"Why are these right-wing christians so unaccepting of perfectly natural and normal human behaviour?"

That, Terry Peers from Bridgwater, is a matter of opinion. There is plenty of evidence saying that homosexuality is down to a choice made by the individual. You just cannot prove that it is down to genetics - there is no 'gay' gene!

All Christians/Muslims/Jews want is the right to speak out, in a non-violent manner against an activity that they believe is unnatural and against God. We are not asking for a license to physically attack or hurt gays - just the freedom of speech to be able to speak God's Word.

People do not have to listen, and they are quite free to oppose us - I, for one, believe that gays should be given the freedom to oppose Christians/Muslims/Jews in a non-violent manner if they so choose. This is about freedom of speech - a liberty which should not be denied in a so called 'democratic' western society.

Joe, London,

well this law is unjust. If someone says something hateful about christianity then they wouldnt get sent to jail for 7 years. It is ridiculous. I want a fair system. Homosexuals are equal to everyone in society and they should be able ot face critisism of their lifestyles just as anyone else who leads a different lifestyle should. There are 2 faiths in england which think homosexuality is wrong and that is chrisianity and islam. Christians and muslims make a good sized percentage of the population and so to get seven years for saying I h8 gays is ridiculous. You probs get less for something like GBH or rape.

piers, hertfordshire,

iF YOU CAN NOT HAVE FREEDOM TO SAY WHAT YOU are thinking, we will become a mindless society with no right to view our own thoughts. Why can't a person have the stand that homosexuallty is wrong, it doesn't mean we hate them, as a Christian I believe wrong is wrong and right is right, but I follow God's teaching, you must love your neighbour. How come they want special rights, does that mean hetrosexualality is wrong in their eyes?. That defeats the obeject and the whole thing becomes a joke.

Nanette Neely, Wakefield, UK

I doubt if the goverment is planning legislation to protect the much derided and now socially outcast ....smokers from verbal abuse !

John, Berlin, Germany

I look forward to future legislation of this type that will protect the much-maligned , social outcasts that smokers have become! It ain`t going to happen though, is it !

John, Berlin, Germany

Banning speech, no matter how vile and repugnant, is a far more dangerous and produces far greater injuries to civil liberty than whatever acts of depravity the speech could ever incite.

Freedom of Speech should be protected at all costs, ESPECIALLY when it offends; whether the offense is given towards religion, government, or another group of individuals is irrelevant.

Protection of offensive speech is the PURPOSE of "Freedom of Speech" regardless of who it offends. It ensures one can say what one will to whomever will listen regardless of the content, regardless of who approves, and, most importantly, regardless of who disagrees. The ability of any society to allow offensive speach is what separates enlightened Western pluralistic democracies from third world states ruled by dictators, potentates and religious fanatics.

If you don't like what is said, there is no requirement that you listen. But you may not censor what you do not like simply because you are offended.

Thomas, Atlanta, GA, USA

This reminds me of that excellent quote from Animal Farm..."ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS." With the appearance of promoting tolerance and equality for all, this law really just gives one group of people the right to suppress the freedoms of religion, conscience, and speech of others.

And Graham in Preston is right on. We all know that this law is never going to be used against the truly violent religious group that is gaining influence in Britain. It's easier to pick on the Christians- they don't blow things up if you give them a hard time.

Jesse Light, Bucks County, USA

Remember the famous Matthew Shepard case in the USA? Though a gay man was killed by two druggies over a bad drug deal, at that time the media twisted the case to become about the supposed persecution of homosexuals. High profile news organizations and personalities openly blamed the supposed "homophobic" crime on attitudes nourished by the religious right's media personalities such as Dr. James Dobson, who teaches the Biblical prohibitions against homosexuality. What if this new law had been in effect at that time and place? Surely Dr. James Dobson would have been brought to trial!

Bryan Leed, Dayton, Ohio, USA

Britain still has a big problem with violence against gay people. This legislation is long overdue. Now anyone who incites violence will be prosecuted.

Richard Littlejohnson, Bracknell, UK

I don't have a problem with this law. Inciting hatred against gays is not justifible even though I personally think that homosexuality is a sin.

There is a huge difference between inciting hatred, which leads to violence, and respectfully and honestly stating ones belief that homosexuality against the Bible. Since Christians should never incite violence I can't see why Christians are upset with this law. Stating ones religious beliefs and inciting violence against a group of people are two different things.

Eric Sloan, Lawrenceville, Georgia

I don't really see what the law will achieve. Attitudes are changing quickly anyway and actions are already covered.

DJ, Midlands, UK

Its getting worse.
Its like bah bah ethnic sheep
The ethnic wall tunnel

So does that mean we cant say poof eventually? So now we'll have the gay squad patrolling the streets locking people up for seven years, while child molesters only get 6 months.
This country is run by idiots!!

Len, argyll,

I recall that the edict of fundamentalist evangelical christianity is to 'love the sinner, hate the sin'. There's the word 'hate' in that sentence in case you hadn't noticed, and in practice hating the sin functions no differently from hating the sinner. It's still hate. It;s still about proscription and attack.

I'm sure the president of Iran would also hate the sin, as Islam is encouraged to do, if there were any homosexuals in his country. Which of course there aren't.

R Clarke, London,

yes I can just see this legislation used by labour against the Muslim reactionaries and not to stop christian churches opposing gay bishops and sex. As usual Labour targets the indigenous peoples and culture of Britain

neil, chessington, surrey

Another ill thought out load of rubbish from labour aimed at grabbing headlines. Right up there witht he human rights act and positive discrimination. And every one keeps voting labour. Fools

neil, chessington, surrey

The Government are trying to fight fire with fire. They did the same with race crimes - has that sorted the problem out? No!

These new laws will not promote tolerance. All they will end up doing is highlighting people's sexuality which at the end of the day should be a private matter to them and not forced on everyone else. Laws like this will not change people's minds but in fact will just highlight differences in sexuality and alienate minorities even more.

If skin colour and sexuality dont matter why do we have laws saying they do? The Government should be promoting tolerance rather than acting intolerant!

Rod Munch, Northampton, UK

There seems to be a massive oversight in this debate... homosexuality is biological. A gay guy can't help the fact that he's gay anymore than a black guy can help the fact that he's black. If the Bible said that other races were immoral (and I know this was used to ban interracial marriage in the US up until, scarily, the sixties) and this bill was to outlaw hatred against non-whites, would all the bill's opponents be saying the same thing?

And to those (not to generalise, but mainly Christians) who say that homosexuality is a choice, in the same way as evolution is a myth and global warming isn't happening... what's the problem? Two consenting adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want.

Mark, Omagh, Northern Ireland, UK

There is a difference between freedom of speech and inciting hatred.

The religious will still be able to harbour their dogmatic detestations, but when their speech causes others to carry out acts of violence against another human being then it becomes incitement.

Anybody who believes incitement is freedom of speech is no better than the criminals who carried out the London bombings and the people who pushed them along that path.

Speech is seldom free and there are consequences for our words - especially when they harm others.

Mame du Bois, Toowoomba, Australia

Is it still OK to play "The Lumberjack" song? Referring to PS-UK, naturally.

Andrew Milner, Yokohama, Japan

I wish my fellow-Christians had as little to say about sex as Jesus did.

This is just Luxury Legislation. It will make MPs feel good, but it will not change anything.

Frank Upton, Solihull,

"Leading gay rights campaigners insisted that the proposed offence would not lead to the prosecution of people expressing religious views. “It will not apply to those who temperately express religious views,” a leading campaigner said."

How does (s)he know?

Kevin, London,

So I suppose going from this logic it'll be against the law to incite hatred of white English hetrosexual males next then? They seem to be the only ones left that are considered fair game.

To quote Voltaire: I may not agree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it.
Spot on I say.

Chris , Northwich, Cheshire

Would it be inciting hatred to say : "God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

This sounds to me as though it could be interpreted as inciting hatred for homosexuals. Would there be anything in this proposed law to make it clear that this is not inciting hatred? If not, then Christians are right to be wary of this law. It could prevent them even from reading out a passage from the Bible (Romans 1:26-27).

You don't have to agree with this passage. You might even strongly disagree with, or ridicule it, or say that Christians are soft in the head if they believe these things. But isn't it going too far to pass a law potentially criminalising people for reading out loud from the Bible?

ACS, Oxford, UK

As a gay man, I believe I am opposed to these new laws. They are not needed. People shouldn't be prosecuted on the basis of their thoughts, but on their actions.

If current laws are not working, perhaps a look at the way they are being implemented is needed. Discrimination isn't something that will just go away if we make more and more laws up. People need to understand that different isn't a threat, and it's ironic to try to do that by threatening them with jail.

To quote Voltaire: I may not agree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it.

Labour isn slowly but surely turning our society into an Orwellian Big Brother state where the wrong thought will take you to jail.

S H, Essex, UK

You are persecuting people. And according to your religion (new testament) that is wrong.

John Cavendish, Edinburgh, Scotland

Actually, you'd be wrong there. Homosexual behaviour is never condoned in the NT, in fact it is mentioned as a sin in 1 Corinthians 9-11.

People have this idea that Christians are homophobic. Christian's aren't homophobic, they're just labelled that by people who don't Christianity. Christians *don't* hate gays.

What do Christians believe about homosexuality, and what does the Bible say? They believe that homosexual relations are wrong, but they believe that all should be loved, as commanded by Jesus. Don't these contradict? No. Homosexuality is listed in the Bible as a sin, in the same way that stealing and adultery are. You can say that what a thieving is wrong, but still love a thief.

So christians love gays as they would anyone else, but this doesn't mean they condone their sin, as they wouldn't with anyone else.

Lewis, Loughborough,

Graham - preston.

You are obviously alluding to Islam and muslims, there is nothing in the statements from govenment to suggest this exempts or is aimed at any perticular religious group

its not a law aimed at christians, to Limit the beliefs of christians or intended to affect christians specificially, but, the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship get on their pedestal first , to express their views, defend their right to preach hatred. and to me ,they constantly seem to say " let us be free to hate, and to incite others to hatred" ..

laws against incitement to hatred allready exist for other things, this just extends that legal standard, and shoudl extend equally , to everyone, whatever sky pixie they happen to belive in.

dan, sheffield,

Do we actually have enough room in the UK's prison system? Whilst I agree that homophobic behaviour has no place in society I also read on a weekly basis that the prison system is close to meltdown with little space for the current amount of inmates we have.

Where do you propose to place these homophobes Mr Straw?

Oh and Mr Straw while we are at it can we maybe have sensible sentences for drunk hit and run drivers and paedophiles instead of the ludicrously short sentences we often see being handed down.

Paul Jones, Barnstaple, England

Once again the government is attempting to take control of public opinion by means of "hate" legislation. What it really means is that anyone who disagrees with the government may find themselves facing seven years in prison. And the guarantee of justice is - the decision to prosecute is taken by the Attorney-General. Yeah.

We are supposedly a democracy, which entails freedom of speech. We supposedly have Habeas Corpus to protect us from arbitrary internment by the government. But none of these things seem to count with Jack Straw.

David Cohen, London,

I am a lesbian. I definitely think that there should be tougher laws tackling homophobic abuses. However, I think that freedom of speech and religious expression is one of the greatest rights we have in this country, and we shouldn't stifle that too much.

I think the Church is wrong to state that homosexuality is wrong, but they have as much right to state that as I do to disagree with it. However, people should not in this day and age be persecuted for their beliefs. Seven years in prison for expressing your opinion or religious belief? Its a democracy people!

Straw said: “It is a measure of how far we have come as a society in the past ten years..."

I can't help getting the feeling that its more of a measure of how far we have come as in the fight against freedom of speech.

Jenna M., Highlands,

I'd like a government that focused on repealing laws and by so doing increased freedom. Most 'equality' legislation increases divisiveness by emaphasising differences rather than let them slip into the background.

Who cares if someone is tall, short or gay?

DavidW, Milton Keynes, Bucks

In response to Mike Poulsen from Reading:

Paedophilia is NOT only a sexual orientation, it is an abusive and expoitative act which disregards the rights of the victims and causes a great deal of harm.

Homosexuality on the other had IS only a sexual orientation. To compare the love and sexual attraction between two consenting adults of the same sex to such a vile and harmful thing as paedophilia is not only highly offensive, but extremely ignorant.

Jenna M., Highlands,

A question for those supporting this and other laws which purport to protect any "minority traditionally marginalised". Does setting such minorities apart from wider society bring us closer to mutual tolerance? Ever read much history? Start here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal

Why can't the objective be a simple society where one individual meeting another doesn't see black or white or Muslim or Jew or straight or gay, but instead sees "intelligent", "funny", or "interesting"? Is it because of a fear that if we are judged as individuals (rather than part of some definable group) it may become clear to all that they are actually dumb, dull and boring? Because this debate is heading that way!

The responsibility of government should be to create an environment conducive to an educated and perceptive society, not legislating groupthink. Stop patronising the public.

(Fourth effort at posting this!)

J, London, UK

Every year large numbers of gay people are victims of violent, including murder. People are literally being killed for being gay. Police statistics show that there is an increase in homophobic crime, which is why this legislative move deserves support.

Mark - University Lecturer, Nottingham,

As a police officer I agree with the view that the law already covers hatred against homosexuals - there simply isn't any need for a more specific one. Why does the homosexual lobby believe that another one is required? I would like to see their reasoned argument.

And, who exactly is "leading campaigner"? Would someone from the Times like to tell us? It would be good to involve them in this debate.

John, Liverpool, England

This proposed amendment to the law is ridiculous as protection already exists. What is wrong with free speech? Once again the government is attempting to curtail freedom. Why put one groups views and beliefs above those of another?

Andy, Preston,

Exactly James Anthony, as with so many laws passed by New Labour in the last 10 years there is something sinister about this.

Poppy Wilson, Glasgow, Scotland

I once asked a gay rights activist if he could name anyone who opposed homosexuality (homosexual genital acts, if we're messing around) and was not homophobic. He refused to identify a single one.

Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK

It might be better to bring in a law so that no one can say anything to anyone about anything then everyone will feel safe

michael, stockton,

under current laws it is illegal to commit acts of violence, harassment or use threatening words or behaviour against homosexuals therefore why is another law needed?

It seems as with the SOA in Northern Ireland that the Government wishes to give extra protection to a minority group so that have more rights than anyone else. I stronly beleive that everyone should have equal rights and passing this law would give an unfair bias of rights towards homosexuals. The UK should give allow for anyone homosexual or christian to be allowed to express their beleives in a non threatening way.

This law would mean that Christians would no longer be able to peacfully express there views on homosexuality while homosexuals could.

Despite politicians promises that the law would not be used to prosecute people who beleive that homosexuality is not right having a law that allows for those prosecuations is dangerous and for that reason it should not be passed.

James Anthony, Dundee, Scotland

I was one of those who campaigned against exactly the same law applied to religion - even though I am a pentecostal Christian. why? because I believe people should be free to express contrary views peacefully and I also believe that truth will make itself clear to those willing to receive it.

I oppose this law for the same reasons as I opposed the proposals relating to religion. Some of the people expressing their ignorance & hatred of religious people on this forum will not doubt be glad that the law was not passed.

Recently, in a case brought by groups in Northern Ireland, the High Court quashed the harrassment provision in recent sexual orientation regualtions stating:

"The belief in question is that the orthodox Christian belief that the practice of homosexuality is sinful...This is not a belief that is unworthy of recognition"

it's nice to see Jack Straw, the Minister for Justice having such respect for judical opinion...

Simon , Birmingham, UK

"Leading gay rights campaigners insisted that the proposed offence would not lead to the prosecution of people expressing religious views."

How on earth do they know?

It is always stupid and dangerous to give a Government powers based on its assertion that they will not be used in certain ways. These powers are left to be picked up and used by their less "benevolent" successors. It took 100 years to get rid of the worst abuses of the Official Secrets Act.

The hate speech laws are a superb instrument for the next left- or right- (take your pick) wing authoritarian government's use for suppression of dissenting voices. Be warned - but it is probably too late to fight this battle.

Charles, Charlottesville,

only peoplEwho want to continue their hatred of others will oppose this law. decent law abiding people have nothing to fear from extending the protection they so freely enjoy to those of us who have to fight (and be murdered for) every step of the way to achieve. i don't want any more "special" rights than the person next door, just the same. is that too much to ask?

Dennis, Hull, UK

It is interesting to note how this suggested law has become a stick to beat the Christian community with. Unlike one other religious group who states openly the Gays should be executed,(and in the countries they control do so) who never gets mentioned. But there again they are another protected minority. To be a Christian in this country now, means that you have to put up with attacks which if made on ANY other minority group would result in a prison sentence. There is an intolerance of any form Christianity building in this country bordering on the fanatical which if allowed to continue, would enable a very intolerant religion to supplant it and then were would the gay community be?

Graham, Preston,

I think you will that this porposed legislation will not extend to Folsom Street, whih is , I understand from your comment, in America.

Minorities of various kinds have been found to need protection. Hence the legislation to cover racial, religous & sexual minorities.

We don't want to return to the bad old days, when landlords or employers could (& did) put up signs saying, "No Blacks", "No Irish", "No travellers", "No Jews", "No queers"---

--- DO WE ?

Reverend LJ Roberts, London, England, UK.

A few years ago I had an argument with a work colleague when he described me as homophobic over my resistance to the equalizing of gay and heterosexual sex at age 16. He was a good enough friend to say this without getting a punch on the nose; his position was coloured by the fact that his younger brother is gay.
I asked him if he agreed with homosexual intercourse at age 14, say between a 50 year old man and a boy of that age. He was totally against it. When I pointed out that was the next step Stonewall was proposing and anyone who opposed any Stonewall pronouncements was ipso facto homophobic he had to agree that he too was homophobic-although of course neither of are.

I suggest that words such as ‘bigot’ and homophobe are classed as words of hatred and banned upon penalty of unlimited fine or imprisonment unless the accuser can prove beyond reasonable doubt that that the ‘accused’ has demonstrated by actions and deeds they are indeed homophobic.

T Fryer, Reading,

I don't really care if you are homosexual or not, that is *your* right to practice your beliefs, but what if I personally don't agree with the popular view that it is 'normal'?

I'm not saying you can't be gay or tell the world that you are, if that is what feels right to you go for it, but what if I personally hold a different view and *might* choose to express it non violently etc etc..

Add to that the fact religious groups appear to be allowed to hold onto their views because religious views should in some way be more special than a personal opinion that is not dictated by any religion and I feel like we are being told yet again what we can or cannot say/do/think in a vain attempt to 'protect' a minority group.

People will always hold different views to others, and idiots will always vent their frustrations in violent ways. Laws are broken every day because people choose not to abide by them.

Gray, Exeter, UK

Christians once again portray themselves as sympathetic to homophobia.

Quite simply, if they do not express homophobic views and do not incite hatred, , then they will not be prosecuted

It seems that for some of them, homophobia is integral to their religion

Mike Homfray, Liverpool,

Saying that paedophilia is only a sexual orientation is misleading and downright offensive to gays, lesbians, bisexuals and heterosexuals. Sexual orientation is a person's sexual attraction towards members of the opposite or/and same sex. It has nothing do with the age of the person you are attracted to. Paedophiles can be heterosexual or homosexual, but the defining characteristic is that they are aroused by children. Animal lovers: Need I say more?Get your facts right.

I highly doubt that religious views, if they do not lead to incitement to hatred (read: 'hatred' not anything less), will be prosecuted under the proposed law. The A-G must also first give consent to any prosecution, and that in my view, is a further safeguard of a person's right to express his/her religious opinion on anyone's sexuality.

Let us not be confused by those who believe that they can say whatever they because of sincerely held religious beliefs. Homophobic murderers are driven by views no less sincere.

Jen. L., London,

To correct "Mr Poulsen from Reading" - pedophilia in not a sexual orientation but a preference within a sexual orientation and in the vast majority of cases involves non-consenting minors. This new law will I hope go a long way to protect consenting adults against such hate crimes that have for centuries blotted our supposedly morally upright society. It amazes me how can anyone calling them selves a 'true' Christian could object to such protection? Perhaps they justify it by quoting from the bible - a book based on manuscripts found in a clay jar in the dessert thousands of years ago and rewritten and re-jigged many many times to suit the laws and cultural whims of the day. How can they justify not protecting another human being against any violent act or words that might encourage one?

Do I detect on the horizon the angry mob of torch carrying villager's running to slay the monster?

Less religion and more compassion for other human beings please.
Colin ( Humanitarian )
Belfast

Colin, Belfast, Norhtern Ireland

Why are these right-wing christians so unaccepting of perfectly natural and normal human behaviour? This embittered minority is gleefully tearing the anglican church apart. It seems to me they thrive on hating.

Terry Peers, Bridgwater, UK

As the Lawyers Christian fellowship rightly point out, there is no need for this law, befause the law already makes it an offence to harrass or commit violence against persons because of their sexual practices.

This sobering fact rasies the question as to what the real purpose of this proposed law is. Christians and others who believe that homosexual practice is morally wrong and a sin are entirely correct to voice concerns about the remit and practical effect of this legislation - what on earth does 'temperately' mean for example?

A free society allows both sides of a dispute to voice their views peacefully. Since the law in the UK already allows this, I for one view this development with significant concern.

Simon , Birmingham, UK

It will be interesting to see what is covered in the clause. After all, paedophilia is only a sexual orientation, so discriminating against it's practitioners may become illegal? And animal lovers may be coming out from the long grass.

Mike Poulsen, Reading, Berkshire

Seven years in jail for anyone who disagrees with my current, transient and ill informed opinions on life the universe and everything is a great idea. Jack Straw pack you bags and by the way what are you trying to distract our attention from with this nonsense?

Tom, Forfar, UK

Religious beliefs are merely viewpoints, subjective at that.

Besides, the Christian view of Homosexuality is most often based upon a section of their holy text which is over-ridden by the latter parts. you know, the latter part where their religion's namesake tries to instil a sense of tolerance and love in 'his' followers. The Christ bit of Christianity, rather than less tolerant rantings of Leviticus.
So, in short, Christians espousing homophobic views are not and should not be protected under the umbrella of 'it's my religion'.
You are persecuting people. And according to your religion (new testament) that is wrong.

John Cavendish, Edinburgh, Scotland

The debate seems to have skewed into one where the protagonists are homosexuals versus Christians, with suitably inflammatory language like 'hate' and 'homophobia'.

This draws the attention away from the real issue, which is the government wishing to control what the people (who are paying them) do, say or think. This proposed bill is both ludicrous and reppressive.

Clive, Carmarthen, Carmarthen

This kind of law is necessary as the current laws are not working. It's not about getting special privelliges, it's about our right to be treated equally, and if introducing a new law to try and achieve that is what's required, so be it.

I must say that I find the title for this story to be somewhat offensive "Inciting hatred against gays...."

We are NOT "gays". We are men and women (people) who happen to be gay. It's called "People First Language", and I think it's about time the newspapers started using it!

Joshua Powell, Farnham, Surrey

Jack Straw's proposed laws create a special class of people with more protection than others, simply because of their sexual behavior. Anyone who seriously believes that homosexuals are, in any way, repressed should look into the Folsom Street fair that took place in San Francisco on September 30. At this event, naked men openly committed sexual acts in full view of children and with police nonchalantly looking on. Allegedly 400,000 people attended the event, and yet it was not covered by any of the mainstream media (TV or print), Christians were mocked in an advertisement for the event that portrayed the last supper as a sadomasochistic event. Britain needs to watch out. With dissenting voices quashed by Straw's Stalinist policies, this sort of thing could and will happen in Britain.

Martyn Whittaker, Poway, USA

I have been abused in central London 3 times in the last 3 months by people who feel the need to inflict their own sexual insecurity onto me, a happy homosexual living my normal life.

Homophobia is alive and well even in Soho in so god knows what its like out of town. I was beaten up daily at school as a teenager for being suspected of being gay. My recent experiences refreshed my fear.

Society needs to tackle homophobia and its extreme manifestations like the murder inciting Jamaican artist Buju Banton whose songs like "Boom Bye Bye" lead their teenage fans to believe its okay to demonise and threaten gay people with death.

Congratulations to Jack Straw on the proposed changes to the law.

Those that oppose this law against inciting hatred of gays are are covertly approving the death threats and violence against gay people that I experienced.

Would the same people tolerate threats to their own children for belonging to a minority traditionally marginalised.

Patrick Lilley, London, England

Edna Wynthrope, Christians never said they hate homosexuals. They simply want the right to express an opinion on the lifestyle, without worrying about ending up behind bars. It is absurd that legislation is making homosexuals an increasingly privelidged group, while Christians are becoming more marginalized, and even have to fight for right to wear a cross.

Maxine, Taipei, Taiwan

No, Edna Wynthrope, Christians aren't saying the don't want to lose their right to hate. They're saying they don't want to lose their right to say that practicing homosexuality is a sin. Not the same thing.....and nothing to do with hating....and by the way, I'm atheist.

James, Monteria, Colombia

It's about time that inciting hatred against people who consume tobacco products was made illegal.

This is now widespread and even state sponsored. Signs are openly displayed in public discriminating against people who have made this life choice. You have to wonder who decides what's right and what's not.

Mark M, Southend on Sea, Essex

I am puzzled as to why the christian foundation believe that this offence would purely focus on inciting hatred related to homophobia... surely this is extremely narrow minded? This offence would also serve to protect -for example- the evangelical christians from hatred incited about their heterosexuality. It's almost as if the christian foundation are focussing upon homosexuality in an act of deliberate repression of anything against their personal beliefs under the guise of protecting their rights to an opinion (which this offence wouldn't actually affect)... Then again they might just need to invest in a lawyer that understands what is actually being proposed.

Anna Strevens, Lincoln, England

Another nail in the coffin for freedom of speech.

Dr Kevin Law, Dundee, UK

Sorry, Christians are sayng they don't want to lose the right to Hate?????

In the words of Richard Littlejohn, 'You couldn't make it up!'

edna wynthrope , london,