He's doing what all the bigots do in this situation.



When you want to make the group seem small and insignificant qoute them at their lowest, in this case I'd guess people in same sex relationships.



When scare mongering throw in anyone who's homosexual, bisexual, anyone who's kissed the same sex in a game of spin the bottle and if you're really despesprate say abnormal or not biblical and you can add pedophiles, beastiality and necrophilia.="El Barbudo

Less than 1.5 %? Where did you get that stat from?'"

Does it really matter how big or small a minority is? It could be just 2 people. The whole point of equality is that everyone gets treated the same way regardless.



I also find it funny when opponents of equality then go ahead and use equality in their own arguments. Their bizarre point of view being that because they hold a discriminatory view they have a right to discriminate because those who don't hold a discriminatory view have a right to not discriminate.

I loved Lord Grantham's comment on Downton Abbey last night, "My god, if I had a shilling for every boy who tried to kiss me at Eton I'd be a very wealthy man by now".



Couldn't help but think that the scriptwriter was having a lark at certain Government Minister's expense.

I got the percentage from a debate on the BBC (that well known homophobic institution!),

No one is arguing against that but why vociferous minorities (of all types) be setting the agenda in our country? It is unjust.



Taking your point to it's logical conclusion, if we have two sets of people in a tribal society with mutually exclusive views / beliefs and ones that simply cannot be accomodated by the other group of people how should the tribal elders decide whose views should prevail (assuming it is impossible for both sets of views to co-exist through strength of feeling)? If it's close to a 50% : 50% split, then they'd no doubt end in civil war. If it was more like 95 : 5% they'd have to find for the 95% otherwise the 5% would need to be banished from the tribe or face slaughter, In other words, wisdom would drive the elders and the 5% to toe the line.

If all they are wanting to do is be treated as the majority, no.

Well it depends who said it, in what context and if it's true not what platform.

So your solution is we should become more like cavemen?

No it isn't. A minority, vociferous or otherwise, has the right to be treated equally along with the majority. What is unjust is to discriminate against that minority.





Except that is not a logical conclusion. It's a batsh[ii[/it looney tunes conclusion. We don't live in a tribal society, we live in a modern, civilised (relatively) democracy.

Although I would agree that those who believe in discriminating against homosexuals should indeed realise they are in the minority and toe the line.

Discrimination against a minority is not a legitimate point of view that is to be somehow balanced against equality.

That could involve evolution for some on here - hey Mr Coddy?

The same principle applies though. When push comes to shove any legislature in a democracy will need to protect the majority if there are fundamental, irreconcilble differences. The reason I spelled it out in illustrative tribal terms was that some people can't see through the chaff of political correctness and indoctrination to the basic fundamentals. It is a fact that rights are granted by society as a whole (ie the majority in a democracy) and if those rights become seen as abused then they will be taken away.

But in this particular instance, which party is abusing its right to lobby for change, and how do the majority need to be protected from them ?



If we are trying to pretend that we live in a free society where homosexuals can freely go about their business without abuse or fear of prosecution (only recently granted), while at the same time being totally discriminated against by a registered charity purely for their sexual genre, then is this a free society, would you accept the same discrimination from Shelter for instance, or a hospice ?