Arguing with a Bigot

I have been arguing with a bigot on his blog for the last week or so. As it is his blog, he can moderate the comments, and has failed to publish my most recent one. It may be an attempt to move on, as he has now published an even more unpleasant blog . I have posted the following, but suspect it wont get past his moderation. People who knew me at school may be surprised:

Richard,

It is ironic that you have (so far) failed to publish the comment in which I gave you credit for allowing all posts to be shown, even the personally insulting ones. I included a cheap shot myself (your parents should have used contraception) to see if I could get a rise from you, for which I apologise. The post is re-capped here, and adapted to fit your latest rant.

By no means take my apology as an endorsement. Your repugnant politics is ill conceived and poorly argued. Your bigotry has no place in mainstream politics, which is why you were expelled from the Tory party. Sephton didn't beat you in selection because he didn't have to; you had already been thrown out, which is more humiliating than losing fair and square.  Your previous blog post started as a jealous personal attack him, and weird imaginings of his behaviour, so your claim to be doing serious political work here is not valid.

In this recent case, the Lambeth registrars are required as part of their job to carry out civil partnerships. They are refusing to do their job, I would say that's professional misconduct. If I refused to fly to Spain on moral grounds as a stance against bullfighting, I would expect to lose my job. You describe their actions as "Honourable and Righteous"- I would describe them as unprofessional and prejudiced. You complained previously about homosexuality impairing a persons professional judgement, and relied on stereotypes and assumptions to back your statement. In this case you have a clear example of Christianity impairing a persons professional judgement, even their willingness to do their job and yet you defend them. Your hypocrisy is astounding.

Your self-comparison to the BoB pilots is as offensive as the BNPs use of Churchill's image in the last election. If you are so determined to champion the cause of good over evil you should maybe direct your anger toward the atrocities committed in the name of your religion over the past two centuries. the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Witch hunts, and more recently the treatment of "Child-witches" in Africa, to name but a few. In contrast the Homosexual agenda has been about striving for equal treatment and respect - something these two state servants were trying to deny them.

You argue that chastity before marriage and fidelity within (which I do not disagree is a sound principle) contributes significantly to the reduction of STDs. Why then would you deny Homosexuals the chance to join in civil partnership- a long term relationship which can serve as an equivalent to marriage?
Civil partnerships in the UK have not undermined marriage in any way. Elton and Dave making a public commitment to each other has not made anyone rush out and get a divorce, or encouraged anyone to have an affair. You have still failed to answer the key question
"Is the idea of marriage so fragile that it cannot stand alongside commitment by two men (or two women) to each other?"

The health problems you mention are by no means isolated to homosexuals. Your inclusion of anal dysfunction points out your ignorance of the condition, which is more to do with nerve damage than anything else. The most common causes are Childbirth, Constipation, and Haemorrhoid surgery. (Wikipedia)
Do you think it possible that a higher suicide rate amongst homosexuals could be due to people in authority (Parents, Pastors, Registrars etc) constantly calling them sick and perverted? You make the classic error of confusing correlation with cause. The Suicide rate amongst men is significantly higher than that amongst women. Should we ban being male too?

Simply because most people are straight does not make people who are not straight wrong. As a non RC Christian, you are in a pretty small minority yourself.

For someone not willing to discuss theology, you seem very keen to do so. Is it just that you stop when you are losing? you brought up creationism twice in the comments section, but I'm not going to  bite and start arguing Evolution vs Fairy Tales with you, I'm bored enough with your nonsense already. If you choose to live your life according to rules written 3000+ years ago by a desert nomad, then go ahead. A problem arises when you choose to apply only the ones that suit your narrow and bigoted world view, but it's your problem, and you can stew in your own misery and hatred. When you insist that your rules apply to everyone outside your club, you become everyone's problem and your errors need highlighting.  It's a pity that more people aren't taking you on- it is surprisingly easy to make you look foolish.



Some housekeeping:

Where I said (13 Aug) ANYBODY I meant of course 'any consenting adult'.

My pseudonym is the result of a joke with a university friend of mine, not an attempt at deceit or cowardice. I was going to get around to writing a bio on my blog site, but I lost interest. Blogging just isn't that important to me. So why sign in here as the First High Warlord? Firefox did it automatically. And why sign off FHW of Didcot? Because i was already signed in that way. Make of that what you will, but it's essentially a mix of laziness and a sense of humour.