Exeter College Oxford allows homophobic organisation to hold conference on premises

Because you don't have the right to walk onto someone's private property and insult them. You can insult them from outside if you want, and Christian Concern can hold their conference on the street if they wish, but i think most students don't want them in our university.

Our society chooses to let people do in their private lives, and it is now considered moral to subject those that threaten that right to the very attacks they seek to propagate. You choose to believe what you believe, you choose to attack homosexuals for who they are, even though it has nothing to do with you. Therefore, i have no sympathy for you, or anyone who holds the same views as you regarding homosexuality. People insult you because they find your views repulsive.

Where religious groups do not damage the lives of others, i'd hope they are treated with the same respect as other members of the community.

Many Christians, Jews and Muslims feel devalued and ignored when the equality view of gay and straight relationships is the only one presented. Are they less important to you than LGBT people? We also have human rights. To be laughed at, insulted, told we are backward and stupid- I am talking about just for believing in a religion, not our attitudes to homosexuality- makes us sad as well. We are now a minority (strongly religious people). Perhaps it doesn't affect YOU if most of your friends are atheist, agnostic or religious liberals. But what about our rights to not be offended for what is part of our humanity, i.e. our faith? Gays speak of suicides caused by homophobia. Do you not think that religious people, left out of society and marked out as weird/dumb/immoral by secularists for having different views to the majority, may also suffer mental health problems and attempt or commit suicide?

So now you have the majority on your side with respect to homosexuality, you need to show some respect to people who think differently, unless you think that all non-believers in "gay is OK" deserve to die. In which case you are inhuman anyway.

Supporting segregation would be seen as racist, yes. But it wouldn't mean that the person hated blacks. And if someone said this, then I don't believe they should be sanctioned for it (depending on the context). The way democracy works, there would have to be millions of people in this country who wanted to segregate schools to vote in politicians who would allow it. So, unless violent force is used, people holding socially "unacceptable" views such as racism would never be able to enforce them anyway. They still deserve freedom of speech.

The difference is, there is no philosophical case sensibly to be made for believing in racism. There is a case-usually based on particular metaphysics, I will admit- to be made for the union of one man and one woman, in some theories open to procreation, being the central principle of right human sexuality and for all other forms to be wrong. You may disagree with it but it is a view that can be supported by appeal to many of the greatest theologians and philosophers, if it is not to be allowed in public because it offends people with non-traditional sexualities then it should follow that Christianity be banned because it may offend Muslims, Islam banned because it can offend Christians and atheists such as Dawkins banned because they speak offensively about many peoples' beliefs.

Who is to say which views are allowed? The offended parties? Then everything would be banned. The government? Then you'd have tyranny. The majority? The majority were AGAINST gay/lesbian relationships for a long time, and why should a majority use their power to oppress minorities?

Religious affiliation is no excuse for lawbreaking, but simply considering homosexuality immoral or wrong is not illegal and is a view to which people are entitled.

This is not some kind of tit for tat battle whereby every instance of one opinion being disseminated has to have an equal, opposite and related opinion voiced in the opposite direction. This conference is part of the general voice and discussion of anti-gay sentiments, and Gay Pride, a great many articles in the left/centrist media, etc. form part of the general voice and discussion of pro-gay sentiments. Stifling either side's viewpoint in any way is not fair or conducive to discussion. It's sad that the person you've quoted has suffered as a result of this, but censorship is not the answer.

pro-gay agenda

in life there will be lots of people who disagree with you and who hold totally unreasonable views, but you can't go around telling them to shut up because they are hurting your feelings and spreading lies, you have to counter the bull**** with truth.

I show respect towards all human beings, but not towards all views. The view that homosexuality is wrong or evil is not a view that I respect, just as the belief that black people are inferior to white people is not a view that I respect. "The equality view is the only one presented" - if a racist said that about racial equality it wouldn't be acceptable, so why is it acceptable here?

Stop comparing people who disagree with gay sex, marriage or adoption to racists. There is just no proper comparison. For the marriage and adoption questions many people believe it would be harmful to children, who are innocent parties, to devalue traditional marriage. There are many (non-religious or religiously liberal) people who are OK with homosexuality as a consenting adult lifestyle but not OK with letting them have children. Some people consider any difference between gay and straight to be homophobic, in the same way that advocating any difference between how blacks and whites are treated is racist. But it doesn't work when you have a relationship ordained for the continuation of the species and one that 1-2% of the population happen to enjoy sexually. When two things are qualitatively different, it is fair to treat them differently.

Sexual equality goes against the moral imperatives associated with sex, while racial equality is about what people ARE, not what they DO.

I do not believe people "choose" to have gay desires, that is an ignorant view. I do believe that gays should be celibate or marry a person of the opposite sex, both of which have led to fulfilment for many gay people. This is not hate. It is a profound respect for the human person and our Creator. Man has instinctively known that sexuality should be between a man and woman for millennia.

As someone pointed out, it's not censorship. And where would you stop with that line of argument? Would you agree with Oxford hosting KKK demos to counter Black History Month and to present an "alternative viewpoint", for example? We have events like Gay Pride to stop teenagers like those in the statistics I just quoted from being driven to the point of self-harm and suicide, to stop them from feeling like social pariahs.

"Pro-gay agenda"? You mean non-homophobic people who accept that who you are and what your sexual orientation is should have no bearing on the way you are viewed or treated, and that being homosexual is not "evil", "wrong" or "correctable"?

In my opinion homophobia is as unacceptable as racism and should be treated so. There were, and still are, a hell of a lot of white people who believed it would be harmful for white children to be adopted into black families. That doesn't make them right. Equally, whilst I totally disagree with being against gay adoption, it is NOT on the same level as calling homosexuals "evil" and "wrong", and saying that they should try to cure themselves. Sadly, Christian Concern falls into that second category of people.

You say that sexual equality "goes against the moral imperatives associated with sex". I'm slightly confused here - if you're talking about sex being described as a union between a man and woman, I don't accept that argument just because it's written down in a book. If you're talking biologically (in terms of reproduction), many women in heterosexual relationships choose not to have children now, so that doesn't really apply.

As for the part in bold, I'm not even going to answer that. It makes me feel sick. Sexuality is whatever you want it to be. At the end of the day, if two men or two women choose to have a relationship, they're not hurting you. So you shouldn't hurt them by preaching to them about what they should or should not do.

The main difference is that the KKK are considered a terrorist organisation and have been responsible for murders and other criminal acts. Good old slippery slope.

I, as a Lesbian going to Oxford next year, don't actually give a single **** about this. They aren't being endorsed by the university, only using their facilities. I believe in pluralism, and if that means people disagree with my lifestyle then so be it. I agree with michael321 about allowing alternative views to be heard, because as a society we are always at risk of groupthink and this sort of thing is important. Expressing such assurance that the current liberal moral zeitgeist will endure into the future, honestly, seems a bit arrogant to me. Of course to express this view only hails cries of homophobia or - for me and others - the accusation of so-called "internalised homophobia", which is on the same level as the self-hating Jew argument regarding Jews who criticise Zionism, i.e. nonsense. In the grand scheme of things there are far more pertinent issues regarding LGBT+ rights than a small Christian group holding a private conference in an Oxford College.

Nobody likes being told they're wrong. If they are so easily swayed, they will be far more swayed by the pro-gay/pro-equality majority (at least in our generation) than the minority who hold traditional values.

If two men or two women choose to have a relationship, they're not hurting me, but they're defying the One who died so they could have eternal life. That is why I disagree. I feel sorry for homosexuals struggling against it, and also have a lot of respect for them for their struggle and their acceptance that it's not OK to lead a lifestyle that contradicts moral truth even if desires they can't help having push them towards it.

I wish some people would get off their soapboxes and let others live their lives freely. Personally I don't think Jesus would have stood for this kind of intolerance towards homosexuals at all. Your values are not traditional, they're reactionary.

I and other believers in the immorality of homosexuality, DO NOT threaten the rights of homosexuals to behave as they wish within the law in their private life. We don't want a theocracy- maybe a very select few do and they have no means of enforcing their will on anyone because they are too few and powerless. We don't want to make homosexuality illegal, or to make them second class citizens, or to make them objects of hate. Our society as you say generally tolerates them.

I never attack anyone for "who they are" but I disapprove of some things people choose to do. I have faith the Bible is true, you have faith that gay sex is not a sin. Both belief systems are worthy of protection from censorship. My religious beliefs are nothing to do with you, I could say they are part of who I am, and they are not hurting you because I have never harmed or bullied anyone for being gay/lesbian etc and have no authority to make any laws based on them.

If people want to believe that gays should be "corrected", they are welcome to believe that. It's not like they're the KKK running around and preaching hate.

Yeah, the KKK was an extreme example, as I pointed out to someone who used it earlier on. I couldn't think of a racist group that's equivalent to Christian Concern.

It's great that you're not offended, but I've spoken to gay people at Oxford who would totally disagree with you on that. So your personal indifference to the conference still doesn't necessarily make it okay/the right thing to do to hold it at Exeter.

I'm not sure the scientific literature against homosexuals being evil is going to cut it for this case. Making it clear that these views are not acceptable at our university, even when most of the students are not there, sends a far clearer message and would be far more valuable to the gay rights movement. I really don't think things like martyrdom are issues here.

The line has to be drawn somewhere - be it at the KKK, the BNP, or elsewhere, Oxford has an image to maintain and a student body to keep happy; the morality of its funding is an important issue. I arbitrarily choose to draw the line just in front of Christian Concern. You clearly draw it further along.

Since when did I suggest that it was illegal?

As someone pointed out, it's not censorship. And where would you stop with that line of argument? Would you agree with Oxford hosting KKK demos to counter Black History Month and to present an "alternative viewpoint", for example? We have events like Gay Pride to stop teenagers like those in the statistics I just quoted from being driven to the point of self-harm and suicide, to stop them from feeling like social pariahs.

"Pro-gay agenda"? You mean non-homophobic people who accept that who you are and what your sexual orientation is should have no bearing on the way you are viewed or treated, and that being homosexual is not "evil", "wrong" or "correctable"?

If Christian Concern wanted to stage a debate on homosexuality, I'm sure many of us would be up for it, and we'd annihilate them. But they don't. They're not GIVING us an opportunity to counter the bull****. This conference is just a platform that makes them look good because they're in Oxford.

"These views are not acceptable"? No, you mean that you disagree with them. Many others would accept that there is a debate to be had here, certainly on the more moderate issues at stake (e.g. gay marriage and adoption). What I mean by "martyrdom" is that you start sending out a message to these institutions that they are not being beaten in a fair fight, allowed to marshal their ideas, engage freely in discourse, and so on, but that instead subterfuge and a misinformed campaign (there are several examples of very one-sided, shoddy journalism in the Oxford Student article) are being deployed against them.

Of course the line has to be drawn somewhere. But the question of "where?" is an important one, because if you draw it too soon you make people feel hounded for expressing legitimately held views. As I have said before on this thread, it's all very well to condemn a paradigm of a reviled viewpoint or institution, but rather more problematic to do so when you're talking about socially divisive issues.

You are drawing, as you yourself say, an "arbitrary" line; I am trying to make a more substantive judgement, and suggesting that we ought only to draw the line when the general population is vastly united on an issue, in a way that they aren't on these ones. This may not be outright censorship, but it is certainly suppression to an extent. Commercial conference facilities should not be subject to political pressures: I do not like the notion of groups with a certain agenda imposing their will on others and insisting that commercial conference centres start vetting people for their views on divisive political issues. Indirectly, through the deprivation of choice of institutions chosen for their location or price or some other aspect of competition, this stifles viewpoints.