We must resist the attempts of gay activists to restrict our freedom of expression

Some less enlightened people, particularly the devoutly religious, consider homosexuality to be a medical condition, implying that one day someone might discover a ‘cure' for it. The truth is, of course, that people aren't born as homosexuals, and homosexuality certainly cannot be contracted like some sort of disease! Instead, the reality is that people develop their sexual preferences as they grow up. Most reach adulthood conforming to the sexual norm, but others follow alternative paths. Just as is the case with paedophilia, homosexuality is the result of emotional predispositions which are modified by life experiences, both positive and negative. Nevertheless, although neither homosexuality nor paedophilia are "illnesses" that can be ‘treated' as such, counselling and psychological therapies are available to both homosexuals and paedophiles whose sexual preferences are unwanted. . http://www.narth.com... . http://www.helping-people.info... From a global point of view, sexual intercourse between two men is illegal in many countries, while the age of consent for heterosexual sex also varies widely. . http://www.avert.org... For example, if a gay man from Idaho relocated to Angola with his boyfriend they would be well advised to become celibate as homosexuality there is illegal and the punishment meted out to offenders is severe. By the same token, if a straight man from Angola relocated to Idaho with his 12-year old girlfriend, he too would face prosecution if he continued to have sex with her as he had done quite legally in his own country. Now, most people reading this live in the West and would agree with me when I say that homosexuality should not be considered a crime but paedophilia should, but there are hundreds of millions of people around the world from various cultures that would disagree, including some of the many millions of people with non-European ethnic backgrounds that live in the West. I believe in free speech and I, therefore, believe that their voices deserve to be heard. They should not be silenced, much less criminalised, just because their opinions might offend homosexuals, or their rhetoric might convince others to adopt their stance on the matter. Similarly, their arguments in defence of arranged marriages between minors must be heard, no matter how unpalatable many of us may find them. So, with that in mind, I will counter my opponent's arguments who wrote: "Let me begin by destroying my opponent's case with language from the bill {sic} itself; ‘In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred. '" This is the "Protection of freedom of expression" provision that exists in the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 (on which this new legislation is based) that the gay activists wanted REMOVED. That is to say they wanted gays to have more rights than people from ethnic minorities or people of faith, and that really is the crux of my argument. . http://www.opsi.gov.uk... What the gay rights extremists are in effect saying is, while it is legally acceptable to insult an Afro-Caribbean or Asian person or a devout Christian, Jew or Moslem, insulting a homosexual should become a criminal offence. By the way, I make no apologies for using emotive words such as "militant" and "extremist" in my debates. It is perfectly legitimate to colour one's arguments with such terms and it is a device commonly used by respected politicians and journalists to emphasise their points. In no way should this tactic be considered insulting, much less "childish" as my opponent claimed. With regard to physical homophobic attacks, I'm sure all decent people would agree that these should be condemned unreservedly. Nevertheless, the perpetrators of such offences are already liable for prosecution under the Offences Against the Person Act (1861). The victim's sexual orientation should be irrelevant – a violent thug should not receive a lighter sentence for attacking a straight man than he would if his victim happened to be gay. Finally, I am relieved to learn that my opponent is not mustering a militia of Canadian homosexuals as a part of a planned invasion of the UK, but I can assure him that he would be warmly welcomed should he decide to visit Britain - provided he comes unarmed of course! As it happens, the British are highly tolerant of homosexuality and I am pleased to report that this country has become home to a large number gay people from all over the world - people who make an enormous contribution to both our culture and our economy. In conclusion, being able to participate in debates such as this is important to me but if the proposed legislation banning the criticism of homosexuality had been passed, I would face prosecution for. posting this argument because in the course of the debate I deliberately equated homosexuality with paedophilia and thereby, in the eyes of the proposed law, committed the crime of insulting gay people. Thank you.