a secular society by 2030

[pauldominic]

It would probably be helpful if posts were not made in such a way as to make them open to a great degree of misinterpretation. If someone has a viewpoint and they wish to make that view public knowledge then the onus should fall upon them to make their view clear and concise. If it is worded in such a way as to make it unclear as to the meaning then it could be argued the fault is with the original poster and not those who subsequently misinterpret an ambiguous post.

The post in question was "I have seen changes taking place over many years and there is no hiding place within the Catholic church for paedophiles of any kind whether they are priests, laity, bishops or anyone."

We're agreed on the ambiguity because I should have written "I have seen changes taking place over many years and there is no hiding place within the Catholic church in England and Wales for paedophiles of any kind whether they are priests, laity, bishops or anyone."

I wonder what the response to an unambiguous post like that might have been.

What do think of the idea Matty that BM posters should check their facts before posting on a serious topic?

It's anathema to me not to do so because otherwise a serious topic becomes like the wild west with a Gun fight at the Ok Corral.

 

[The Flash]

It would probably be helpful if posts were not made in such a way as to make them open to a great degree of misinterpretation. If someone has a viewpoint and they wish to make that view public knowledge then the onus should fall upon them to make their view clear and concise. If it is worded in such a way as to make it unclear as to the meaning then it could be argued the fault is with the original poster and not those who subsequently misinterpret an ambiguous post.

The post in question was "I have seen changes taking place over many years and there is no hiding place within the Catholic church for paedophiles of any kind whether they are priests, laity, bishops or anyone."

We're agreed on the ambiguity because I should have written "I have seen changes taking place over many years and there is no hiding place within the Catholic church in England and Wales for paedophiles of any kind whether they are priests, laity, bishops or anyone."

I wonder what the response to an unambiguous post like that might have been.

What do think of the idea Matty that BM posters should check their facts before posting on a serious topic?

It's anathema to me not to do so because otherwise a serious topic becomes like the wild west with a Gun fight at the Ok Corral.

You claim there is no hiding place?

So paedophilia has been eradicated from the church?

Can you please substantiate this claim with evidence.

Thanks.

PS. You'll be in big trouble if, in the future, another story appears of someone within the church being prosecuted for paedophilia.

 

[pauldominic]

You posted there was no hiding place in the Catholic church,you did'nt specify the UK.Once British catholic kids are OK fuck the rest.Is this your stand on child abuse.You have alluded to this kind of view before and I find it a comical interpretation of safeguarding children.Just as well the church have a history of following the rules and now every kid in the UK is safe.The fact the church were forced to implement these 'safeguards' should tell you all you need to know.
People can spend a bit of time searching the site I mentioned and make up their own minds on the conduct of the church though you would need a strong stomach for some of it.

I found it comical because common sense based on the full sentence might have persuaded you to seek clarification.

You didn't seek that or do a modicum of research before challenging me.

You're continuing the comedy based yet again on your considerable ignorance of how catholicism (or any religion for that matter) works around the world.

If you had sought clarification you would not allege that "Once British catholic kids are OK fuck the rest". I have never ever alluded to anything approaching that allegation.

The church was not "forced to implement" anything. In fact I would say that safeguarding goes to the very heart of the Christian Gospel.

Can I recommend the following approach to you in future: -

1. Seek clarification if a post is open to misinterpretation.
2. Check your facts before posting.
3. Ideally keep an open mind.

This is your post-Oh I do. I have seen changes taking place over many years and there is no hiding place within the Catholic church for paedophiles of any kind whether they are priests, laity, bishops or anyone.


Not really open to interpretation imo.I won't be drawn into insulting you so you can try to have the thread pulled.The behaviour of the church when dealing with abuse leaves no room for an open mind but I won't post anything concerning abuse of British priests or the subsequent covering up by senior officials within the church because when I do you pm me telling of your shock,upset and revulsion.I fear your ignorance in these matters leaves you no recourse but petty jibes and would advise you to check for yourself which current church leaders were involved in investigating abuse claims,their subsequent actions and the promotions they have reciced since.

See my post above.

I have no interest in having it pulled.

I haven't sent you any PMs and I never will.

If you care to digest the hyperlinks, you might discover that Church leaders do not investigate abuse claims.

Can you deal with all the ambiguity in your post here.

 

[Shadz69]

I found it comical because common sense based on the full sentence might have persuaded you to seek clarification.

You didn't seek that or do a modicum of research before challenging me.

You're continuing the comedy based yet again on your considerable ignorance of how catholicism (or any religion for that matter) works around the world.

If you had sought clarification you would not allege that "Once British catholic kids are OK fuck the rest". I have never ever alluded to anything approaching that allegation.

The church was not "forced to implement" anything. In fact I would say that safeguarding goes to the very heart of the Christian Gospel.

Can I recommend the following approach to you in future: -

1. Seek clarification if a post is open to misinterpretation.
2. Check your facts before posting.
3. Ideally keep an open mind.

This is your post-Oh I do. I have seen changes taking place over many years and there is no hiding place within the Catholic church for paedophiles of any kind whether they are priests, laity, bishops or anyone.


Not really open to interpretation imo.I won't be drawn into insulting you so you can try to have the thread pulled.The behaviour of the church when dealing with abuse leaves no room for an open mind but I won't post anything concerning abuse of British priests or the subsequent covering up by senior officials within the church because when I do you pm me telling of your shock,upset and revulsion.I fear your ignorance in these matters leaves you no recourse but petty jibes and would advise you to check for yourself which current church leaders were involved in investigating abuse claims,their subsequent actions and the promotions they have reciced since.

See my post above.

I have no interest in having it pulled.

I haven't sent you any PMs and I never will.If you care to digest the hyperlinks, you might discover that Church leaders do not investigate abuse claims.

Can you deal with all the ambiguity in your post here.

How do I know about your Irish granny then?The pm exchange involved the abuse that took place at Letterfrack,you said you would investigate it yourself and get back to me.Memory coming back at all?

 

[The Flash]

If you care to digest the hyperlinks, you might discover that Church leaders do not investigate abuse claims.

No, they move the abuser to another diocese and sweep everything under the carpet.

Just sayin'.

 

[Shadz69]

If you care to digest the hyperlinks, you might discover that Church leaders do not investigate abuse claims.

No, they move the abuser to another diocese and sweep everything under the carpet.

Just sayin'.

They were not church leaders when they conducted investigations.The leader of Catholics in Ireland was involved in these and when given the names of children who were being abused by fr brendan smyth by a child who was being abused he neither informed their parents nor the police and allowed the abuse to continue.His reward was promotion.

 

[pauldominic]

It would probably be helpful if posts were not made in such a way as to make them open to a great degree of misinterpretation. If someone has a viewpoint and they wish to make that view public knowledge then the onus should fall upon them to make their view clear and concise. If it is worded in such a way as to make it unclear as to the meaning then it could be argued the fault is with the original poster and not those who subsequently misinterpret an ambiguous post.

The post in question was "I have seen changes taking place over many years and there is no hiding place within the Catholic church for paedophiles of any kind whether they are priests, laity, bishops or anyone."

We're agreed on the ambiguity because I should have written "I have seen changes taking place over many years and there is no hiding place within the Catholic church in England and Wales for paedophiles of any kind whether they are priests, laity, bishops or anyone."

I wonder what the response to an unambiguous post like that might have been.

What do think of the idea Matty that BM posters should check their facts before posting on a serious topic?

It's anathema to me not to do so because otherwise a serious topic becomes like the wild west with a Gun fight at the Ok Corral.

You claim there is no hiding place?

So paedophilia has been eradicated from the church?

Can you please substantiate this claim with evidence.

Thanks.

PS. You'll be in big trouble if, in the future, another story appears of someone within the church being prosecuted for paedophilia.

Oh look who's jumped on the bandwagon.

I won't be in trouble with you or anyone.

 

[pauldominic]

This is your post-Oh I do. I have seen changes taking place over many years and there is no hiding place within the Catholic church for paedophiles of any kind whether they are priests, laity, bishops or anyone.


Not really open to interpretation imo.I won't be drawn into insulting you so you can try to have the thread pulled.The behaviour of the church when dealing with abuse leaves no room for an open mind but I won't post anything concerning abuse of British priests or the subsequent covering up by senior officials within the church because when I do you pm me telling of your shock,upset and revulsion.I fear your ignorance in these matters leaves you no recourse but petty jibes and would advise you to check for yourself which current church leaders were involved in investigating abuse claims,their subsequent actions and the promotions they have reciced since.

See my post above.

I have no interest in having it pulled.

I haven't sent you any PMs and I never will.If you care to digest the hyperlinks, you might discover that Church leaders do not investigate abuse claims.

Can you deal with all the ambiguity in your post here.

How do I know about your Irish granny then?The pm exchange involved the abuse that took place at Letterfrack,you said you would investigate it yourself and get back to me.Memory coming back at all?

No I don't actually, although I can understand why I might pm you along those lines since I went to a Christian Brothers school in England.

I'm pretty sure I didn't use the language you have said I used.

 

[SWP's back]

Oh look who's jumped on the bandwagon.

I won't be in trouble with you or anyone.

Certainly not your fictitious God.

 

[The Flash]

The post in question was "I have seen changes taking place over many years and there is no hiding place within the Catholic church for paedophiles of any kind whether they are priests, laity, bishops or anyone."

We're agreed on the ambiguity because I should have written "I have seen changes taking place over many years and there is no hiding place within the Catholic church in England and Wales for paedophiles of any kind whether they are priests, laity, bishops or anyone."

I wonder what the response to an unambiguous post like that might have been.

What do think of the idea Matty that BM posters should check their facts before posting on a serious topic?

It's anathema to me not to do so because otherwise a serious topic becomes like the wild west with a Gun fight at the Ok Corral.

You claim there is no hiding place?

So paedophilia has been eradicated from the church?

Can you please substantiate this claim with evidence.

Thanks.

PS. You'll be in big trouble if, in the future, another story appears of someone within the church being prosecuted for paedophilia.

Oh look who's jumped on the bandwagon.

I won't be in trouble with you or anyone.

No bandwagon here.

Just another (no doubt futile) request for you to substantiate your claims.

I won't hold my breath.

 

[tonea2003]

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21037173" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21037173</a>?


Analysis: Milestone left in Christian-secular debate
By Robert Pigott

Religious affairs correspondent, BBC News
The European Court of Human Rights said Nadia Eweida had suffered discrimination at work Continue reading the main story
Related Stories
BA discriminated against Christian
BA cross case winner 'jubilant'
Christian court cases explained

At first there seemed to be good news for traditionalist Christians in the judgement from the European Court of Human Rights.

Nadia Eweida, a British Airways check-in clerk who had been suspended by the company for insisting on wearing a small silver cross, had been vindicated.

The court had accepted that the UK government and courts had failed to protect her right to express her Christian faith, and she had even been awarded 6,000 euros in compensation and lost pay.

The judgement confirmed that wearing a cross was a legitimate way for Christians to express their religious beliefs.

It will make it that much harder for companies to introduce unreasonable restrictions on the wearing of Christian and other symbols of faith at work.

But that is more or less all traditionalist Christians can find to applaud in the judgement from Strasbourg.

Corporate image

For a start Ms Eweida's was something of a special case.

The court pointed out that her cross had been too "discreet" to stand any chance of damaging British Airways' corporate image, and the company had changed its uniform policy to allow such symbols shortly after the row anyway.

It turned down the appeal of Shirley Chaplin, a nurse from Exeter, whose employer had said the cross she wore was unhygienic.

The court said it was not in a position to judge the risk to health, but its finding suggests that if a company could reasonably demonstrate a risk to health and safety it would be able to prevent staff from wearing religious symbols.

The court's decisions in the cases of the remaining two Christians also seem to hand considerable discretion to employers to decide policies for providing services and to require their staff to abide by them whatever their religious beliefs.

Lillian Ladele was a registrar for Islington Council in London, but lost her job after she refused to preside over civil partnerships.

Reasonable policy

She was able to manage for some time by swapping tasks with colleagues who were happy to officiate at the same-sex ceremonies.

But after a complaint was made to the council, Ms Ladele was told she had to perform civil partnerships.

Gary McFarlane was sacked by Relate after he refused to counsel gay couples about their sexual relationships.

He had been advising homosexual people about their relationships for some time.

Both Ms Ladele and Mr McFarlane had argued in Strasbourg for "reasonable accommodation" - a compromise in which an employer would find alternative staff without conflicting religious convictions to perform the task.

They stressed that no gay person had been denied either a civil partnership or counselling as a result of their refusal to provide them.

But, dismissing both cases, the court said employers could oblige all their staff to comply with a reasonable policy.

Secularists had insisted that to do otherwise in either Ms Ladele's or Mr McFarlane's case would be demeaning to gay people, and "retrogressive".

Job applicants

The judgement does not mean a company can ignore the religious views of employees but it can override them in order to achieve "a higher priority" - in this case making sure gay people get equal treatment in the provision of services.

Companies will be able to ask applicants for jobs what their position is on issues such as civil partnerships or sexual counselling for gay couples, and refuse them the post if their religious beliefs would prevent them from doing the work.

None of this means that the right of Christians, traditionalist or otherwise, to hold religious beliefs has been undermined by the judgement.

British courts have distinguished between the right to hold a religious belief - which is protected under the law - and the right to manifest or express it, where the protection is much more qualified.

Traditionalist Christians claim their rights to freedom of religious conscience have been steadily subordinated to the rights - especially of homosexual people - to equality.

The European Court of Human Rights allows generous latitude to Council of Europe states to make their own decisions about such developments as civil partnerships.

Legal seal

The UK's Equality and Human Rights Commission suggested that British courts had interpreted the law on manifestation of religion and religious discrimination too narrowly in the past.

Myriad cases have come before the courts concerning not just counselling or civil partnerships but such issues as the placing of children for adoption by same-sex parents and the turning away of gay couples from guesthouses.

The European Court of Human Rights' judgement set a legal seal on the numerous hearings in which Christians have tried, and failed, to defend their values against secular ones in British courts.

Occasionally judges have seemed scathing about the claims made by Christians.

Dismissing an earlier appeal by Mr McFarlane, Mr Justice Laws said legislation that protected views, simply because they were religious, would be irrational, divisive and arbitrary.

He added that religion was a "matter of opinion" that could not be proved and should not, therefore, be used as the basis for making law.

Rights are a matter of balance - the exercise of one person's rights can undermine those of another.

That balance has shifted during recent decades, and the influence of Christian teaching on British culture and law has steadily waned.

The European Court of Human Rights has left a milestone on the road to a secular society.

 

[The Flash]

It amused me no end that Mr McFarlane lost his case for discrimination seeing as he had been dismissed for discriminating against others.

Brilliant.

 

[SWP's back]

He added that religion was a "matter of opinion" that could not be proved and should not, therefore, be used as the basis for making law.

Rights are a matter of balance - the exercise of one person's rights can undermine those of another.

That balance has shifted during recent decades, and the influence of Christian teaching on British culture and law has steadily waned.

The European Court of Human Rights has left a milestone on the road to a secular society.

Good on them and the judge.

 

[SWP's back]

CoE vicar on "This Morning"

"I don't think we should encourage people to be proud they are gay"

Fuck off you ****. Bring back the lions and the arena.

 

[Clevers]

These sum up religion for me

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bike. Then I realised, the Lord doesn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me ... and I got it!

If there is a god (I think that's a different argument) surely he/she/it will be mightily displeased with how organised religions have used and abused him.

eg. 1) To hate people of different religions.
2) To have great wealth and magnificent buildings when people are in poverty.

I'm sure there are many more examples.

 

[BlueMooney]

CoE vicar on "This Morning"

"I don't think we should encourage people to be proud they are gay"

Fuck off you ****. Bring back the lions and the arena.

Aged 14 whilst at high school, I very vividly remember all of my friends starting discussions about sex and girls and who they fancied. I didn't get any of it, I wasn't interested and just carried on minding my own business. As that school year went on, I realised why: I wasn't attracted to the girls like all of my other friends, but the lads.

For two whole years, I was terrified that people would find out. I wanted to be the same as my friends, I wanted to fancy the girls and I didn't want to be gay. I didn't want to spend every day in school worrying that people would discover my secret and use it as a weapon against me. I didn't want to have the threat of being beaten up because of the people that I found attractive. I didn't want to grow up into a world where, if I walk down the street holding the hand of a partner, I would get more noticeable looks and more people staring than if I was holding a girl's hand.

Every hour of every day was spent with torment trying to, firstly, work out what was going on in my brain and then, secondly, try and come to terms with it and accept it. I was fortunate that I never really hated that side of myself, but there are so many teenagers who do. Throw into the mix the number of young people who kill themselves because of their sexuality and the society they live in's reaction to it - bullied at school, disowned by parents or family.

And it's statements like this one made by some buffoon on TV that does nothing for the self-esteem of teenagers worrying about their sexuality and attitudes towards them from other teenagers.

*sigh*

 

[SWP's back]

CoE vicar on "This Morning"

"I don't think we should encourage people to be proud they are gay"

Fuck off you ****. Bring back the lions and the arena.

Aged 14 whilst at high school, I very vividly remember all of my friends starting discussions about sex and girls and who they fancied. I didn't get any of it, I wasn't interested and just carried on minding my own business. As that school year went on, I realised why: I wasn't attracted to the girls like all of my other friends, but the lads.

For two whole years, I was terrified that people would find out. I wanted to be the same as my friends, I wanted to fancy the girls and I didn't want to be gay. I didn't want to spend every day in school worrying that people would discover my secret and use it as a weapon against me. I didn't want to have the threat of being beaten up because of the people that I found attractive. I didn't want to grow up into a world where, if I walk down the street holding the hand of a partner, I would get more noticeable looks and more people staring than if I was holding a girl's hand.

Every hour of every day was spent with torment trying to, firstly, work out what was going on in my brain and then, secondly, try and come to terms with it and accept it. I was fortunate that I never really hated that side of myself, but there are so many teenagers who do. Throw into the mix the number of young people who kill themselves because of their sexuality and the society they live in's reaction to it - bullied at school, disowned by parents or family.

And it's statements like this one made by some buffoon on TV that does nothing for the self-esteem of teenagers worrying about their sexuality and attitudes towards them from other teenagers.

*sigh*

A very touching and sobering post mate. I can't begin to think how I'd have coped with those feelings (on top of the usual teenage feelings of vulnerability and angst).

He went on to say that teaching children about homosexuality at school would lead to pupils being confused about which they should pick. It was ridiculous and to be fair to Holly, she did say she couldn't believe that he had just said that and didn't agree with him.

I still don't know why he was given the opportunity to spout his outdated feelings to the nation though.

 

[Clevers]

CoE vicar on "This Morning"

"I don't think we should encourage people to be proud they are gay"

Fuck off you ****. Bring back the lions and the arena.

Aged 14 whilst at high school, I very vividly remember all of my friends starting discussions about sex and girls and who they fancied. I didn't get any of it, I wasn't interested and just carried on minding my own business. As that school year went on, I realised why: I wasn't attracted to the girls like all of my other friends, but the lads.

For two whole years, I was terrified that people would find out. I wanted to be the same as my friends, I wanted to fancy the girls and I didn't want to be gay. I didn't want to spend every day in school worrying that people would discover my secret and use it as a weapon against me. I didn't want to have the threat of being beaten up because of the people that I found attractive. I didn't want to grow up into a world where, if I walk down the street holding the hand of a partner, I would get more noticeable looks and more people staring than if I was holding a girl's hand.

Every hour of every day was spent with torment trying to, firstly, work out what was going on in my brain and then, secondly, try and come to terms with it and accept it. I was fortunate that I never really hated that side of myself, but there are so many teenagers who do. Throw into the mix the number of young people who kill themselves because of their sexuality and the society they live in's reaction to it - bullied at school, disowned by parents or family.

And it's statements like this one made by some buffoon on TV that does nothing for the self-esteem of teenagers worrying about their sexuality and attitudes towards them from other teenagers.

*sigh*

A very touching and sobering post mate. I can't begin to think how I'd have coped with those feelings (on top of the usual teenage feelings of vulnerability and angst).

He went on to say that teaching children about homosexuality at school would lead to pupils being confused about which they should pick. It was ridiculous and to be fair to Holly, she did say she couldn't believe that he had just said that and didn't agree with him.

I still don't know why he was given the opportunity to spout his outdated feelings to the nation though.

What a clown. To suggest you pick your sexuality.

People have to know where to get advice and that they are not alone. It's amazing that religion tries define how love is found and given whilst preaching hate or trying to pretend it doesn't exist.

 

[BlueMooney]

CoE vicar on "This Morning"

"I don't think we should encourage people to be proud they are gay"

Fuck off you ****. Bring back the lions and the arena.

Aged 14 whilst at high school, I very vividly remember all of my friends starting discussions about sex and girls and who they fancied. I didn't get any of it, I wasn't interested and just carried on minding my own business. As that school year went on, I realised why: I wasn't attracted to the girls like all of my other friends, but the lads.

For two whole years, I was terrified that people would find out. I wanted to be the same as my friends, I wanted to fancy the girls and I didn't want to be gay. I didn't want to spend every day in school worrying that people would discover my secret and use it as a weapon against me. I didn't want to have the threat of being beaten up because of the people that I found attractive. I didn't want to grow up into a world where, if I walk down the street holding the hand of a partner, I would get more noticeable looks and more people staring than if I was holding a girl's hand.

Every hour of every day was spent with torment trying to, firstly, work out what was going on in my brain and then, secondly, try and come to terms with it and accept it. I was fortunate that I never really hated that side of myself, but there are so many teenagers who do. Throw into the mix the number of young people who kill themselves because of their sexuality and the society they live in's reaction to it - bullied at school, disowned by parents or family.

And it's statements like this one made by some buffoon on TV that does nothing for the self-esteem of teenagers worrying about their sexuality and attitudes towards them from other teenagers.

*sigh*

A very touching and sobering post mate. I can't begin to think how I'd have coped with those feelings (on top of the usual teenage feelings of vulnerability and angst).

He went on to say that teaching children about homosexuality at school would lead to pupils being confused about which they should pick. It was ridiculous and to be fair to Holly, she did say she couldn't believe that he had just said that and didn't agree with him.

I still don't know why he was given the opportunity to spout his outdated feelings to the nation though.

To be honest, for me that WAS the teenage angst and vulnerability. I think all that comes from different experiences and we all have our own shit to deal with - mine was working out why I was gay, while other people have other things.

The whole teaching will lead to more gays things is baffling, though. I had very little teaching of homosexuality; if I had, I might have had a less angsty time.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

CoE vicar on "This Morning"

"I don't think we should encourage people to be proud they are gay"

Fuck off you ****. Bring back the lions and the arena.

Aged 14 whilst at high school, I very vividly remember all of my friends starting discussions about sex and girls and who they fancied. I didn't get any of it, I wasn't interested and just carried on minding my own business. As that school year went on, I realised why: I wasn't attracted to the girls like all of my other friends, but the lads.

For two whole years, I was terrified that people would find out. I wanted to be the same as my friends, I wanted to fancy the girls and I didn't want to be gay. I didn't want to spend every day in school worrying that people would discover my secret and use it as a weapon against me. I didn't want to have the threat of being beaten up because of the people that I found attractive. I didn't want to grow up into a world where, if I walk down the street holding the hand of a partner, I would get more noticeable looks and more people staring than if I was holding a girl's hand.

Every hour of every day was spent with torment trying to, firstly, work out what was going on in my brain and then, secondly, try and come to terms with it and accept it. I was fortunate that I never really hated that side of myself, but there are so many teenagers who do. Throw into the mix the number of young people who kill themselves because of their sexuality and the society they live in's reaction to it - bullied at school, disowned by parents or family.

And it's statements like this one made by some buffoon on TV that does nothing for the self-esteem of teenagers worrying about their sexuality and attitudes towards them from other teenagers.

*sigh*

A very heartfelt and honest post that should be compulsory reading for the narrow minded bigots on here who masquerade as caring Christians,and one that should make them reconsider their outdated and blinkered worldview and see just how out of touch the intolerant dogma of their church is with the reality of growing up as a gay person in today's society.
Sadly I am not holding my breath that it will make a jot of difference.