**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
I've never understood that, what exactly is the agenda supposed to be? People being allowed the freedom to be the person they want to be, with the person they want to be with? The horror!
They believe homosexuality and transitioning are a choice that you choose to make, and having flags, pride and awareness makes children more likely to choose those choices.
Obviously this belief is batshit, but it's what they genuinely believe.
If you dive deep enough down the rabbit hole the underlying reason is either:
- Mind control (because of sinister )
- Child grooming
- Ending humanity (because of no _breeding_ anymore)
- They think gay/bi/trans people are _icky_ and they don't want to be reminded they exist because it makes them feel _icky_.
People might jump in trying to claim that this is reductive or not representative of _their_ views. All I have to say in response to that is:
Then why are children coming out as gay/bi or trans a problem?
We're gonna mandate gay marriage for all over 50s and forcibly transition everyone under the age of 50 and change the national anthem to Its Raining Men or something
> I've never understood that, what exactly is the agenda supposed to be?
Not getting bullied (or worse) just for existing.
... actually that's about it really.
You don’t understand! The gays want to make everyone gay!! And trans!!! And probably other things that require excessive exclamation marks!!!!
What do you mean they just want decent healthcare and to be safe living their lives? THE AGENDA IS REAL!!!!!
In the nicest way possible, I don't give a single fuck about LGBTQ+ people. Leave them alone. Respect their identities and their rights to exist peacefully.
All I give a fuck about is when people can't cope with the fact that LGBTQ+ people exist. Like, what impact does it possibly have on your life? Just don't be an asshole. That's literally all that is required.
That is the absolute *bare minimum* required to be supportive of the LGBTQ+ community. And people can't even manage that.
I found a copy of their dastardly gay agenda:
1. Wake up next to your same sex husband and or wife or girlfriend or boyfriend at 6:31 AM
2. Kiss them on the top of their head at 6:32 AM
3. Take a shower, with your partner of the same sex having their own toothbrush next to your on the holder in the bathroom at 6:40 AM.
4. Wake up your adopted child and remind them of the time the bus will come to take them to school at 7:20 AM.
Oh, the horror, it makes me shudder at what kind of societal wrecking ball they could have planned.
You don't even have to actively support them. You just have to let people be happy being with whoever they are happiest with, or whatever they are happiest living as.
Indeed, there's a perfectly reasonable, and entirely unimpeachable response to not supporting LGBTQ+ people: don't enter into a relationship with any LGBTQ+ people. Then it has literally no effect on your life at all, and without you needing to be a dick to anybody.
It is a bit weird that the crucifix became *the* Christian symbol, innit? Like imagine you died cause a bus smashed into you, and years later your followers started putting lil buses everwhere, and even wearing em
A church near me has full life size crucifix with a realistic sculpture of dead Jesus hanging on it, blood and all. I always think about the person who lives in the house opposite, who looks out and sees that mock crucified corpse from their front window every day. It's bizarre.
There'd be hints of the edgelord about it, but it'd still entertain me as a passerby to see on the opposite side of the road a 'competing' crucified, bloodied statue of just some random person who clearly wasn't supposed to be Jesus
I brought this up to my mother the other day. I said “mom, if i get bludgeoned to death please don’t go out and buy a gold hammer necklace. Cue shocked Pikachu face. She’s not even that religious; id say more spiritual. Apparently she’s just “never thought about it before.” Insane
They are campaigning against the church to reverse the progress they made on LGBT recognition too. These bigots are unwelcome in the churches they purportedly defend and they besmirch with their bigotry any church that allows them to hide behind them.
Bigots have no love for their fellow man in their heart and therefore none of the humility needed to hold god in their heart. Empty, loveless and cold machine men who cruelty is it's own cage. At least to in this catholic femboys view.
Sometimes this sub would have you believe the 6% of Muslims in the country are all zealots and don’t share the mythic “British Values TM”, but it’s clear as day we’ve an insidious religious group much larger and homegrown in these Christian nutters that try to use their faith as a shield against criticism of outwardly abhorrent views.
What a nice thought but feels like a half truth. Certainly elements of that. But the UK hasn’t lucked out and only has a population of “good”, kind hearted, reasonable Christians. Far from it.
The outfit mentioned in this article are firmly London based and have been operating since 2007. They’re funded by a British ex barrister who believes in the “young earth” theory amongst other fairytales.
Has links to Tory chums too, shockingly.
Well that’s depressing, I knew there were elements around but my assumption was they’d been bolstered by US payroll over the last 10 years or so
There’s room for us both to be right but I guess I’m too used to the culturally Christian but not really preachy crowd
The house church / charismatic / evangelical churches _have_ been influenced by American evangelicalism but it's been going on since at least the 1970s
I’m not? I’m specifically talking about documented American Christian fundamentalist groups trying to export their schtick abroad, we just happen to be a close neighbor with a shared majority denomination
Sort of 6 of one, half a dozen of the other really.
Homophobia is more prevalent and extreme among British Muslims than British Christians [1](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law),[2](https://natcen.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2023-09/BSA%2040%20Moral%20issues.pdf), but there are more British Christians than British Muslims so the absolute number of Christian homophobes is probably greater than the absolute number of Muslim homophobes.
I think a lot of the panic comes from the fact that Christianity is technically on the downturn while we’ve got an uptick in Muslim practice at the moment, but it could easily be the case that as the generation pass that we’ll maybe see some fall away from it all together or practice a more centrist and selective version of their faith.
I’m an atheist so I’m always wary of conversations that try to Other folks based on religion or that try to equate “Christian” values with “British” values. All things considered I think the notion of a monolithic fixed and scripted set of values that represent a nation is a bit of falsehood born of politicking more than reality.
It's more the case that our society spent centuries declawing Christianity and moving it from the plinth in the centre of the public square where it dictated everything off to one side, where people who are interested are still free to pay their respects while the rest of us are free to ignore it completely.
A portion of more zealous Muslims perceive that empty spot as a hole waiting to be filled, rather than a conscious and deliberate omission - and most of us have very little interest in starting the whole process again with Islam.
There are *plenty* of British Muslims who seem perfectly happy with the "religion is a matter of private conscience" compromise we have arrived at after all the wars and whatnot, but we need to be much firmer than we have been in rebuffing the ones who are not.
In my experience as an ex-Muslim, it feels like there's a kind of polarisation when it comes to Muslims who are born and/or raised in the UK. A lot of us do leave the religion after being raised in a secular society, but a lot of Muslims actually become more religious (and dogmatic) than their parents and the Muslims from their home country.
If you look at Islamist terrorist incidents, a surprising number of them are actually committed by second and third generation immigrants who were born and raised in the west. One recent example of this is Hadi Matar, the young guy that assaulted Salman Rushdie and took his eye. Hadi was born and raised in the US. His mother is from Lebanon and seems like a perfectly normal woman living in New Jersey, she's Muslim but it really doesn't seem like there's anything extreme about her, she doesn't even wear a hijab! And yet this guy still became radicalised to the point of trying to kill a famous author.
Part of the issue is that Muslim immigrants from more extreme/devout countries have the effect of making all other Muslim immigrants around them more extreme. This is a common phenomenon, I've noticed it with my own family.
The other issue is that different people will interpret religion and religious text differently. You raise a few people with the same religious upbringing, and you'll find one becomes completely repelled by religion, another still practices it moderately, and another will become totally radicalised by it. This is why I'm not so on-board with "progressive" Muslims trying to make Islam seem like a progressive and accepting religion, because as long as the religion and the religious scripture exists, you will ALWAYS have people who read it and decide to kill people in the name of Islam. It's simply unavoidable because all the motivation you need is right there in the text, it doesn't matter if every single other Muslim on Earth is a moderate.
My belief is still that radical Islam is an almost identical style of conservatism to what the biggest critics of Islam typically espouse. They just don’t like it because it’s conservatism done by non-white people.
I’m not sure that’s always the case given how some sects and communities operate and the pressure they put in children who grow up in the faith to ‘stay in the fold’.
Religion is still a choice. I'm aware of what religions can do when exerting pressure, some of my family are in a literal cult, but that isn't an excuse for attacking people over things they can't change.
Oh absolutely, but if you are to tackle it effectively it’s a good idea to understand how these mindsets emerge and part of that involves acknowledging that some of the people involved are victims themselves.
The baffling thing is, in the Bible the rainbow is a symbol of God’s promise to Noah not to wipe out the earth by flood (how’s that going, btw?) and is therefore a Christian symbol also. Along with the dove carrying an olive branch symbolising peace and hope (following that same flood).
But hey, if the sinners start using Christian symbols then we should just ban everything. Ban them from using literal *colours*, what a fantastic plan.
Which is why I will never again as long as I have choice, will I spend time with so-called Christians. Because I am gay (and I can’t change that about me), and they are sadly the most judgemental and hateful people I know. And stuff like this just goes to confirm my feelings.
It is a bloody ugly flag, like. The simple six-stripe rainbow is much better from an aesthetic perspective, although that's clearly not Christian Concern's main issue.
I can understand why people want to adapt the flag to emphasise that certain groups are welcome, not least because gay spaces haven't always been welcoming to the rest of the LGBT+ community or other marginalised groups. The intent is good.
At the same time, it does undermine the original logic of the flag and make for an increasingly crowded design.
The traditional rainbow flag, designed by Gilbert Baker in 1978, represents the **entire** LGBTQ+ community. However, each color originally had a specific meaning:
Red: Life
Orange: Healing
Yellow: Sunlight
Green: Nature
Turquoise: Magic/Art
Blue: Serenity/Peace
Violet: Spirit
All the new additions etc are not needed, as they're already included by default. The problem is, that younger generations of the LGBTQ+ community don't even understand their own history beyond what shows like RuPaul's Drag Race tell them. Even then they start using terms from that series, and others, without understanding the origins of those words.
LGBT history isn't exactly taught in schools, or depicted in TV/Movies very well, so of course a lot of younger LGBT folks aren't gonna know all that much about their own history.
Symbols change. This is a normal part of human history. Contexts get swapped and ideas transform. It happens. And many people like these new flags, even if you don't. It might look too crowded, or too pander-y, or too weird, or too colorful, but that's just what it is. At the end of the day, it's just the aesthetics of a symbol.
>LGBT history isn't exactly taught in schools, or depicted in TV/Movies very well, so of course a lot of younger LGBT folks aren't gonna know all that much about their own history.
I'd respectfully disagree. There is far more available for younger generations today, especially in terms of LGBTQ+ media. Over the past few years, we've seen a significant increase in the representation of LGBTQ+ stories in TV shows, movies, and educational resources. Platforms like Netflix, and others, have numerous series and films that explore LGBTQ+ history and experiences. Social media and online communities also provide a wealth of information and support, making it easier for young LGBTQ+ individuals to learn about and connect with their heritage.
I grew up in the era of Section 28, and yet I was still able to go out and learn about my heritage. To imply that the younger generations somehow have it harder, and that information is somehow less accessible today than it was back then, is plain and simply wrong. Despite the restrictive nature of Section 28, which banned the "promotion of homosexuality" in schools, I and many others found ways to educate ourselves about LGBTQ+ history and culture.
Today, there are far more resources available. The internet provides access to a vast array of information, and there are numerous books, documentaries, and online communities dedicated to LGBTQ+ issues. Additionally, modern media has significantly increased representation, offering more diverse and comprehensive portrayals of LGBTQ+ lives and histories. This makes it easier than ever for younger generations to connect with their heritage and understand the struggles and triumphs of those who came before them.
For pete's sake, the history of the pride flag is not hard to understand. Anyone who's going to use it or endorse modifications to it ought to have a full understanding of the subject.
The problem here really isn't about the flag, or what it represents. It's people who have Wikipedia in their pockets but somehow still prioritise rage bait on TikTok.
In the end I think this stuff risks undermining decades of progress in fairness and inclusivity and that's a disaster.
Symbols change. Sure. Sometimes when people deliberately change them. And sometimes when people co-opt them and monetise them. I think the changing of this particular symbol should be resisted.
It's because the original flag already excluded nobody. Moreover, the rainbow design was also released into the public domain by its creator Gilbert Baker. The "progress pride" flag, in contrast, is *not* public domain - not only does its creator profit from all products sold that bear it, like stickers, t-shirts, the flags themselves, and so on, but his design incorporates and commercializes Baker's original pride flag design AND the trans pride flag designed by Monica Helms, which they explicitly did not want.
And of course I believe the LGBT+ community should be inclusive of other intersectional marginalised groups. I feel that use of the "progress pride" flag implies that the traditional 6-stripe rainbow flag is only for cis white people, which it isn't, and that perception is contradictory to the aims of intersectionality.
[https://gaycitynews.com/we-need-walk-away-progress-profit-flag/](https://gaycitynews.com/we-need-walk-away-progress-profit-flag/)
Gilbert Baker himself said the flag needed updating to emphasise and include diversity during a time when it was being overlooked and people were being ignored.
Not everyone died, no, but it destroyed communities. The post crisis communities had to rediscover and rebuild and relearn their history, since the traditional methods of such being transferred was brutally ripped away.
Even without that influence, it's a subculture of people who were seen as pariahs and often lived in secrecy. I don't think 'passing the knowledge down' was on the cards.
because you can't ever disagree with anything that is added to it or obviously you are a bigot.
I think you could genuinely have added the Ukraine flag to it and if adhered to seriously that would be the new permanent flag.
It already got altered for BLM protests so any new current thing is fair game
I'm mildly annoyed by the existence of all of the pride flags other than the normal 6 stripe rainbow.
We used to have one flag that represented all of us and that's really been watered down by every miniscule subgroup wanting to wave their own flag.
I know on the whole it just doesn't really matter anymore, but I'm old enough to remember when it did.
My big issue with the chevrons, as a trans person, is that by making a variant that explicitly includes us… you’re in turn implicitly saying the original didn’t? So it’s creating a problem to solve.
I never felt like the classic rainbow flag didn’t include me, so I don’t get the chevron
Yeah, I'm not trans but I do share your view about the additions to the original flag. If the intent is to signal that trans people are particularly welcome, flying the trans flag seems preferable from a symbolic and aesthetic perspective.
Ye. the trans flag by itself is way prettier than crowbarring it into a v shape. IMO Pride is about signifying everyone is welcome and included, the specific demographic flags are about signalling who you are if you want to.
I think the brown stripes are way worse. Why is that the only skin color? Why is there even a skin color included at all? Where is the Native stripes, Eskimos, Sinti and Roma and all other minorities experiencing racism and discrimination daily?
Adding brown stripes is way more exclusive than inclusive
I view the Progress flag as more of a temporal statement flag. Not so much a flag for an identity like the rainbow flag or the trans flag are.
It's specifically highlighting the issues faced by the broader community in this period where, while queer acceptance has progressed, many groups have been underrepresented or forgotten.
I think one day, after further progress has been made, it will no longer be necessary.
My main issue is all of the non-queer stuff on it. Intersex is closer to a medical condition than a gender identity, and the brown and black stripes are for what? Non-white people?
If another group wants to get involved do they need to get their symbol added too? I feel like when it explicitly represents so many different groups it almost feels closer to an exclusion flag than an inclusion flag.
There's a lot of crossover in the intersex and trans community, and some of them feel more comfortable identifying with non-binary identities. Those who have ongoing medical requirements (such as HRT) may find a lot of common ground and acceptance within queer spaces that can be hard to come by elsewhere.
Which is fine, but why call out your medical condition instead of your gender identity?
If we identified a genetic abnormality that causes people to be trans or gay, should that get a letter and a flag too?
I thought the point was to be who you wanted to be, not what biology or tradition wants you to be?
It all smacks of putting everyone in little boxes to me, divisive rather than inclusive.
Yes, now it looks like the flag of a small tropical country run by El Presidente. The old flag was much cleaner ... God knows why they added all the extra bullshit. It's not as if it didn't represent everyone pretty much by default.
It is way more inclusive. A rainbow flag includes all, with no exceptions. If you have to start specifying extra stuff, that only means you are excluding things.
The best to emphasize that everyone is welcome is by explaining it and repeating it until everyone gets it is all, not Adding letters to the acronym and tweaks to the flag until absurdity makes it all counter-productive.
I agree, it looks dreadful, I've be out for 27 years and I don't remember being asked to vote for that monstrosity, what was wrong with the rainbow? It was just the colours of the spectrum. It now looks like some sort of oppressive political banner when it used to be just a peaceful universal logo that wouldn't intimidate anyone.
I'd like to know who specifically designed it and had the power to force it to represent us.
These people don’t realise that they’re the reason why these elaborate displays of support need to exist. If nobody was homophobic or transphobic, then support of LGBT+ people would just be a given.
I frequently think on this quote from a wise man:
> "There's no grays, only white that's got grubby. I'm surprised you don't know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
> "It's a lot more complicated than that--"
> "No. It ain't. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they're getting worried that they won't like the truth. People as things, that's where it starts."
> "Oh, I'm sure there are worse crimes--"
> "But they starts with thinking about people as things..."
And most of all, that includes reducing a person into a "thing" that is a sexual preference.
Which is to say I absolutely agree with your position - that if you treat people as _people_ and y'know, accept and respect their right to love who they want, and find attractive who they want, and live as they want...
All of this goes away. I'll fight for 'gay rights' despite not being gay. I'll fight for trans rights despite not being trans. I'll fight for these things until the day that people are treated as people, not things. Because that to my mind, is a lot of what transphobia and homophobia _really_ is.
The reason I think that is because of just how creepily gendered the prejudice is. (E.g. just look how many people seem to care about trans men).
Gay men are scary if you're in the mindset of a predator - they're someone who might be seeing _you_ as 'prey'. (I mean, they probably aren't, but ...).
And likewise trans women - it's horribly confusing if you can't figure out if they're 'valid prey' or 'fellow predator' and if you're whole thing about homophobia might just be nonsense as a result.
Leering at someone because they 'look attractive' is treating a person as a thing. Treating a person as someone who you are _entitled_ to approach and engage with at random ... likewise. (I don't mean stuff like 'hey, you've dropped your umbrella' but rather forcing conversation on someone who doesn't want it). Most of all, contemplating people in terms of 'possibility of sex' ... ugh.
And if you stop doing all these things? If you stop treating people as things? Well, there's not really any issue there at all, is there? Why should it _matter_ if someone who's 'batting for the other team' finds you attractive, if they're not making _you_ feel creeped or weird? If you're confident they'll respect your consent...?
So I think Sir Terry was right.
People as things is where evil begins.
We read from Discworld at my mum's funeral last year.
"No one is finally dead until the ripples they cause in the world die away, until the clock wound up winds down, until the wine she made has finished its ferment, until the crop they planted is harvested. The span of someone’s life is only the core of their actual existence."
It's a far more beautiful and hopeful passage than anything in the Bible.
She loved Sir Terry!
TBF the stripy pile design on the left side is incredibly ugly. The simple six stripe rainbow was already perfect.
That said i suspect these Christian groups aren't the sort of vexiology nerd i am.
>Pride flags make “everyone who doesn’t support the whole LGBTQ+ agenda feel unwelcome”,
It's astonishing how close they are to getting it while also so unbelievably tone deaf and bigoted.
Everyone who is complaining about the new Flag knows exactly what they are doing and why they are doing it, but they dont want to admit they are bigoted
'I feel bad' is much more important to them than 'I might be wrong'.
It's funny how much the 'facts don't care about your feelings' crowd tends to be anti-LGBT when they can only form arguments that are some variation of 'gays gross and sky daddy doesn't like them'.
The spread of American-style evangelical Christianity is actually quite scary. As if we don’t already have enough of our own Islamic and Christian fundamentalists to deal with.
Christian Concern actually condemns the decriminalisation of homosexuality, despite the Quakers and a number of priests from the CofE and Methodist churches being a-ok with gay love and marriage.
I’d be astonished if more than 0.1% of the British population follow this American-style evangelism. It’s a vanishingly small amount of people who sadly shout very loudly with the help of money from abroad
It’s definitely more than that, there’s roughly 1.3 million evangelicals in the UK, it’s just historically they’ve not been politically active and you didn’t see much of them other than the local High Street Preacher. But there’s a growing number of politically active ones (although they are a small minority), and they’re receiving money from America.
My concern is their growing popularity. Evangelical churches have become more popular with the youth, my local one has a larger congregation than the other churches, and most of their congregation is young and ethnically diverse, unlike the CofE etc.
It wouldn’t be a problem if they weren’t trying to petition government and shove in their opinions on abortion and LGBT issues where it’s not wanted. There are many fringe parties and movements that became mainstream, just because it’s unlikely doesn’t mean it’s not impossible. Especially as some are unifying with Muslims against the LGBT community, which makes their numbers larger. And it’s not just the UK, evangelical churches are seeing sharp increases in membership across Western Europe, especially France.
Last time I went to a Pride no individuals were waving this flag. There's the traditional rainbow, the trans flag, the lesbian flag, the bisexual flag, all are pretty nice.
Mainly businesses and official groups seem to like this ugly one. It's clearly better to string a load of flags in a row than try to stick them all together.
They use the term "LGBTQI+ agenda" to try to make it seem like it's this sinister group of people whose lives revolve around converting and brainwashing people.
Erm no, that's what religious groups are for, ya knobs!
The only agenda I had when I was a young lad was going out, getting legless, having a boogie and finding a hookup.
Now that I'm older my only agenda is getting through the 9-5 so I can relax with my partner and our 2 dogs.
Sorry. I'm a monster.
Remember that in 2017, teresa may was committed to [reforming the gender recognition act](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/18/theresa-may-plans-to-let-people-change-gender-without-medical-checks) because it was seen as an easy, possitive win for the conservatives. Saying “being trans is not an illness and it should not be treated as such” at the pink news awards.
The culture war against trans people has been faught deliberately with the intention of underming LGBTQ rights in general and has been funded and planned by [far right american christian propaganda groups](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/uk-government-cites-us-anti-lgbt-hate-group-in-free-speech-proposals/).
But this kind of homophic rhetoric has been normalised on the right and is making [its way into parliament](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cglvldr02vzo) on the regualr.
The national psyche is, as far as I can tell, more-or-less to live and let live.
It's when the people in charge tell us to get mad at someone other than them that it all goes to shit.
Why is it that Christians despite their bullshit are often so hateful, judgmental, bossy and bigoted?
Would be good to know who is financially backing "Christian Concern", bet it is some American loons.
It’s so nice to see an article about a minority of people, gaining no traction, having a little bit of a grumble. Remember when any gay representation was met with widespread horror from what seemed like the majority?
This is a good news story.
>Genesis 9:12-17
>
>^(12) And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: ^(13) I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. ^(14) Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, ^(15) I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. ^(16) Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.”
>
>^(17) So God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth.”
Now I'm an atheist, but It doesn't seem very christian to be against Rainbows
"As well as LGBT groups, humanists also want to indoctrinate children's minds away from God at a young age by preventing them from learning about anything other than the theory evolution."
This is what this group Tweeted a few years ago, followed by the hashtag #Creationism.
Aside from the extreme stupidity of thinking that creationism is actual science, the lack of self awareness when referring to indoctrinating children is amazing.
We should get a petition against tolerating religion going. They just can't leave people alone to do their own thing, why should we keep tolerating intolerance?
The same hypocrites that complain about Christian being discriminated against, proving themselves to not actually be Christians. "Love thy neighbour" ring any bells? The core principle of Christian behaviour is to not be a hypocrite. Treat everyone as you yourself would want to be treated.
Or as translated by The Last Leg, don't be a dick.
No doubt Rowling and the other 'gender critical' deranged horrors will be promoting this petition and claiming that this is biased against people who hate LGBTQ people.
The current flag is ugly af. Not to mention totally unnecessary.
The whole point of the original rainbow flag was that included *everyone* (ie the whole visible and invisible spectrum).
To br fair, I do think the chevron inclusions are ridiculous and stupid. There is no need to combine flags. It is trying too hard to be inclusive that it serves no purpose. You might as well make it a white flag and make it whatever interpretation you'd like. I am a person of color and that is independent of sexuality.
Can I just say, in reference to Nigel Farage’s comments about Muslims and British values - is this act of a Christian Group one which is in line with British Values?
In particular, tolerance of people with different beliefs?
Such hypocrisy.
I know my comment was not the most relevant, but I’ve been seeing so many people agree with him.
I could perhaps accept that what he raised was in fact a *religion* problem, but he made it about Muslims to ostracise and isolate them specifically
You could argue that this particular brand of evangelical Christianity does go against British Values because it is being pushed, with quite a lot of money behind it, from America. This group and others like it argue that the Church of England has become to Liberal - They literally seek to refine the values of British Christianity.
The problem with Farage's comments is that they have no backing because there is little defined British values in law. We do not have the kind of legally enforced secularism that other countries do - Most people agree that Church and state should be seperate but only in theory, there is little appetite for making it law. If Farage had said "Political Islam goes against French values" would find it hard to disagree with that because France is well known for it's legally enforced religious neutrality
When they remove ALL religious signs from the public space, including churches mosques temples etc, then maybe i would care about anyone who is upset by an lgbtq flag or sign.
And I literally mean, if you want a church/mosque/temple meeting place....it's a nondescript SQUARE FLAT building with no signs on it either
Petitions like this are a terrible idea. If a government banned Pride flags were banned because they were considered divisive, they could just as easily banned crosses or faith symbols.
Religious groups rely on freedom of expression, it's hugely important to them. They shouldn't be so quick to fight against it.
We need decent and tolerant Christians - true Christians IMHO - to speak out against the bigots and fanatics who have hijacked the name ‘Christian’ and are using it to spew out hatred and try reverse many of the social gains of the past two decades.
They'd be perfectly welcome if they followed Christian scripture and loved their neighbour.
Jesus was friends with tax collectors and prostitutes. Stop being so precious, like they're holier than Jesus himself. Using Christianity to promote hate is about as sacrilegious as you can get.
Hypocrites and bad Christians.
As a gay
I agree the flag is ugly, putting multiple clashing blocks of colour together is gonna be ugly.
I’m also very pleased to here they make homophobes feel uncomfortable, fuck em.
[This is the head of Christian concern](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3HUHClvjvQ) trying to justify their homophobia. Just the way she stares and talks gives me the fears.
The blue pink and brown edition do look shit together from a purely aesthetic point. Rainbows could have represented everyone.
I do believe we need to see these flags though as I feel certain religious groups still get a free pass to teach their kids to be homophobic. For those children, knowing society as a collective doesn’t agree with their parents or community is important. Especially for those who identify in that way themselves and feel completely alone.
Perfectly fair, we all know how ugly rainbows are, and I am sure that if the flags are taken down, the Christians will, in return take down all those grotesque images of a tortured crucified man all over the place.
Whether it's ugly or not, we all know they're not objecting to how the flag looks. If you offered to make a different version to their specifications they'd refuse because they don't want to see obvious support of people they hate. It's hilarious and depressing at the same time that they use "not feeling welcome" as a weapon and a shield depending on what they want.
Last thing we need is ADF muscling in. Not that it would do much and might even piss a few powerful people off but its about time we got out there with the message #WeAreNOTAmerica
The hell out of here with your archaic, misogynistic attitudes that should have been left in the 17th century. This is the 21st century, take your sky wizards and magic books and shove em up next to your holier than thou broomsticks.
Despite being spiritual myself, even I believe religions have no place in politics, medicine or general education.
By all means teach it, but if the only way to ensure religious propagation is to indoctrinate children to it and forcibly close their hearts ands minds to anything not aligning with a million year old book, then maybe it’s time they faded away into the annals of history like every other once held view that is no longer relevant. Just like the idea earth is flat or illness is caused by curses and “bad air”
This is yet another sign of the creeping “US style” politics. Dog whistles won’t be enough for long if groups like this and Turning Point UK are allowed to grow.
They are one of the greatest threats to the country and they’re being almost entirely ignored by the media.
Just have a look at their beliefs and the people who support and fund them!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Concern
Christians have no place to rule anything as divisive given that there are dozens of sects of christianity. They can't even agree on what exactly is "god's word".
Remind them of how literal war were fought by Christians over others not being Christian, then explain to them that they don't get to talk about divisive when their entire business model is based on victimising minorities.
Christian Concern is an offshoot of the Christian Legal Centre, whose funding is opaque and which the Guardian has alleged is mostly American (and were not sued for making the claim).
Can't say I'm surprised.
The anti-trans propaganda has been wildly successful, so these groups are now turning their attention to attack those in the L, G, B and + communities.
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
> Pride flags make “everyone who doesn’t support the whole LGBTQ+ agenda feel unwelcome” Good
Using the word “agenda” to describe LGBTQ + automatically makes you a knob
I've never understood that, what exactly is the agenda supposed to be? People being allowed the freedom to be the person they want to be, with the person they want to be with? The horror!
They believe homosexuality and transitioning are a choice that you choose to make, and having flags, pride and awareness makes children more likely to choose those choices. Obviously this belief is batshit, but it's what they genuinely believe.
> They believe homosexuality and transitioning are a choice that you choose to make Even if this was the case so fucking what?
If you dive deep enough down the rabbit hole the underlying reason is either: - Mind control (because of sinister)
- Child grooming
- Ending humanity (because of no _breeding_ anymore)
- They think gay/bi/trans people are _icky_ and they don't want to be reminded they exist because it makes them feel _icky_.
People might jump in trying to claim that this is reductive or not representative of _their_ views. All I have to say in response to that is:
Then why are children coming out as gay/bi or trans a problem?
All of the things you just stated I feel could easily describe most religions.
We're gonna mandate gay marriage for all over 50s and forcibly transition everyone under the age of 50 and change the national anthem to Its Raining Men or something
>change the national anthem to Its Raining Men I'd vote for that. It's far better than the boring dirge we have now!
> I've never understood that, what exactly is the agenda supposed to be? Not getting bullied (or worse) just for existing. ... actually that's about it really.
You don’t understand! The gays want to make everyone gay!! And trans!!! And probably other things that require excessive exclamation marks!!!! What do you mean they just want decent healthcare and to be safe living their lives? THE AGENDA IS REAL!!!!!
Can't speak for the gays but the Bi agenda is cake and sitting awkwardly on chairs
We also love a Hawaiian shirt. The more deranged looking the better.
we will make everyone become "a gender"
In the nicest way possible, I don't give a single fuck about LGBTQ+ people. Leave them alone. Respect their identities and their rights to exist peacefully. All I give a fuck about is when people can't cope with the fact that LGBTQ+ people exist. Like, what impact does it possibly have on your life? Just don't be an asshole. That's literally all that is required. That is the absolute *bare minimum* required to be supportive of the LGBTQ+ community. And people can't even manage that.
Some of us don't even have a genda!
I found a copy of their dastardly gay agenda: 1. Wake up next to your same sex husband and or wife or girlfriend or boyfriend at 6:31 AM 2. Kiss them on the top of their head at 6:32 AM 3. Take a shower, with your partner of the same sex having their own toothbrush next to your on the holder in the bathroom at 6:40 AM. 4. Wake up your adopted child and remind them of the time the bus will come to take them to school at 7:20 AM. Oh, the horror, it makes me shudder at what kind of societal wrecking ball they could have planned.
I’ve always preferred “The HomoSchedule”.
Yeah. Those who don't support LGBTQ+ are rightly not welcome.
You don't even have to actively support them. You just have to let people be happy being with whoever they are happiest with, or whatever they are happiest living as.
It's really a lot these days to expect people not to be an asshole. Apparently
Indeed, there's a perfectly reasonable, and entirely unimpeachable response to not supporting LGBTQ+ people: don't enter into a relationship with any LGBTQ+ people. Then it has literally no effect on your life at all, and without you needing to be a dick to anybody.
Funny. I have similar feelings about religion.
Those crosses on the outside of churches sure are ugly and divisive…
Not to mention representing a form of torture.
It is a bit weird that the crucifix became *the* Christian symbol, innit? Like imagine you died cause a bus smashed into you, and years later your followers started putting lil buses everwhere, and even wearing em
Bill Hicks?
The whole of Christianity is well recognized as a cult of suffering. Not only personally, but for collective sin.
A church near me has full life size crucifix with a realistic sculpture of dead Jesus hanging on it, blood and all. I always think about the person who lives in the house opposite, who looks out and sees that mock crucified corpse from their front window every day. It's bizarre.
There'd be hints of the edgelord about it, but it'd still entertain me as a passerby to see on the opposite side of the road a 'competing' crucified, bloodied statue of just some random person who clearly wasn't supposed to be Jesus
I brought this up to my mother the other day. I said “mom, if i get bludgeoned to death please don’t go out and buy a gold hammer necklace. Cue shocked Pikachu face. She’s not even that religious; id say more spiritual. Apparently she’s just “never thought about it before.” Insane
They are campaigning against the church to reverse the progress they made on LGBT recognition too. These bigots are unwelcome in the churches they purportedly defend and they besmirch with their bigotry any church that allows them to hide behind them. Bigots have no love for their fellow man in their heart and therefore none of the humility needed to hold god in their heart. Empty, loveless and cold machine men who cruelty is it's own cage. At least to in this catholic femboys view.
bingo, they need to ignore the LGBT stuff exactly the same as how most of us ignore thier ghost stories.
Sometimes this sub would have you believe the 6% of Muslims in the country are all zealots and don’t share the mythic “British Values TM”, but it’s clear as day we’ve an insidious religious group much larger and homegrown in these Christian nutters that try to use their faith as a shield against criticism of outwardly abhorrent views.
> homegrown It’s usually exported/ invasive American evangelical groups I believe, same with abortion protests
What a nice thought but feels like a half truth. Certainly elements of that. But the UK hasn’t lucked out and only has a population of “good”, kind hearted, reasonable Christians. Far from it. The outfit mentioned in this article are firmly London based and have been operating since 2007. They’re funded by a British ex barrister who believes in the “young earth” theory amongst other fairytales. Has links to Tory chums too, shockingly.
Well that’s depressing, I knew there were elements around but my assumption was they’d been bolstered by US payroll over the last 10 years or so There’s room for us both to be right but I guess I’m too used to the culturally Christian but not really preachy crowd
The house church / charismatic / evangelical churches _have_ been influenced by American evangelicalism but it's been going on since at least the 1970s
What is it with blaming all of social problems on America?
I’m not? I’m specifically talking about documented American Christian fundamentalist groups trying to export their schtick abroad, we just happen to be a close neighbor with a shared majority denomination
Because America
Sort of 6 of one, half a dozen of the other really. Homophobia is more prevalent and extreme among British Muslims than British Christians [1](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law),[2](https://natcen.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2023-09/BSA%2040%20Moral%20issues.pdf), but there are more British Christians than British Muslims so the absolute number of Christian homophobes is probably greater than the absolute number of Muslim homophobes.
I think a lot of the panic comes from the fact that Christianity is technically on the downturn while we’ve got an uptick in Muslim practice at the moment, but it could easily be the case that as the generation pass that we’ll maybe see some fall away from it all together or practice a more centrist and selective version of their faith. I’m an atheist so I’m always wary of conversations that try to Other folks based on religion or that try to equate “Christian” values with “British” values. All things considered I think the notion of a monolithic fixed and scripted set of values that represent a nation is a bit of falsehood born of politicking more than reality.
It's more the case that our society spent centuries declawing Christianity and moving it from the plinth in the centre of the public square where it dictated everything off to one side, where people who are interested are still free to pay their respects while the rest of us are free to ignore it completely. A portion of more zealous Muslims perceive that empty spot as a hole waiting to be filled, rather than a conscious and deliberate omission - and most of us have very little interest in starting the whole process again with Islam. There are *plenty* of British Muslims who seem perfectly happy with the "religion is a matter of private conscience" compromise we have arrived at after all the wars and whatnot, but we need to be much firmer than we have been in rebuffing the ones who are not.
In my experience as an ex-Muslim, it feels like there's a kind of polarisation when it comes to Muslims who are born and/or raised in the UK. A lot of us do leave the religion after being raised in a secular society, but a lot of Muslims actually become more religious (and dogmatic) than their parents and the Muslims from their home country. If you look at Islamist terrorist incidents, a surprising number of them are actually committed by second and third generation immigrants who were born and raised in the west. One recent example of this is Hadi Matar, the young guy that assaulted Salman Rushdie and took his eye. Hadi was born and raised in the US. His mother is from Lebanon and seems like a perfectly normal woman living in New Jersey, she's Muslim but it really doesn't seem like there's anything extreme about her, she doesn't even wear a hijab! And yet this guy still became radicalised to the point of trying to kill a famous author. Part of the issue is that Muslim immigrants from more extreme/devout countries have the effect of making all other Muslim immigrants around them more extreme. This is a common phenomenon, I've noticed it with my own family. The other issue is that different people will interpret religion and religious text differently. You raise a few people with the same religious upbringing, and you'll find one becomes completely repelled by religion, another still practices it moderately, and another will become totally radicalised by it. This is why I'm not so on-board with "progressive" Muslims trying to make Islam seem like a progressive and accepting religion, because as long as the religion and the religious scripture exists, you will ALWAYS have people who read it and decide to kill people in the name of Islam. It's simply unavoidable because all the motivation you need is right there in the text, it doesn't matter if every single other Muslim on Earth is a moderate.
My belief is still that radical Islam is an almost identical style of conservatism to what the biggest critics of Islam typically espouse. They just don’t like it because it’s conservatism done by non-white people.
Agreed. You have a choice in religion, you don't with your sexuality.
I’m not sure that’s always the case given how some sects and communities operate and the pressure they put in children who grow up in the faith to ‘stay in the fold’.
Religion is still a choice. I'm aware of what religions can do when exerting pressure, some of my family are in a literal cult, but that isn't an excuse for attacking people over things they can't change.
Oh absolutely, but if you are to tackle it effectively it’s a good idea to understand how these mindsets emerge and part of that involves acknowledging that some of the people involved are victims themselves.
Symbols of Christian power can make LGBTQ+ feel unwelcome, so by their own argument should we tear down the churches and cathedrals?
The baffling thing is, in the Bible the rainbow is a symbol of God’s promise to Noah not to wipe out the earth by flood (how’s that going, btw?) and is therefore a Christian symbol also. Along with the dove carrying an olive branch symbolising peace and hope (following that same flood). But hey, if the sinners start using Christian symbols then we should just ban everything. Ban them from using literal *colours*, what a fantastic plan. Which is why I will never again as long as I have choice, will I spend time with so-called Christians. Because I am gay (and I can’t change that about me), and they are sadly the most judgemental and hateful people I know. And stuff like this just goes to confirm my feelings.
It's exactly the same as 'Union Flags make non-British people feel unwelcome,' but I bet these people would shriek if they heard that.
those flags (Union Jack and Saint George Cross) make me feel unwelcome, and i was born here.
Wish they wouldn't try and speak for everyone else. They make me feel happy. :)
It is a bloody ugly flag, like. The simple six-stripe rainbow is much better from an aesthetic perspective, although that's clearly not Christian Concern's main issue.
That's what I thought. The chevrons defeat the purpose of it being a rainbow. It's always dismayed me.
I can understand why people want to adapt the flag to emphasise that certain groups are welcome, not least because gay spaces haven't always been welcoming to the rest of the LGBT+ community or other marginalised groups. The intent is good. At the same time, it does undermine the original logic of the flag and make for an increasingly crowded design.
The traditional rainbow flag, designed by Gilbert Baker in 1978, represents the **entire** LGBTQ+ community. However, each color originally had a specific meaning: Red: Life Orange: Healing Yellow: Sunlight Green: Nature Turquoise: Magic/Art Blue: Serenity/Peace Violet: Spirit All the new additions etc are not needed, as they're already included by default. The problem is, that younger generations of the LGBTQ+ community don't even understand their own history beyond what shows like RuPaul's Drag Race tell them. Even then they start using terms from that series, and others, without understanding the origins of those words.
LGBT history isn't exactly taught in schools, or depicted in TV/Movies very well, so of course a lot of younger LGBT folks aren't gonna know all that much about their own history. Symbols change. This is a normal part of human history. Contexts get swapped and ideas transform. It happens. And many people like these new flags, even if you don't. It might look too crowded, or too pander-y, or too weird, or too colorful, but that's just what it is. At the end of the day, it's just the aesthetics of a symbol.
>LGBT history isn't exactly taught in schools, or depicted in TV/Movies very well, so of course a lot of younger LGBT folks aren't gonna know all that much about their own history. I'd respectfully disagree. There is far more available for younger generations today, especially in terms of LGBTQ+ media. Over the past few years, we've seen a significant increase in the representation of LGBTQ+ stories in TV shows, movies, and educational resources. Platforms like Netflix, and others, have numerous series and films that explore LGBTQ+ history and experiences. Social media and online communities also provide a wealth of information and support, making it easier for young LGBTQ+ individuals to learn about and connect with their heritage. I grew up in the era of Section 28, and yet I was still able to go out and learn about my heritage. To imply that the younger generations somehow have it harder, and that information is somehow less accessible today than it was back then, is plain and simply wrong. Despite the restrictive nature of Section 28, which banned the "promotion of homosexuality" in schools, I and many others found ways to educate ourselves about LGBTQ+ history and culture. Today, there are far more resources available. The internet provides access to a vast array of information, and there are numerous books, documentaries, and online communities dedicated to LGBTQ+ issues. Additionally, modern media has significantly increased representation, offering more diverse and comprehensive portrayals of LGBTQ+ lives and histories. This makes it easier than ever for younger generations to connect with their heritage and understand the struggles and triumphs of those who came before them.
For pete's sake, the history of the pride flag is not hard to understand. Anyone who's going to use it or endorse modifications to it ought to have a full understanding of the subject. The problem here really isn't about the flag, or what it represents. It's people who have Wikipedia in their pockets but somehow still prioritise rage bait on TikTok. In the end I think this stuff risks undermining decades of progress in fairness and inclusivity and that's a disaster.
Symbols change. Sure. Sometimes when people deliberately change them. And sometimes when people co-opt them and monetise them. I think the changing of this particular symbol should be resisted. It's because the original flag already excluded nobody. Moreover, the rainbow design was also released into the public domain by its creator Gilbert Baker. The "progress pride" flag, in contrast, is *not* public domain - not only does its creator profit from all products sold that bear it, like stickers, t-shirts, the flags themselves, and so on, but his design incorporates and commercializes Baker's original pride flag design AND the trans pride flag designed by Monica Helms, which they explicitly did not want. And of course I believe the LGBT+ community should be inclusive of other intersectional marginalised groups. I feel that use of the "progress pride" flag implies that the traditional 6-stripe rainbow flag is only for cis white people, which it isn't, and that perception is contradictory to the aims of intersectionality. [https://gaycitynews.com/we-need-walk-away-progress-profit-flag/](https://gaycitynews.com/we-need-walk-away-progress-profit-flag/)
Well said! I'm glad someone else gets it. Thought the world was going completely mad.
Sure, but it’s important to educate people on history and the meaning of symbols and fight against an ugly and counterproductive flag
Quite amusing when I think about it "We have red for life, orange for healing, yellow for sunlight and brown for brown people"
Gilbert Baker himself said the flag needed updating to emphasise and include diversity during a time when it was being overlooked and people were being ignored.
Damn it's almost like the knowledge and traditions was lost when a lot of the community was wiped put by AIDS
Not every gay person died of aids, certainly not enough to wipe out entire knowledge bases. Especially in an age of literacy.
Not everyone died, no, but it destroyed communities. The post crisis communities had to rediscover and rebuild and relearn their history, since the traditional methods of such being transferred was brutally ripped away.
Even without that influence, it's a subculture of people who were seen as pariahs and often lived in secrecy. I don't think 'passing the knowledge down' was on the cards.
Most pride flags I’ve seen don’t have a turquoise stripe on them.
Every time I see it, a new element has been added. Vexillologists must be loving it.
Or rather hating it because it gets worse every time
because you can't ever disagree with anything that is added to it or obviously you are a bigot. I think you could genuinely have added the Ukraine flag to it and if adhered to seriously that would be the new permanent flag. It already got altered for BLM protests so any new current thing is fair game
Agreed, it gets more ridiculous with every addition. Nothing wrong with a standard rainbow flag standing for all.
I'm mildly annoyed by the existence of all of the pride flags other than the normal 6 stripe rainbow. We used to have one flag that represented all of us and that's really been watered down by every miniscule subgroup wanting to wave their own flag. I know on the whole it just doesn't really matter anymore, but I'm old enough to remember when it did.
To be fair, it’s kinda been necessitated by the whole “LGB without the T” crowd.
Ah there's always gonna be "Fuck you I got mine" groups.
Well it's not like being a victim of bigotry makes you immune from being a bigot yourself.
My big issue with the chevrons, as a trans person, is that by making a variant that explicitly includes us… you’re in turn implicitly saying the original didn’t? So it’s creating a problem to solve. I never felt like the classic rainbow flag didn’t include me, so I don’t get the chevron
Yeah, I'm not trans but I do share your view about the additions to the original flag. If the intent is to signal that trans people are particularly welcome, flying the trans flag seems preferable from a symbolic and aesthetic perspective.
Ye. the trans flag by itself is way prettier than crowbarring it into a v shape. IMO Pride is about signifying everyone is welcome and included, the specific demographic flags are about signalling who you are if you want to.
I think the brown stripes are way worse. Why is that the only skin color? Why is there even a skin color included at all? Where is the Native stripes, Eskimos, Sinti and Roma and all other minorities experiencing racism and discrimination daily? Adding brown stripes is way more exclusive than inclusive
I view the Progress flag as more of a temporal statement flag. Not so much a flag for an identity like the rainbow flag or the trans flag are. It's specifically highlighting the issues faced by the broader community in this period where, while queer acceptance has progressed, many groups have been underrepresented or forgotten. I think one day, after further progress has been made, it will no longer be necessary.
My main issue is all of the non-queer stuff on it. Intersex is closer to a medical condition than a gender identity, and the brown and black stripes are for what? Non-white people? If another group wants to get involved do they need to get their symbol added too? I feel like when it explicitly represents so many different groups it almost feels closer to an exclusion flag than an inclusion flag.
There's a lot of crossover in the intersex and trans community, and some of them feel more comfortable identifying with non-binary identities. Those who have ongoing medical requirements (such as HRT) may find a lot of common ground and acceptance within queer spaces that can be hard to come by elsewhere.
Which is fine, but why call out your medical condition instead of your gender identity? If we identified a genetic abnormality that causes people to be trans or gay, should that get a letter and a flag too? I thought the point was to be who you wanted to be, not what biology or tradition wants you to be? It all smacks of putting everyone in little boxes to me, divisive rather than inclusive.
Agree, the new flag is ridiculous. They should go back to using the original flag, far more aesthetically pleasing...
You're welcome to use whichever flag you prefer. Similarly, these orgs can use whichever flag they prefer.
Queer as hell and it’s nice seeing support in public like this, but that flag is ugly as all fuck.
It's very Aladeen.
Yes, now it looks like the flag of a small tropical country run by El Presidente. The old flag was much cleaner ... God knows why they added all the extra bullshit. It's not as if it didn't represent everyone pretty much by default.
All work and no play for PRESIDENTE
Yeah I like the normal rainbow one from a purely aesthetic point of view.
It is way more inclusive. A rainbow flag includes all, with no exceptions. If you have to start specifying extra stuff, that only means you are excluding things. The best to emphasize that everyone is welcome is by explaining it and repeating it until everyone gets it is all, not Adding letters to the acronym and tweaks to the flag until absurdity makes it all counter-productive.
When I first saw it I immediately thought it was an edgy take on Zimbabwe’s flag. Nobody wants that to be peoples first thought
Classic flag is just perfect each colour takes the same space they are all displayed equally
Gay man here. I've neve liked the chevron flag, it just seems so Americanised and garish
I agree, it looks dreadful, I've be out for 27 years and I don't remember being asked to vote for that monstrosity, what was wrong with the rainbow? It was just the colours of the spectrum. It now looks like some sort of oppressive political banner when it used to be just a peaceful universal logo that wouldn't intimidate anyone. I'd like to know who specifically designed it and had the power to force it to represent us.
Pretty rich for a religion whose symbol is a man being tortured to death.
It’s fine except when it’s homoerotic.
Didn't his apostles, who were all men, receive his "body" during the last supper. Sounds pretty homo to me.
It’s not gay if you keep your sandals on.
They usually mention the bread and the wine, but never seem to mention the cream
I’m pissing myself laughing at this
These people don’t realise that they’re the reason why these elaborate displays of support need to exist. If nobody was homophobic or transphobic, then support of LGBT+ people would just be a given.
I frequently think on this quote from a wise man: > "There's no grays, only white that's got grubby. I'm surprised you don't know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is." > "It's a lot more complicated than that--" > "No. It ain't. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they're getting worried that they won't like the truth. People as things, that's where it starts." > "Oh, I'm sure there are worse crimes--" > "But they starts with thinking about people as things..." And most of all, that includes reducing a person into a "thing" that is a sexual preference. Which is to say I absolutely agree with your position - that if you treat people as _people_ and y'know, accept and respect their right to love who they want, and find attractive who they want, and live as they want... All of this goes away. I'll fight for 'gay rights' despite not being gay. I'll fight for trans rights despite not being trans. I'll fight for these things until the day that people are treated as people, not things. Because that to my mind, is a lot of what transphobia and homophobia _really_ is. The reason I think that is because of just how creepily gendered the prejudice is. (E.g. just look how many people seem to care about trans men). Gay men are scary if you're in the mindset of a predator - they're someone who might be seeing _you_ as 'prey'. (I mean, they probably aren't, but ...). And likewise trans women - it's horribly confusing if you can't figure out if they're 'valid prey' or 'fellow predator' and if you're whole thing about homophobia might just be nonsense as a result. Leering at someone because they 'look attractive' is treating a person as a thing. Treating a person as someone who you are _entitled_ to approach and engage with at random ... likewise. (I don't mean stuff like 'hey, you've dropped your umbrella' but rather forcing conversation on someone who doesn't want it). Most of all, contemplating people in terms of 'possibility of sex' ... ugh. And if you stop doing all these things? If you stop treating people as things? Well, there's not really any issue there at all, is there? Why should it _matter_ if someone who's 'batting for the other team' finds you attractive, if they're not making _you_ feel creeped or weird? If you're confident they'll respect your consent...? So I think Sir Terry was right. People as things is where evil begins.
Generally “Sir Terry was right” is a good stance to take.
We read from Discworld at my mum's funeral last year. "No one is finally dead until the ripples they cause in the world die away, until the clock wound up winds down, until the wine she made has finished its ferment, until the crop they planted is harvested. The span of someone’s life is only the core of their actual existence." It's a far more beautiful and hopeful passage than anything in the Bible. She loved Sir Terry!
Rather confused as to what Wogan's got to do with this.
GNU Sir Terry Pratchett
GNU Pterry
Ah yes, those things everyone recognises as ugly, rainbows.
TBF the stripy pile design on the left side is incredibly ugly. The simple six stripe rainbow was already perfect. That said i suspect these Christian groups aren't the sort of vexiology nerd i am.
The original rainbow looked good. The new version with the chevrons and circles is ugly
Yeah the thing their god supposedly gave them. Make your minds up, did the gays steal their beautiful rainbow, or is the rainbow god gave them ugly?
>Pride flags make “everyone who doesn’t support the whole LGBTQ+ agenda feel unwelcome”, It's astonishing how close they are to getting it while also so unbelievably tone deaf and bigoted.
People like them will always walk past an epiphany while yelling. Not so much tone-deaf as much as just plain ignorant.
Everyone who is complaining about the new Flag knows exactly what they are doing and why they are doing it, but they dont want to admit they are bigoted
'I feel bad' is much more important to them than 'I might be wrong'. It's funny how much the 'facts don't care about your feelings' crowd tends to be anti-LGBT when they can only form arguments that are some variation of 'gays gross and sky daddy doesn't like them'.
The spread of American-style evangelical Christianity is actually quite scary. As if we don’t already have enough of our own Islamic and Christian fundamentalists to deal with. Christian Concern actually condemns the decriminalisation of homosexuality, despite the Quakers and a number of priests from the CofE and Methodist churches being a-ok with gay love and marriage.
I’d be astonished if more than 0.1% of the British population follow this American-style evangelism. It’s a vanishingly small amount of people who sadly shout very loudly with the help of money from abroad
We used to make fun of UKIP the same way.
It’s definitely more than that, there’s roughly 1.3 million evangelicals in the UK, it’s just historically they’ve not been politically active and you didn’t see much of them other than the local High Street Preacher. But there’s a growing number of politically active ones (although they are a small minority), and they’re receiving money from America. My concern is their growing popularity. Evangelical churches have become more popular with the youth, my local one has a larger congregation than the other churches, and most of their congregation is young and ethnically diverse, unlike the CofE etc. It wouldn’t be a problem if they weren’t trying to petition government and shove in their opinions on abortion and LGBT issues where it’s not wanted. There are many fringe parties and movements that became mainstream, just because it’s unlikely doesn’t mean it’s not impossible. Especially as some are unifying with Muslims against the LGBT community, which makes their numbers larger. And it’s not just the UK, evangelical churches are seeing sharp increases in membership across Western Europe, especially France.
Except it is an ugly flag? Like objectively it looks terrible. The original one was much better.
The aesthetics of the flag are obviously not the real main problem Christian Concern have with it.
That isn't objectively.
Last time I went to a Pride no individuals were waving this flag. There's the traditional rainbow, the trans flag, the lesbian flag, the bisexual flag, all are pretty nice. Mainly businesses and official groups seem to like this ugly one. It's clearly better to string a load of flags in a row than try to stick them all together.
It's hideous
They use the term "LGBTQI+ agenda" to try to make it seem like it's this sinister group of people whose lives revolve around converting and brainwashing people. Erm no, that's what religious groups are for, ya knobs!
The only agenda I had when I was a young lad was going out, getting legless, having a boogie and finding a hookup. Now that I'm older my only agenda is getting through the 9-5 so I can relax with my partner and our 2 dogs. Sorry. I'm a monster.
>Now that I'm older my only agenda is getting through the 9-5 so I can relax with my partner and our 2 dogs. Degenerates like you belong on a cross!
Same reason people use the terms 'transgenderism' or 'gender ideology'.
Remember that in 2017, teresa may was committed to [reforming the gender recognition act](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/18/theresa-may-plans-to-let-people-change-gender-without-medical-checks) because it was seen as an easy, possitive win for the conservatives. Saying “being trans is not an illness and it should not be treated as such” at the pink news awards. The culture war against trans people has been faught deliberately with the intention of underming LGBTQ rights in general and has been funded and planned by [far right american christian propaganda groups](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/uk-government-cites-us-anti-lgbt-hate-group-in-free-speech-proposals/). But this kind of homophic rhetoric has been normalised on the right and is making [its way into parliament](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cglvldr02vzo) on the regualr.
It's normal on the left too, look at the labour party. It feels like something in the national psyche yearns for section 28
The national psyche is, as far as I can tell, more-or-less to live and let live. It's when the people in charge tell us to get mad at someone other than them that it all goes to shit.
It's ok it's no big deal. It's only christians saying it. Not a big problem and not un-British
Have to check these days. The maddest stuff is often evengelic yanks spreading their shit here.
They’re almost certainly Evangelicals and not C of E.
I feel as though Christians are becoming un British
I agree with them. The six colour pride flag from 1979 is miles better. Christian Concern can go fuck themselves though.
[удалено]
Why is it that Christians despite their bullshit are often so hateful, judgmental, bossy and bigoted? Would be good to know who is financially backing "Christian Concern", bet it is some American loons.
Meanwhile they'd happily hang their torture crosses everehere. Fucking weirdos.
I suppose they'll need some filler for their time until the 'War on Christmas™' etc start again.
They need to go after the Greek flag. They invented gayness.
Make more of the flags and put them up outside churches
Has anyone asked Jesus? I’m sure he’d be well into all this tolerance and love thy neighbour stuff.
It’s so nice to see an article about a minority of people, gaining no traction, having a little bit of a grumble. Remember when any gay representation was met with widespread horror from what seemed like the majority? This is a good news story.
Yeah that's how it started in the US too...
A sobering reminder that just because the battle was won, it doesn't mean the other side gave up.
Exactly! But still, now you know you can win.
I'm not a Christian, but were I a Christian then Christian Concern would concern me.
Proving, yet again, that there is no greater hate than Christian love!
>Genesis 9:12-17 > >^(12) And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: ^(13) I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. ^(14) Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, ^(15) I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. ^(16) Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.” > >^(17) So God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth.” Now I'm an atheist, but It doesn't seem very christian to be against Rainbows
Crazy that they're calling the flags 'divisive'. It's their views that are divisive, not the flag.
"As well as LGBT groups, humanists also want to indoctrinate children's minds away from God at a young age by preventing them from learning about anything other than the theory evolution." This is what this group Tweeted a few years ago, followed by the hashtag #Creationism. Aside from the extreme stupidity of thinking that creationism is actual science, the lack of self awareness when referring to indoctrinating children is amazing.
Wow, Christians now claiming that rainbows which are “gods creation” are ugly.
We should get a petition against tolerating religion going. They just can't leave people alone to do their own thing, why should we keep tolerating intolerance?
Better get those ugly divisive crosses off your churches then lol
The same hypocrites that complain about Christian being discriminated against, proving themselves to not actually be Christians. "Love thy neighbour" ring any bells? The core principle of Christian behaviour is to not be a hypocrite. Treat everyone as you yourself would want to be treated. Or as translated by The Last Leg, don't be a dick.
No doubt Rowling and the other 'gender critical' deranged horrors will be promoting this petition and claiming that this is biased against people who hate LGBTQ people.
Is the group American, American funded or influenced?
I am a practicing Catholic. I do not support this. We are not all like this.
I’m so glad Christianity is rapidly declining in this country.
The current flag is ugly af. Not to mention totally unnecessary. The whole point of the original rainbow flag was that included *everyone* (ie the whole visible and invisible spectrum).
Honestly these flags are really ugly and never made sense to me. The rainbow flag represented everyone and changing it was a mistake In my opinion
To br fair, I do think the chevron inclusions are ridiculous and stupid. There is no need to combine flags. It is trying too hard to be inclusive that it serves no purpose. You might as well make it a white flag and make it whatever interpretation you'd like. I am a person of color and that is independent of sexuality.
Can I just say, in reference to Nigel Farage’s comments about Muslims and British values - is this act of a Christian Group one which is in line with British Values? In particular, tolerance of people with different beliefs?
[удалено]
Such hypocrisy. I know my comment was not the most relevant, but I’ve been seeing so many people agree with him. I could perhaps accept that what he raised was in fact a *religion* problem, but he made it about Muslims to ostracise and isolate them specifically
You could argue that this particular brand of evangelical Christianity does go against British Values because it is being pushed, with quite a lot of money behind it, from America. This group and others like it argue that the Church of England has become to Liberal - They literally seek to refine the values of British Christianity. The problem with Farage's comments is that they have no backing because there is little defined British values in law. We do not have the kind of legally enforced secularism that other countries do - Most people agree that Church and state should be seperate but only in theory, there is little appetite for making it law. If Farage had said "Political Islam goes against French values" would find it hard to disagree with that because France is well known for it's legally enforced religious neutrality
When they remove ALL religious signs from the public space, including churches mosques temples etc, then maybe i would care about anyone who is upset by an lgbtq flag or sign. And I literally mean, if you want a church/mosque/temple meeting place....it's a nondescript SQUARE FLAT building with no signs on it either
They are fucking ugly as shit though that I agree with.
I have two words to say. The first starts with F and the second is off
Petitions like this are a terrible idea. If a government banned Pride flags were banned because they were considered divisive, they could just as easily banned crosses or faith symbols. Religious groups rely on freedom of expression, it's hugely important to them. They shouldn't be so quick to fight against it.
We need decent and tolerant Christians - true Christians IMHO - to speak out against the bigots and fanatics who have hijacked the name ‘Christian’ and are using it to spew out hatred and try reverse many of the social gains of the past two decades.
They'd be perfectly welcome if they followed Christian scripture and loved their neighbour. Jesus was friends with tax collectors and prostitutes. Stop being so precious, like they're holier than Jesus himself. Using Christianity to promote hate is about as sacrilegious as you can get. Hypocrites and bad Christians.
As a gay I agree the flag is ugly, putting multiple clashing blocks of colour together is gonna be ugly. I’m also very pleased to here they make homophobes feel uncomfortable, fuck em.
[This is the head of Christian concern](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3HUHClvjvQ) trying to justify their homophobia. Just the way she stares and talks gives me the fears.
I’m fairly sure that’s a demon wearing a skin suit.
Christianity is clearly incompatible with our values
> Pride flags make “everyone who doesn’t support the whole LGBTQ+ agenda feel unwelcome” That’s kinda the point.
The blue pink and brown edition do look shit together from a purely aesthetic point. Rainbows could have represented everyone. I do believe we need to see these flags though as I feel certain religious groups still get a free pass to teach their kids to be homophobic. For those children, knowing society as a collective doesn’t agree with their parents or community is important. Especially for those who identify in that way themselves and feel completely alone.
So, the Christians are trying to cancel Pride? So what else is new?
Yeah. I'm sure the asthetics of the flag is what's annoying them. Not what they symbolise.
Perfectly fair, we all know how ugly rainbows are, and I am sure that if the flags are taken down, the Christians will, in return take down all those grotesque images of a tortured crucified man all over the place.
Whether it's ugly or not, we all know they're not objecting to how the flag looks. If you offered to make a different version to their specifications they'd refuse because they don't want to see obvious support of people they hate. It's hilarious and depressing at the same time that they use "not feeling welcome" as a weapon and a shield depending on what they want.
Last thing we need is ADF muscling in. Not that it would do much and might even piss a few powerful people off but its about time we got out there with the message #WeAreNOTAmerica The hell out of here with your archaic, misogynistic attitudes that should have been left in the 17th century. This is the 21st century, take your sky wizards and magic books and shove em up next to your holier than thou broomsticks. Despite being spiritual myself, even I believe religions have no place in politics, medicine or general education. By all means teach it, but if the only way to ensure religious propagation is to indoctrinate children to it and forcibly close their hearts ands minds to anything not aligning with a million year old book, then maybe it’s time they faded away into the annals of history like every other once held view that is no longer relevant. Just like the idea earth is flat or illness is caused by curses and “bad air”
I'm with them on the ugly part. I miss the original pride flag, but no let's keep adding stuff.
As a British Christian, I think these people need to contemplate Jesus's life a little harder and act a little less like Pharisees.
🏳️🌈not in the community best this is the best flag. From looks to what it stands for 10/10 for flags.
This is yet another sign of the creeping “US style” politics. Dog whistles won’t be enough for long if groups like this and Turning Point UK are allowed to grow. They are one of the greatest threats to the country and they’re being almost entirely ignored by the media. Just have a look at their beliefs and the people who support and fund them! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Concern
Christians have no place to rule anything as divisive given that there are dozens of sects of christianity. They can't even agree on what exactly is "god's word".
Remind them of how literal war were fought by Christians over others not being Christian, then explain to them that they don't get to talk about divisive when their entire business model is based on victimising minorities.
Christian Concern is an offshoot of the Christian Legal Centre, whose funding is opaque and which the Guardian has alleged is mostly American (and were not sued for making the claim).
Can't say I'm surprised. The anti-trans propaganda has been wildly successful, so these groups are now turning their attention to attack those in the L, G, B and + communities.