Richard Carvarth is a Christian fundamentalist who wants to recriminalise homosexuality (you and whose army, Mr Carvarth?), impose a total ban on abortion Nicaragua style, and a total ban on sex education. Also, his ideas about multiculturalism are something approaching that of the BNP.

Now, this is really important for all journalists: ask him: does he aceept that evolution happened? how old he believes the earth to be? does he think that the book of Genesis is literally true and does he think that man really did walk with dinosaurs?

This is really important because the answers to these questions, settled centuries ago, tell us how rational or stable this man is.

The argument about homosexuality, for instance, has been settled almost 40 years ago - every scientific institution accpets it's natural, and there is increasing evidence that sexual orientation IS in the genes. Mr Carvarth - an industrial cleaner by trade with no known scientific qualifications, however, claims to have better infromation than all these.
He thinks Bronze-age Palestinian peasants have more to say about this than 21st century psychological and medical experts.

Carvarth complains he has had no coverage, and it is just as well: we don't need Sharia-style Christianity in the UK, thanks. If you think he'll stop with criminalising being gay, think again.

The proper place for a person like this is on a street corner, hollering and ranting and screaming with a placard about the End Times, selling pencils from a cup, and being ignored or laughed at. Certainly not invited to a serious interview about anything.

"Gay lifestyle choice"? Somewhat of an oxymoron akin to "Christian fundamentalist lifestyle choice". Mr Carvath seems to think that civilisation will collapse under the strain of homosexuality, just another deluded Bible literalist. I may not agree with Mr Sephton's politics but I admire his stance on his sexuality and I know he would not use it to advance his career. On the other hand, Mr Carvath is a bigot, pure and simple and has no chance whatsoever of being elected. Hopefully, he will fade back into obscurity.

"hate rant"?
Whatever happened to free speech in this God given country of ours? Doesn't the word 'gay' mean happy but has now been sabotaged by the homosexuals?

Deary me, it is very sad when opinions of only one kind are allowed to be broadcast (i.e the lefty lot!) yet anyone classed as "fundamentalist" is quickly silenced!

I even wonder now if these comments of mine will get passed the censorship board by the MEN?

It is becoming one sick joke when a person who dislikes and disagrees with a lifestyle that has an agenda to promote its own to our children in high schools and uses the media to 'fight' it's dogma of unnatural sexual deeds!

Sorry but as a lad when never even heard of this so called hate speech unless one was reading George Orwell's 1984! Now I wonder what Orwell did see of the future of Britain and it isn't nice!

I support Richard and others who are sick and tired of the left wing media, government and the nanny state trying to breed a paradigm of political correct terminology a.k.a NEWSPEAK!

I resist and hope others will wake up!

Who has been 'silenced' Mr Ashcroft? As you can see, Mr Carvath has expressed his opinion, and those reporting it have expressed theirs. Mr carvath panders to ignorance, to prejudice and to hysteria and he has NOT ONE single shred of evidence to support his position on homosexuality.

His claim on another salford news site was that: "Sociologists, psychologists, doctors, people working in health professions and all these people compiling statistics and evidence, [all show] that the homosexual lifestyle is characterised by disease, degradation, loneliness, debt, emotional problems, premature mortality."

Name me one peer reviewed study that backs up this incoherent babble. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Another ridiculous claim: that being gay is caused by a troubled childhood and a distant father.

This is extremist religious propaganda, long since debunked and certainly not supported by any scientific study, in any peer reviewed journal. It is totally rejected by every professinal body in the Western World.

He doesn't know what he is talking about and he isn't remotely qualified to talk.
When interviewed, he cannot even string a sentence together. I don't believe that, even if he were to see the scientific evidence that supports the evolutionary explanations for homosexuality, he would have the intelligence to understand it.

On the subject of HIV - 31,000 gay men have it in the UK. For sure, every diagnosis is a tragedy. But then Mr Carvath must explain why about 1.7 million or so gay men in the country do not have HIV.

By the way, a 'fundamentalist' is someone who does not change his opinion when confronted with the evidence (e.g. holocaust deniers, evolution deniers). It is necessary to ridicule such people. If we treat their opinions as normal ones to have, that's how we end up with extremists in power. It's really important, because Mr Carvath intends to interfere in the personal happiness of a great many people, and that will not do.

I am writing this not out of hatred, but as an act of kindness to Mr Carvath: please, you are making a fool on a national scale. Your loopy opinions are there for all time on Google. I am hoping you change your mind, in order to save you the £500 deposit you will lose when you are humiliated next year. How many mosquito nets in Africa would that buy?

The more this man carries on, the bigger fool he will make of himself, because I and others will be there to tear his whacko 'arguments' to shreds, mercilessly.

Adrian Tippetts seeks evidence of my credentials to speak out against homosexuality. I refer Adrian and other interested parties to my blog where there is a link to the chapter 'An Onus On Anus' from my book 'Definitely Sexy'.

And by the way Adrian, there are no more than half a million homosexuals in total in the UK. Only 1% of the population practises homosexuality.

It seems Mr Carvath has a serious problem understanding the definition of evidence.

That screed on your website 'Definitely Sexy' - so far, published by no-one other than yourself, is not evidence. What are your sources for the claims in your 'book' - in which scientific publications were these findings published? Who has reviewed your book?

I repeat my question: provide credible evidence, such as a peer reviewed study in an accredited scientific journal which supports your crazy claims.

Are you seriously telling us that every medical, psychiatric and psychological institution is wrong, and you have better information? What qualifies you to make these claims, Mt Carvath? Give yourself a break.

And, also, I'll repeat my previous question, which you refuse to answer. Do you accept the Theory of Evolution, and how old do you believe the earth to be? Don't duck these questions Mr Carvath.

I'm very confident that the assertions which I make about homosexuality in my book (and elsewhere) are correct. My book is authoritative and there are many academic persons from various medical and social-scientific disciplines that will concur with the content.

As to evolution and the age of the earth, these questions are not even remotely relevant to this article, however on this occasion I will indulge you. I'm a creationist, humans are not evolved from apes. I don't know exactly how old the earth is, I only go back to '76 myself!

You’re not answering my question, which I’m asking for the fourth time now: what are the sources of your claims? Which scientific studies prove your claims? In which scientific journals have they been published? Who are these ‘academic persons’ that agree with your findings?

Your answer about evolution tells me a lot about you. And, yes it certainly is relevant to this discussion Mr Carvath, not only because there are evolutionary explanations for homosexuality. Your answer tells me, you have a contempt for science, and evidence in general. (We are not only evolved from apes; we are apes).

We know evolution happened – there is no discussion about that; it’s the most proven theory in science (the DNA record, the fossil record, geology, anthropology, taxonomy... I could go on). The evidence is overwhelming and you reject it. What are all the institutions, the universities and the museums, wasting their time for? Let’s shut them all down, because here is an industrial cleaner in Eccles with all the answers. I don’t think you are qualified to make such a claim.

As for your claims.... to repeat, you use debunked Freudian claims about ‘distant fathers’ to explain homosexuality. Again, there is no evidence for this whatsoever. (Name one study.) If that were true then virtually every teenager growing up in World War One and Two would be gay. Funny how the few statistics you quote (one from Paul Cameron – who nobody, not even Focus on the Family, takes seriously) are from 20 – 30 years ago. Talk about scraping the barrel.

YES, HOMOSEXUALITY IS NATURAL.....
The evidence that homosexuality is driven by genes is getting stronger all the time. For anyone interested, check my interview with Dr Qazi Rahman from Queen Mary University of London, on PinkNews.co.uk. Studies of brain structure and wiring, finger length ratios, startle responses, verbal fluency all show differences (‘cross sex shifts’) between gay and straight men. J Michael Bailey found a 52% concordance of sexual orientation that among monozygotic twins (‘a genetic study of male orientation, Archives of General Psychiatry, 1991). The reason it’s not 100 percent is because of the methylisation of the genes, which I am sure you know all about.

I can go and list dozens of other scientific papers which blow you gay-hate rant out of the water.

As for your claim that ‘only one percent of the UK is gay’ (even at that extremely low figure, you then would have to explain why 90% of gay people don’t have HIV).

The National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (NATSAL) in 2000, sampled 11,000 people. It showed that 6.3% of UK men had had sex with a member of their own sex at some point in their lives; in the previous five years (1995-2000), that figure was 2.6%. We’ll have to assume the figures are constant, as there are no other figures. Let’s take that latter figure. That would equate to 800,000. We are left with 96% of the gay population that do not have HIV. (I am not playing down the seriousness of the disease, and I mean to do no one living with HIV any wrong, but we are dealing with someone who wants society to treat gay people as lepers).

All you do is promote division add to the total of prejudice that gay people – who mean you no harm, and whom you neither know nor understand – suffer. You, Sir, are a disgrace to your community, and no doubt to the majority of well-meaning Christians. Who needs Richard Dawkins to put people of religion with people like you?

I guess you must be really proud of yourself for repeatedly linking ‘pervert’ to ‘homosexual’, in your book. Congratulations. It’s no better than the graffiti one might read on the door of a public toilet. Is this where you get your literary inspiration, by any chance?

I don't think you should be allowed to get away with coming out with obnoxious nonsense, without giving coherent reasons for your beliefs.

Despite the fact that Adrian Tippetts has completely hijacked this article with his fact-less propaganda, I don't actually hate homosexuals, and in fact I have worked for some, had some as friends and neighbours....some of the nicest people I've known, but I cannot and will NOT compromise the "lifestyle" that is practiced and promoted as "natural" to our children which is an insult to mankind.
A line must be drawn, and those pushing political agendas (que Jimmy Somerville) to "fight" needs to be stood up to in the name of decency and Truth.

My conscience tells me that sodomy or homosexuality (being the more PC term) is NOT natural. The anus was never made for intercourse, but for the removal of bodily solids.

Sadly, man's pervertion, being here from time began has been continually banging on and on via the media that being "gay" is normal, to the point that a lie now is widely accepted as a truth!

Repeat the lie often enough and the masses will accept it! This is indeed what is happening!

Dear Mr. Tippetts,

You are simply not of sufficient intellectual calibre to attempt debate with me on this subject. I am right in everything I say about homosexuality. I don't have to justify myself to you.

Nowhere have I seen your paper setting out your counter-arguments to the fundamental statements made in my book chapter 'An Onus On Anus' (which contains many source references).

I find the idea that you think I'm somehow intellectually obliged to debate with you [of necessity, to defend my reputation] laughable to say the least! I hardly think that the mere fact of you being a Guardian writer qualifies you to enter debate with the big boys.

The onus is on you to explain how this behaviour is normal and natural (which is, I think, rather a difficult challenge - given the existence of vaginas).

If you can explain how this behaviour is normal and natural, then I promise that I will give serious consideration to debating homosexuality with you on Channel M.

I don't duck debate - however I can only commit my time to debating with worthwhile opponents: I would take no pleasure in showing you up for a fool.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Carvath.

Hello Adrian,

We meet again! A few points:

1) Homosexual attraction was officially a mental illness until the 1970s, when ‘gay’ activists bullied the psychiatric profession into removing it from their list. Many people still seek help for their ‘unwanted homosexual attraction’.

2) To raise the issue of Mr Carvath’s belief in Creationism (as you know, I am also a Creationist) is merely an attempt to try to plant yourself on the intellectual high ground and does you no favours.

3) Many things can be attributed to our genetics. Does this mean everything is acceptable?

4) Do other people’s feelings, worries and consciences have any part to play, or are we just all to readjust our moral compasses to suit a minority who want to behave a certain way? Should Mr Carvath and I and millions of others be held as moral hostages because your beliefs are considered more worthy in this decadent, hedonistic society than ours?

I'm not sure I understand that statistic about concordance of sexuality in twins.

"J Michael Bailey found a 52% concordance of sexual orientation that among monozygotic twins"

The highest estimate I've ever heard is that 10% of people are gay, so as a conservative estimate, for each twin there's a 90% chance s/he's straight. I'm not sure if you work it out by multiplying the percentages i.e. 90% x 90% = an 81% chance that they're both straight but anyway, it seems like there should be a higher than 52% chance they are.

I'm just wondering if I've misunderstood?

Thanks

It is hilarious to hear Mr Carvath refer to himself as "one of the big boys" in reference to his debating powers, lets look at just some of his efforts and comments shall we to help in deciding how much credence to him.

He refers to women such as the students who stripped for a charity style calender for the blind as "prostitutes" (Search for it on here and look at his terrible performance when he is challenged on his views) the same happened with the recent body-paint march to raise money for the troops too.

He has said that women who wear short skirts (above the knee in his book) should expect to be called "whores" and then goes on to suggest that any woman who has had sex outside of marriage is in fact a whore.

He was recently slaughtered on here for his comments that women who have sex outside of marriage and develop cancer "Have made their own beds" and are somehow deserving for their morals. He then tried to disgracefully use the death of a 13year old girl who had been vaccinated to prove that "He was right and The Advertiser was wrong", when it emerged that it wasn't linked he explained that as a government conspiracy to discredit him!!!

He claims that Sex Education is in fact "Grooming kids for anal abuse".

The numbers and severity of women being abused are a feminist lie according to Richard.

He claims to love (agape) homosexuals but uses terms like "perverts, child abusers, disease ravaged, disgusting etc etc " on a regular basis. Remember there is a world of difference between a reasoned debate on the genetic or morality behind peoples sexual orientation and pathetic hate filled name calling that helps nobody and it's clear where Carvaths outbursts lie isn't it.

Gross distortions and outright lies... sad but to be expected given my candidacy.

Mr Carvath –

Drop the supercilious attitude. Sorry, ‘with the big boys’? Big boys don’t wallow in self-pity about being the subject of a tirade of abuse, simply for being challenged to provide evidence for their opinions, or qualifications to speak on complex issues, such as human sexuality and psychology. Face it, you can’t take even the slightest bit of criticism.

If you think I seek a debate with you on TV, then you are deluding yourself. I’m having this debate with you now, so the people of Salford and Eccles don’t have to debate with, or hear from you any more. Your opinions on a range of issues – like denying even contraception to raped women – are sickening. (Do you actually believe the Book of Genesis to be a literal account of the origins of life and on this planet and of human history? The voters, especially science teachers, need to know about this, too.)

I would be surprised if M Channel – or any serious media outlet - will solicit your opinion on anything, after your comments here, and the rabble-rousing obscenities and innuendo on your blog.

You see fit to attack the dignity and integrity of people, who mean no harm to you or anyone else. Homosexuality is not about sex, it is a natural way that a small minority of people express love. You seek to ridicule, demonise and condemn people for what they are, not what they ‘do’, and to interfere in the personal affairs of people you don’t know, or understand.

By what right do you make these claims, Mr Carvath? If you will not justify your claims, then you’re out of the argument.

In dozens of cases throughout your anti-gay screed in that unpublished, unreviewed ‘book’ of yours, you make claims without substantiating them. Credible sources are those which themselves have been subject to rigorous review. To repeat yet again, who has reviewed your book? Do you even understand the importance of having a paper reviewed? Which credible academics support your claims? Be a grown up and answer these simple questions.

JUST SOME OF THE CRAZY CLAIMS BY RICHARD CARVATH
Claim: ‘Homosexuals love sex education because it is no different to paedophiles’ process of grooming children for precocious sexual activity’. What’s your evidence?

Claim ‘Homosexuals seek to exploit children as an easy opportunity for sexual activity’.

Claim: ‘Many studies have consistently shown that only about one percent of adults is homosexual’.
What does ‘many’ mean? Which studies, compiled when? What was the methodology of these studies? We have accurate studies showing figures of 3 to 5 percent, in any case.

Claim: ‘Homosexuality is not caused by biological or organic factors, be they genetic, hereditary, hormonal, or any other...’
There is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, as shown by the research in recent years by, among others, Qazi Rahman, William Reiner, Michael Bailey, Sven Bocklandt, Lisa Diamond. In any case, why refer to ‘genetic’ and ‘hereditary’ in the above sentence? Little things like this tell me you are out of your depth. How do you know to have better information than all these experts, who unlike you, have had scientific papers published and had their claims subjected to rigorous review?

Claim: ‘Homosexuality is rightly regarded with deep disgust by the overwhelming majority of British society.’
As pointed out By the Liberal Conspiracy blog, this is also nonsense. Cf Pew Research Centre, 2007; 71% of the British public took the view that homosexuality is a way of life that society should accept.

Claim: ‘Homosexuality is often rooted in unhealthy or non existent family relationships...Many homosexuals had a poor relationship with their same-sex parent and so for these people the manifestation of homosexuality in their adulthood is an [subconscious] attempt to compensate by seeking in a same-sex experience the love which was not received from the parent...’

To repeat, this is not accepted by any experts at all. What are your sources for this? No academic study has shown this to be true. Give me a peer reviewed study to support this crazy claim. What does ‘often’ mean? What does ‘many’ mean? These are weasel words, which are not scientific terms. The kind of language you would expect from a 12 year old. Give me percentage figures, and samples that accurately reflect the whole population. Why should we believe you are right and all the world’s experts are wrong?

Claim: ‘Some homosexuals were brought up in an all-female environment’
Again, baby language: what does ‘some’ mean? What about all the heterosexual males brought up by single parents, now and during two world wars? Hiw do you explain their heterosexuality?

As for page 248, about gay people seeking to ‘dominate’ – again, this is just meaningless gibberish.

Claim: ‘Homosexual acts are biologically unnatural’.
Again, the evidence is against you. We evolved to enjoy sex for pleasure – undisputed fact. Straight people will have non-reproductive sex about 99.99% of the time during their life time. Homosexuality is seen in hundreds of other animal species. It’s no more unnatural than using legs to ride bicycles or drive cars, instead of walk. Who are you to determine what comes naturally for other people? To make that claim, you must prove there is a purpose to life in the first place. And until you do, I’ll decide the ‘purpose’ of my own body parts, thanks.

And what is Gay Bowel Syndrome? Who in the medical profession uses this?

Whacko Claim: ‘the life expectancy of homosexual men is 30 years less than heterosexual men’
Where is your evidence? In which scientific peer reviewed journal did this finding appear? Who conducted this study? What was the methodology for this study?

Claim: ‘Christian ministries are especially successful in helping homosexuals overcome homosexuality’.
No peer reviewed scientifi study has shown this. On the contrary, the few credible studies done (e.g. Jones & Yarhouse, 2007) show ex-gay ministries to be extremely ineffective.

As for you claim that gay people are more likely to be paedophiles, no credible academics supports that.

Again, this is just pandering to ignorance and prejudice. You go on to claim LGBT people are not suitable to bring up children. Yet again, studies show LGBT parents to be just as loving and supportive as straight parents. Another baseless claim.

Once again, you prove to be a know-nothing, a know-all and a no-contest. Congratulations on this hat-trick of stupidity.

Crass homophobia and so much hatred shown by Carvath ... but thats no surprise give his idiocy.

I love Mr Carvaths latest post on his blog which is entitled "Carvath Defeats The Guardian's Tippetts"

I now realise that Richard is living in cloud cuckoo land as rounds one , two and three clearly went to Mr Tippetts.

I think that Mr Carvath's latest outburst at Mr Tippets highlights my point exactly.

Carvath is an immature hate filled little man and rather than make academic or intelligent arguments to support his point can only return to schoolboy insults. I understand that as a 33 year old single man who advocates no sex before marriage that he may have certain .. frustrations that might explain his anger but why oh why does he keep feeling the need to share it with everyone

ZX - No there will not be a 90 percent chance, because of methylation. This turns off certain genes, and determines whether the gene we inherit from the mother or the father gets turned on. Although this process is inherited, it has none of DNA’s proof-reading mechanisms, so the genes that are 'activated' differ greatly from one generation to the next. The causes and effects of methylation are under investigation by Sven Bocklandt at UCLA.

Meanwhile, rather than answering criticism, Mr Carvath is going into self-destruct mode on his blog, falsely claiming I refuse to debate him. How pathetic. This is the same person who yesterday claimed he wouldn't lower himself to justify them. He claims he isn't getting a fair hearing from the Salford Advertiser.

These are childish, attention-seeking antics and I call on all media outlets not to waste time giving this fool any more airtime. Though if they must, I'd delight in telling him what I tihnk of him, face to face.

Any 'debate' begins and ends with the warning to keep your nose out of other people's personal affairs.

Whilst I am no friend of the homosexual lobby (as anybody who has read my blog at johneoindouglas.blogspot.com will well understand) no sane person could over-egg the anti-homosexual pudding in the way that is done by Mr Carvath and I am convinced that this man is clearly a figment of somebody's imagination.

Oh how I wish that was true John. Sadly, Mr Carvath does exist. It does seem hard to believe such a vile man would print the things he has done under his real name - but then Mr Carvath is none too clever.

It seems the MEN/GMG/Salford Advertiser really are censoring comments here having several of mine unapproved now and yet many of the 'attacking' type comments from Tippets et al...I wonder why?

Could it be that my statement of NEWSPEAK ve really hitting home here to the SA?

Many of the pro-homosexual diatribes here need not worry when your conscience will condemn you.

Read Romans 1 Mr Tippetts.

Now Mr Ashcroft, why should I take remotely seriously a book by someone who thought the Sun went around the Earth and knew nothing about science, nothing about microbes, nothing about human psychology, nothing about evolution, nothing about astronomy, nothing about meteorology? Are you seriously suggesting a person 2,000 years ago has better information than the experts today? How ridiculous.

You are telling me that you know about the existence of a supreme creator of the Cosmos (a fact which cannot be known). That is incredible enough. But you then claim to know this Creators mind intimately enough to know his opinion about my sleeping arrangements.

How do you know this information, Mr Ashcroft? Do you get personal briefings on this?

Until you tell me how you know this to be true, than you, like Mr Carvath before you, have no place in rational debate.

May I recommend to you, 'Breaking the Spell' by Daniel Dennett.
....and Merry Christmas!

PS I'm not a fundamentalist - you might be right, but the standards of evidence I require are pretty high (e.g. a second coming at half time at Old Trafford, with thousands of witnesses).

Mr. Tippetts says I have no place in rational debate!

We'll see about that.

My definitive account of the recent gay saga will go public soon (and Mr. Tippetts has a starring role in it).