Is Melanie Phillips onto something...or is she misguided?

[sp1814]

Melanie Phillips is pretty awesome. As Mark Thomas says:

"I am constantly impressed by Melanie Phillips’ ability to type and wave a pitchfork and flaming torch at the same time."

But are there serious concerns sitting behind her furrowed brow? Is there a gay agenda which seeks to "destroy the very ­concept of normal sexual behaviour"

http://www.thefirstpo...mail-outrages-twitter

http://www.melaniephi...rticles-new/?m=201101

Or is she just a mental right whinger who's 'preaching to the converted'?

[jackthehat]

I think the 'they' and 'them' are the very people Andy is describing...........those who without much real thought on the matter have decided that to be gay or striving for equality for gay rights is wrong.........just wrong. No real consideration, it just doesn't fit.
As Melanie Phillips is happy to be 'on the right', writes for an 'on the right paper' and garners most support from those 'on the right', I don't think he was outlandish in his assertions.
Of course, not every single person 'on the right' holds these views, it would be silly to say so.

[pa___ul3]

I think squad makes a hugely valid point.. because of differences in views during our respective upbringing, the older generation are far less likely to accept homosexual sex as being normal than my own generation and that's something we have to accept, we are essentially who we were brought up to be. Of course it's not round the board. That said, only the active stance against such anti-gay views have led to my generation onwards being so acceptant of other ways of life.
If people have personal 'agendas' (for want of a better word) then, again, that's understandable, but I'm sure everyone must agree that it's only fair that all people should have equal rights regardless of gender, sexuality, race.. etc. and by continuing to actively oppose views against equality we'll continue to teach the younger generations that it is right to accept all people as equals.
I've posted a fair few times in news so a lot of people know my views and will most likely perceive them as being idealistic and possibly naive, but the only way to get anywhere near reaching an ideal world is to head towards it.

[Davethedog]

Naomi this is nit picking, "they" is obviously Melanie Philips and her supporters.

You appear to protest to much.

Given that both you and Andy are very much in the well balanced camp I find your reaction a little curious.

[naomi24]

jno, so I assume you know who 'they' and 'them' are. Do please enlighten the rest of us because it seems to me that one particular section of society is being denigrated here, but I can't quite work out which one.

[jno]

if you can't even work out who he's talking about, naomi, what exactly is your problem? You are taking offence on behalf of, er, somebody you you can't identify, over something you say you can't understand.

[sp1814]

naomi24

'They' and 'Them' are the people who claim that the gay lobby are trying to brainwash children and destroy the concept of sexual norms.

They can normallybbe found towards the right of the political spectrum - like Melanie Phillips and Richard Littlejohn.

[sp1814]

And by the way - my original question is valid and not a personal attack on her. I'm not saying "She IS mental for having these opinions" - I'm asking whether she has a point, or do you think she's mad?

Some do, but have failed to say why, and some don't.

No-one has agreed that she's as a mad as a balloon.

[andy-hughes]

jno - thanks for your defence, again, appreciated.

My use of the phrases 'they' and 'them' was a generic term for a group of people holding a viewpoint. It was not intended to suggest a nefarious nebulous undercurrent of subversvies in society.

I hope that has cleared up my point.

Davethedog - thank you for your supportive comment, and I can concur that I may have over-stressed by attitude that the 'right' are all repressed bigots.

Perhaps a more accurate stance would be to purport that those who hold stedfastlt predjudicial views regarding race and sexuality to tend to come from the right of the political / social spectrum. That is noit to infer that all right-wingers are predjudiced, but i think there is an argument that on the basis of this thread's background - the predjudiced commentators are of a right-ist pursuasion.

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, I am not attacking you personally - that isn't something I do - but since such a sweeping generalisation cast unwarranted and unjustified aspersions on a lot of people, despite the confusion clearly experienced by some here, I do think the point, as a point of principle, needed to be highlighted. Thank you for the clarification.

[andy-hughes]

naomi24 - in anydebate about anonymous groups of people holding a certain view - the use of the phrases like 'they' and 'them' are the simplest way to refer to said groups - hence my use of the phrases, and explanation of their use - for which you are welcome.

As for your assertion that you are not attacking me personally - and it is not something that you do - I think the evidence is to the contrary. you referred to be directly as being 'a bigot' - an answer of sufficient and baseless unpleasentness that it has been removed from the thread.

I stand behind my postings. What about you?

[jno]

"I am not attacking you personally"

and calling someone a bigot is not a personal attack? In what alternative universe?

That was a personal attack, and andy deserves an apology.

[jake-the-peg]

I love the term "Norms"

What are Norms other than the majority

Defending the Norms sounds so more righteous than keeping down the minorities don't you think?

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, ah! Clearly not a man who's big on the importance of principle then. Yes I most certainly do stand behind my postings - and since the definition of bigot is one who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own, your action in removing my post only serves to confirm that I was right. Thank you. :o)

[naomi24]

Thank you Doc. I'm awaiting personal suspension now for daring to disagree with andy-hughes - but it will only happen once.

[andy-hughes]

Interesting naomi24. if you have evidnece of my 'intolerence' of opinions differeing from mine - I would be interested to read it.

I can, do, and will debate vociforously with anyone and anyone on the AB - but to suggest that I am intolerent of the opinions of others is simply untrue. Disagreement and debate do not equal intolerence.

[AB Editor]

I removed you post Namoi, not Andy - he can't.

Stop being rude.

Spare Ed

[Davethedog]

naomi I don't think that Andy made any bigoted statement, he commented on what is plainly obvious in both the article and a certain strata of life.

The fact that you have chosen to make this personal rather than intellectual, is a reflection on you rather than Andy.

There are instances when we disagree, but the path you have taken on this thread, veers away from your normal clear headed argument and approach.

I suggest that if you agree with the article you argue your point instaed of making it personal.

[ludwig]

Oh For Funks Sake. People who aren't bigots shouldn't say things which can be interpreted as bigoted or prejudicial. It confuses people.

What was said is there in black and white earlier in the thread. Everyone can see it and form their own judgement.