christians do not find Bishop Robinson's situation compatible with the gospel. Those of his mind are few in number compared with that majority. Yet, because many in the secular world warm to his opinions, he is seen as representing a far greater constituency.

I do not wish him ill in any way. It is utterly reprehensible that he has received death threats. It is also unpleasant that he has been abused by critics. It is quite fair to suggest that he is not openly following the gospel. It is quite wrong to judge his soul and the souls of those close to him. I hope he has a happy retirement when it comes.

Manic Street Preachers

Cumbrian Police know a thing or two about democracy, free speech and liberty. Yes, a thing or two! That's about the sum total of their knowledge. A 42-year-old Baptist, who has preached Christianity in Workington, Cumbria for years, has been charged with causing “harassment, alarm or distress” after a homosexual police community support officer (PCSO) overheard him reciting a number of “sins” referred to in the Bible, including blasphemy, drunkenness and same sex relationships. The preacher, Dale McAlpine, said he did not mention homosexuality while delivering a sermon from the top of a stepladder, but admitted telling a passing shopper that he believed it went against the word of God.

The police took him to the police station in the back of a marked van and locked him in a cell for seven hours on April 20. Mr.McAlpine said the incident was among the worst experiences of his life. “I felt deeply shocked and humiliated that I had been arrested in my own town and treated like a common criminal in front of people I know," he said. Needless to say he got the full DNA, fingerprint and record-keeping treatment.

The police have no business rounding people up like this. Street preaching is not against the law. John Wesley was a prominent preacher. There have been many down the centuries. In fact, I wonder if it passed the minds of the Cumbrian Police to consider the greatest street preacher of them all. The New Testament is basically all about street preaching, or if not in the streets, on the hillsides, by the sea, and in the fields!

No doubt this will come to court. It will cause a rumpus. And the whole sorry saga carries on.

Nasty intolerent liberals come bubbling to the surface

I've now found out what Tory election candidate Philip Lardner said. This is it, probably in part, but I took it from the BBC's website.

"As your MP I will support the rights of parents and teachers to refuse to have their children taught that homosexuality is 'normal' behaviour or an equal lifestyle choice to traditional marriage. I will always support the rights of homosexuals to be treated within concepts of (common sense) equality and respect, and defend their rights to choose to live the way they want in private, but I will not accept that their behaviour is 'normal' or encourage children to indulge in it. Toleration and understanding is one thing, but the state promotion of homosexuality is quite another."

David Cameron has apparently gone ape about this. Why, may I ask? There are very many people who do not think homosexual activity is normal or correct. Are those who think so to be expunged from political life. I say to David Cameron, get a life yourself. A proper political life that allows diversity of opinion. Otherwise you are fast becoming a just another no-it-all liberal who is exactly the opposite of liberal.

Chris Bryant says "These comments are completely unacceptable and betray the nasty, judgmental truth behind the Tory camp". Really? This from a man who posed in his underpants on a gay porn site looking "for fun". I'm afraid I can't take Bryant seriously.

This action over Mr. Gardner is political intolerance. It is political censorship. It is very un-British. It is a kind of selective political brainwashing. David Cameron should look in the mirror tonight and ask himself if he is becoming just a tad too precious. Oh, and he still hasn't explained that wisteria removal to my satisfaction!

Conservative candidate pilloried for views!

Woe betide anyone thinking of standing for Parliament with traditional views. Especially if these views touch on the subject of homosexuality. If any candidate so much as squeaks, the politically correct hyenas pounce. Conservative candidate for North Ayrshire and Arran, Philip Lardner, has been suspended for what are considered "deeply offensive and unacceptable" comments about homosexuality. He apparently posted them on his website. I haven't seen them so don't know how "deeply offensive and unacceptable" they were. But what I do know is that there is an insidious undercurrent of Stalinist put-downs every time someone of traditional values expresses an opinion on the subject.

Catholics are portrayed as being a suitable target for shutting up. If David Cameron believes so much in the family, why on earth try to silence people in such a manner. The people of North Ayrshire and Arran can make up their own minds. If they vote for Mr. Lardner, what will Cameron do with him? Put him on the naughty step, so all and sundry passing through the Palace of Westminster can see what happens if you speak your mind - and that mind is out of favour with the liberal elite?

This is very worrying. Are those who feel they have a contribution to make in public life to be silenced if their views are contrary to others? Homosexual practices are not acceptable to many as an ideal basis for a lifestyle. Are they to be pilloried for thinking this way? It is all rather Stalinist. I find it distasteful.

David Cameron gave some wishy-washy response to a question about the Pope's visit. So did Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg. They didn't exactly embrace weasel words, but I guess a fox wouldn't find such sentiments unhandy. If this instant attacking of traditional values doesn't stop, we will end up in some sort of 1984 mind state. Thank goodness for the internet. Some of us can speak up.

When Julian Lewis was attacked by that pompous prig Alan Johnson, his opinions were traduced big time. Johnson just abused the airwaves with something he thought passed for democratic comment. It was nothing of the sort. It was just plain bullying. Alan Johnson has the veneer of a nice man but essentially he comes across as a political bully. Julian Lewis made some points about homosexual relationships. Immediately he was pounced upon. Now everyone is entitled to speak their mind in a free democracy so long as it is not unlawful or inciteful. Also, I would add unpleasant. I can't see anything as such in what Mr.Lewis said. He went on to say "On the other hand (though no-one seems to have noticed), I voted in favour of the civil partnerships bill". Alan Johnson didn't notice.

No, Johnson seems to be an anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, anti-free speech former trade union official who is far more comfortable trying to belittle his opponents by besmirching them than he is protecting their democratic rights. This election is certainly proving to weed out the political pharisees.

Secular society raises its ugly head

It would appear that the Conservative Party is no longer the Church of England at prayer. If fact, it is no longer the party of traditional values. Just as Tony Blair jumped on a vacuous pile of cliches in order to dupe the electorate in 1997, the Tories are rummaging around in the leftovers of the pile.

It is one thing to want to be as fair as possible to competing interests. All political parties have to be coalitions. However, when it comes to the rights of people, some are more equal than others. I certainly don't want to live in a country where homosexuals are pilloried for their lifestyle. Live and let live. However, that particular lifestyle is not consistent with traditional Christian teaching.

The Conservative Party is slavishly adopting the New Labour securalist agenda. Under Harriet Harman's purge of Christian doctrine one can only be a Christian in church. Isn't it weird? People like Harman used to bleat that Christians only went to church on Sundays, implying they got up to all manner of unchristian stuff on weekdays. Now they want Christians to keep the Gospel hidden in the vestry so as not to upset the New Labour horse.

The Mayor of Antrim, Adrian Watson, has been barred from standing as joint UUP/Tory candidate because of his views on gay couples staying in his guest house. He is quite rightly upset seeing as Chris Grayling has amplified similar views.

David Cameron needs to get a grip. He is fast becoming a man, not of principle, but of expediency. Much like Blair, who masters expediency over principle to a tee. Many people are upset about all this. I have my doubts about David Cameron and I don't like doubting people if I have to. He never really explained his need to divest his house of wisteria at the taxpayers' expense. And he railed against colleagues who he saw as far worse culprits. It all smacks of a schoolboy trying to explain away a misdemeanour to the headmaster. "There are loads of boys doing things worse than me, sir!".

I wish Cameron could respect those who hold to traditional views. Mr.Watson is not advocating discrimination, just that people's homes, regardless of whether they are used for business, should be places where personal conscience is respected.

Dutch gays responsible for Srebrenica massacre says US general

Whatever one may think of homosexuality and the activity of same-sex relationships, I hardly think the testimony of General John Shaheen is helpful. If I got caught in a raging fire I'd never think of asking the firefighter first about his or her sexual activities. "Oooh, you're gay, oh please, pass me more petrol, I've got to stoke this fire and end it all!" What a ridiculous notion.

However, General Shaheen comes before the US Senate and utters a load of rubbish that begs the question, "How did he get to be a general?". It is one thing to have a don't ask, don't tell policy. I've always thought that the best one, but not just for homosexuals. It should be for heterosexuals and any other sexual type. What business is it of anyone to nose into one's private life? Now we get all this fake openness which is just as bad as persecution. If a person is known to be homosexual basically so what. We don't need a court of inquiry to establish the facts. Not telling has been taken as "never, ever say you are", but I think a proper don't ask, don't tell policy is just a case of everyone minding their own business on this.

General Shaheen waffles on about gay soldiers and insinuates that the Dutch Army is run by a gaggle of men that prance about and cannot hurt a fly. He suggests that the massacre at Srebrenica was caused by Dutch gays just letting the Serbs let rip. Preposterous, of course.

Stephen Gately PCC complaint rejected

The article written in the Daily Mail last October by Jan Moir upset quite a few people. In fact the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) received a record 25,000 complaints about the comment piece which was perceived by many to be homophobic. Now that the PCC has ruled it met the criteria of free speech more complaints are coming in about the PCC's judgement.

Free speech in Britain is being seriously undermined by certain interest groups that say you cannot express an opinion if that opinion is trenchant and totally opposite to a specific interest group. Any discussion of homosexuality that introduces opinions that see it as "not normal" is rounded upon as being "homophobic". Homophobia is only a perceived phobia against homosexuals and not against men in general or against similar things. So a person cannot be held to be homophobic about heterosexual men or twins or semi-detached houses. The English language is hostage to those who want to create their own words and meanings. Humpty Dumpty was not wrong.

The article was indeed strongly-worded. I did not read it then but have done since. Regardless of whether Gately was a homosexual or not, the article was prurient and disrespectful. My humble opinion, of course. If Moir wanted to write about such stuff she could have done it in a different context. But this raises the question of rights and privileges. It seems that certain sections of the community (community meaning us all and not an interest group) want their position to be outside the scope of criticism or discussion. But it is fair game to denigrate and abuse others because they are seen as "old-fashioned" or "reactionary".

I find it upsetting that the media in general finds it amusing to mock and denigrate religious symbols and sacred beliefs. But I'm not going to try to get the perpetrators arrested, or fined, or censured. Because I feel free speech, so long as it does not incite violence or physical hatred, is something to be cherished. If we do not have the freedom to speak our minds, then we need to accept we will become a cowering breed of pyscophantic followers.

Last night I was shopping and the supermarket was throwing away bagloads of bread (which happens nightly). I pointed out this to a girl who was filling a plastic bag full of donuts, bread rolls, anything that she could get her hands on. As I disapprove of this arrogant wastage policy of supermarkets I spoke up. The reply was "It get's recycled". One has to wonder whether as bread or as fertiliser for the next wheat crop. A fellow customer felt this was a standard reply that they have "been told to say".

Without free speech we get no change. We cannot highlight rights and wrongs. I trust we can continue to speak our minds without fear or favour, so long as it is with the pen and not the sword.

People in glass pools shouldn't sink any lower!

The Episcopal Church seems hellbent on being the modern day version of the Synagogue of the Libertines. All things to all men, women, and 101 genders in between. The episcopacy is modelled in their image and for their designs and fancies. Out goes anything much that St.Paul spoke about. Sin is now an optional extra in the polity of the church. In fact, the only sin that can be committed in the Episcopal Church is gainsaying the liberal agenda.

It's a farflung experience from the days when the church had some moral backbone. Now the essence of faith is that there are virtually no wrongs that can be done other than be a follower of traditional doctrine.

Mary Glasspool has been elected as a female prelate in the diocese of Los Angeles. Exactly what the angels think is not credited to the shinanigans. Ms Glasspool is the very model of a modern Episcopalian. She is also a lesbian in a 21 year-old relationship. Her lifestyle is at odds with traditional teaching. She has turned the received wisdom of understanding what sin is into a rejection of the faith in favour of her own views on moral conduct. It is far more than the Pick 'N Mix at Woolworths. This is like walking into the old Woolies and demanding that the selection of chocolates and candies on offer be removed so that a whole new range can be brought in just for personal satisfaction.

When Jesus met with the woman caught in adultery he forgave her. Her accusers had fled not willing to condemn her because of their own sins. He said to her, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more". The whole thing about that was not sinning anymore. It is a state of being seemingly lost on the hierachy of the diocese of Los Angeles.

This has caused a stir in the press. They love a good contretemps in the church. But the one comment that is a bit rich is from Canon Giles Fraser, Chancellor of St Paul's and one of the founders of the liberal Inclusive Church network. He says it "is another nail in the coffin of Christian homophobia". Utter tripe, but there you go. Those opposed to rewriting the Faith are not phobic of anyone, but want sinfulness rightly explained and explored.

I do not come to the blogosphere as some paragon of virtue. We all do things we should not. But I would be very much against getting my personal baggage encoded as some sort of new sacramental doctrine for others to follow.

I see that the Archbishop of Canterbury is somewhat uneasy about the whole thing. Difficulty for him is that he has helped to get the door open a bit. He's now trying to put a brand new self-closing mechanism on it. Best really to let the Episcopal Church leave the Anglican Communion so they can follow their hearts and desires in a new direction. I don't have anything against Ms Glasspool and her beliefs. Everyone is entitled to freedom of expression and belief. I just don't want her trying to force me to follow in her footsteps.

Gay days in the African bush

"There will come a time when they who kill you think they do God's Will". Sometimes this is killing the heart, sometimes its killing the body. It never results in killing the soul. How we lead our lives is complex indeed. The traditional Christian teaching on matters sexual is that sexual activity takes place within the Sacrament of Matrimony. The complementary state is Celibacy. These two are the ways of being for Christians. However, this is the goal. It is certainly not the right of Christians to impose it on others should they wish to live by other standards or norms.

In Uganda there is proposed legislation which would introduce the death penalty for certain consensual homosexual acts. In itself it is bad enough. This is more than just two wrongs not making a right. It is a devilish attitude of moral superiority. I doubt if any of the legislators in Uganda have the capability to stand in downtown Kampala regailing the crowds with their saintly histories.

One can be against the concept of a homosexual lifestyle as being part of the Christian Faith, but the Christian Faith is surely against substituting God's Judgement for the transient moral judgements of those who cannot say they are without sin. The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement says that “A deafening silence comes from the Anglican Church in Britain towards the proposed draconian private members Bill currently before the Ugandan Parliament regarding homosexuality”. That shouldn't surprise them. Deafening silences are ways to let the matter rest through sheer boredom. The same could be said of several other issues facing the C of E.

"Let all grow until the harvest". The trouble is too many people want to do unnecessary weeding beforehand.

'Hate crime' grandmother considers suing

Free speech in Britain is becoming one-side. Or should I say lopsided? A 67-year old grandmother, Pauline Howe, has been investigated by Norfolk police for 'hate crime' after she wrote a letter to her council objecting to a gay pride march. Now she is considering suing the authorities.

It's a funny old world. It is perfectly acceptable for some people to say all manner of things about the Pope, to castigate the Bishop of Rochester as an evil this and that, but it is not acceptable to say that one is, at least, uncomfortable about overt displays in public of a homosexual nature.

Bridget Buttinger is Norwich City Council's deputy chief executive. She wrote back warning that the grandmother could face criminal charges. She wrote, "The content of your letter has been assessed as potentially being hate related because of the views you expressed towards people of a certain sexual orientation." So basically Ms Buttinger is saying that anyone minded to express a traditional Christian opinion is deemed a hateful person. Ms Buttinger probably hoped Mrs. Howe would be jailed!

I know that certain homosexuals would rather spit blood than let Mrs. Howe express her views, but views they are. Many people share them. Norfolk Constabulary has defended its action as "proportionate". I wonder what a disproportiate action would be in the chief constable's mind?

'gay marriages' - minor tremors or major Quakers?

The Society of Friends, better known as the Quakers, are all geared up to "allow gay marriages" if the vote goes accordingly at their annual gathering in York on Friday. They will also formally ask the government to change the law to allow gay people to marry.

They may ask, but I doubt it will get very far. Not because of the government. They are quite keen to advance secular society's norms within the church establishment. No, it will be because they just won't have the parliamentary time to do it (unless they tack it on to some convenient bill, of course). The Church of England need not be too concerned.

I don't wish to be difficult, but I would have thought the Quakers would be better off leaving things as they are. They may take a view on same-sex relationships. That is perfectly OK. But they do not represent the traditional Church teaching as upheld by the main denominations. It would appear that some Friends are of the view that their minor tremor could turn into a major quake. I think it would not.

No Christian can be on an adoption panel!

Northamptonshire County Council, bowing to the New Labour doctrines, has barred a Christian doctor from an adoption panel. Dr Sheila Matthews was told that her beliefs on gay adoption were incompatible with equality legislation and council policies. The paediatrician had asked to be allowed to abstain from voting in cases involving same-sex couples. But that led to her being barred from the panel altogether.

The married mother of one said she had been "made to pay for being honest and upholding my personal integrity. I don't feel that placing children for adoption with same-sex couples is the best place for them," said the 50-year-old doctor. "As a Christian, I don't believe it's it's an appropriate lifestyle and I don't believe the outcomes for children would be as good as if they were placed with heterosexual couples."

It seems now that Christians cannot go anywhere near social policy or child welfare, even if they seek to abstain from majority opinion. As far as Northampton County Council is concerned the very mindset of a Christian is to be deplored. As I understand it, Dr.Matthews was not trying to prevent this homosexual couple from adopting, just expressing her views.

It is a sorry state we have come to when county councils are run by self-righteous apparatchiks who believe it is their way or the highway!

US Church drops gay bishops ban - tatty bye, Mrs Schori!

The Episcopal Church in the United States is heading for a divorce from the Anglican communion. Hell-bent on creating new dogmas and doctrines to fit in with the fleeting chances of this world, the bishops of this church have decided to drop the ban on bishops living in homosexual relationships. Archbishop Rowan Williams, trying to keep communion with Canterbury alive, says, "I regret the fact that there is no will to observe the moratorium in such a significant part of the church in North America." There was fat chance of such observation lasting.

Ever since Mrs.Schori took over, the Episcopal Church has become a libertine's haven where those in charge spend every waking hour trying to root out traditional belief and adherence to biblical teaching. A knock at the door, a rude letter, a shifty telephone call - all ways to keep the new morality bouncing along.

So it looks like the Episcopal Church will drift away from Anglicanism to run a sect offering an a la carte menu of beliefs with a kind of doctrine of the day to attract new believers. Sad, but there it is. No use getting too worked up about it. There are worse things in the world to be bothering about.

Peter Tatchell won't repent!

Peter Tatchell is quite within his rights to live as he wishes. He is quite allowed to campaign for gay rights. But the doctrines of the Church are not his to change. He rather obtusely suggests that "Homophobia is a social and moral evil, just like racism. Bigotry, even in the guise of religion, has no place in a compassionate, caring society. I call on the Bishop to repent his homophobia. His prejudice goes against Christ’s gospel of love and compassion." As with a lot of what Tatchell says, there is a grain of truth mixed with a whole load of rubbish. The Christian Gospel is concerned with upholding the Faith. That Faith has only two states for the human condition with regard to sexual activity. Celibacy or matrimony. The sacrament of matrimony does not cover "same-sex unions" as such a situation would negate the spiritual meaning of the sacrament.

Peter Tatchell may accuse the Bishop of Rochester of being a bigot, a homophobe or whatever. All the bishop is doing is restating gospel truths. "There will come a time when they who kill you think they do God's will". For killing here the meaning is more about the soul.

The Anglican Church has allowed a trojan horse of libertine theology to come into its midst. Those who rail against traditionalists do so with a sad proportion of bile and invective. I suppose we will have to live with it. Being a Christian is never easy and, in this modern world where passing fads and fancies are placed on the altar as some alternative truth, it will continue to be a trial.

The Queen is Defender of the Faith and that in itself is likely to be far more onerous for her to bear than for any previous monarch. For all his faults, Henry VIII did acknowledge the Catholic Faith and went so far as to write a defence, hence the title. Her Majesty has let it be known that she "understands the concerns" of the traditionalists. She could do no more. If the trojan horse gets any bigger there may be no faith to defend!

What a gay day!

Today sees a march of gay pride through London with various dignatories clamouring to be seen and heard indicating their support for the march and all it holds dear. I wonder how many would run to join the tail end of a straight pride march if any such thing was conceived?

I find the whole thing rather negative. It does not help that the stereotypical camp gays will be the ones that the press will photograph. The whole thing is not about so-called gay pride but about making those who have views on homosexuality that do not fit it with the new order silent and marginalised. Listening to the likes of Chris Bryant, a man who posed in his underpants on a gay website, criticising the Conservative Party is distasteful in itself.

We appear to be moving into the realms of a fascist-style thought approval mode. Ben Bradshaw, a man who was involved once in producing a homoerotic "prayer book" and, like Chris Bryant, is acting like a gay Trojan horse in the Church, attacks the Conservative Party and says "a deep strain of homophobia still exists on the Conservative benches". This implies that those who disagree with his gay mantra should be silenced.

I consider the bandying about of the word homophobia (itself a non-word) with such loose reason is itself an insult. Alan Duncan is a Shadow Cabinet member. He happens to be gay. He is in a civil partnership. I have not heard that being "discussed". Duncan says of the Labour tirade, "This is the last gasp of Labour's desperation. Bradshaw and Bryant are simply trying to stir up hatred and division from the last century and it's both unwarranted and unworthy. It's simply untrue. I believed we had reached the happy point where politics had been taken out of this altogether. But these remarks show that Labour is actually the nasty party. I have publicly paid tribute to Tony Blair for his achievements, particularly on introducing civil partnerships. David Cameron this week said that on section 28 we had to admit we got it wrong. The party has changed. I bet in Labour backwaters there are plenty of people who don't like the fact that Ben Bradshaw is gay." Now all that is true.

There was a time when homosexuals could be blackmailed. The blackmailer would suggest that exposure to the criminal justice system would end a glittering career or a happy marriage. Most caring thoughtful people found this utterly distasteful and wanted the law changed. I have no sympathy with blackmailers. It is the lowest form of financial crime. In fact, the current crop of banking spivs could not stoop so low. However, it is one thing to give fairness of treatment to people. It is quite another to denigrate in a nasty way those people who disagree with you.

Ben Bradshaw and Chris Bryant appear to be raising a rallying flag. In their sights are those they call "homophobes". These are those who hold to traditional church teaching, those who consider homosexual practice incompatible with family life, and others who express contrary views to the Bradshaw/Bryant thought process. The Pope is vilified in their eyes. The Church is to be attacked at every turn. We have already heard their bile over the Catholic adoption agencies.

Is it now suggested that only those who agree with this form of censorship can enter the House of Commons? Surely not! Those MPs who, in conscience, cannot subscribe to promoting this "gay agenda" will need all the courage at their disposal because this un-Christian duo will be attempting to make their lives hell.

Gay minister row deepens

The Church of Scotland is in a bind just like the Anglican Church is and other ecclesial bodies. The Rev Scott Rennie is a minister who has come out as a practicing homosexual. He lives openly with a partner, having been a married man and being the father of one. Some in his church complained that they did not know of his sexuality. It all came to a head on Saturday evening, when the General Assembly in Edinburgh voted by 326 to 267 in support of Mr Rennie, who is the Church of Scotland's first openly gay minister.

Now the Kirk is split. The difficulty that the Christian Faith has is reconciling new demands with the traditional teaching of the Church that sexual relations can only be within matrimony. For Catholics, this is a sacrament, for evangelicals this is more of an ordinance. However, all are united in accepting that this is what marriage is about. A proportion of believers are prepared to accept accommodation for new beliefs in order that Christianity "may be relevant to the present day". That's a fair position, but it can never be the accepted position of all believers.

The Church of Scotland is currently deciding whether to "allow gay ministers". If they do, they will have to allow provision for those who fundamentally disagree. I am of the opinion that a church is better off with impaired communion than no communion at all. It may not be the best result but at least it accommodates diversity. None of us is without sin and we should not come to this issue from a position of triumphalism.

It's not for me to tell the Rev Scott Rennie how to conduct his life. However, I would not like him to tell me that adherence to the traditional understanding of the Faith is something to be done away with. The vast majority of Christendom stills upholds the traditional teaching. The Faith is either revealed as a whole Truth or it is a partial truth yet to be fully revealed.

As a thought, I was wondering about the woman at the well. She had had five husbands and the man she was with was not her husband. If Scott Rennie was at the well, how would he reply?

Tony Blair takes Pick 'n Mix to Church!

Tony Blair has not been long in the Roman Catholic Church before he is questioning the Pope's authority and casting aspersions on some of the laity. He reckons some older Catholics have "entrenched attitudes" whilst most congregations in his opinion were more "liberal-minded". He's talking of the subject of homosexuality.

His idea of entrenched attitudes is probably about those that adhere to traditional teaching. If he observes that some, both "liberal" and not, are prone to be stand-offish to those they disagree with, then he may be right. But it's a bit rich for him to be demanding that religious leaders must start "rethinking" the issue.

Is the Pope to head up a Blairite commission on the issue? I sincerely hope not. The stuff of nightmares! The Church is not some kind of New Labour think tank.

Tony Blair may rail against certain things, but a casual interpretation is very damaging. His inteviewer asks the question, "Can you foresee a situation where in your lifetime or mine, we would have a pro-gay Pope, for example?"

Blair responds, "I don't know, is the honest answer. I don't know. Look, there are many good and great things the Catholic Church does, and there are many fantastic things this Pope stands for, but I think what is interesting is that if you went into any Catholic church, particularly a well-attended one, on any Sunday here and did a poll of the congregation, you'd be surprised at how liberal-minded people were." That's it - all polls and focus groups! He implies by innuendo that the Pope is "anti-gay". This is a gross calumny.

The Church is totally opposed to cruel and hateful attacks on anybody, including those of a homosexual orientation. But it can never compromise the sacraments to suit the passing needs of society.

Gay days and depressing nights

A hotel owning couple who are Christians are in trouble from a gay couple who wanted to stay at the hotel. The owners, Peter and Hazelmary Bull, have had a policy in place ever since they took over the business in 1986, and is founded on their strong Christian beliefs. Basically nobody gets in unless they are married - staying the night that is. In 1986 no-one would have batted an eyelid at this, but times change, as they say.

So a gay couple, Martyn Hall and his civil partner Steven Preddy, decided that this was just the hotel for them. However, they were shocked to hear that their lifestyle was incompatible with the hotel's policy. So a lawsuit is being lodged. They are claiming £5,000 in damages, alleging 'direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation'.

New Labour was keen to get the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 into law. However, it is one which has all the hallmarks of a "winner takes all" approach. When the act was being discussed it was claimed that homosexuals had a very wide choice of hotels where no such policy would be maintained. A single hotel run by Christians had very little choice other than to say yes or no.

I think that this act has encouraged homosexuals to target Christian establishments in order to "prove" the law. And I think that both sides have rights, as they say. However, if I were in Mr & Mrs Bull's shoes, I wouldn't bother too much. After all, they are not sinning by letting rooms to unmarried couples, for they don't know if such couples spend a night of chaste quietness or rampant indulgence. It was Basil Fawlty who had such a terrible time stamping out illicit goings on in Fawlty Towers!

Mrs.Bull is quite clear where she stands. "I have had people clearly involved in affairs and under-age people who have tried to book in here for sex, and I have refused them the same as I refused these gentlemen because I won't be a party to anything which is an affront to my faith under my roof." Well, well. I've had quite a lot that's been an "affront to my faith" and it's come from within the Church as well as without, but I don't think I should be getting too upset by it all. It's not as though Mr and Mrs Bull are involved in any sexual misconduct themselves, so they should have no problems with their consciences.

Mrs.Bull would be better off considering the "judge not lest ye be judged" text. I feel she can still have her faith, practice it and let out rooms to all and sundry.