|
|
|
|
Anyone got any thoughts on the gorwing uproar on both sides of the line over the Sexual Orientation regulations coming into force in april?
There's a couple of articles on UK.gay.com about the lengths the religious groups are going to prevent the passage of these regulations, it seems anti-gay equality has managed to unite the Christians (both catholic and anglican) Muslims and Jews teeing off against Stonewall, Outrage! and the Gay And Lesbian Humanist Association.
adverts in national papers, protests directed to the Queen and PM, marches on parliament, what does monotheistic religion have against gay people having equal rights?
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
It is not unexpected. Nothing unites people more than bigotry.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... while they rely on dogma.
But why doesn't that make me feel confident of the outcome?
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
because science is subject to regulation, the government is made up of catholics, the person responsible for ensuring our rights is a member of Opus Dei, and dogma is the domain of unbridled stupidity and medieval traditions controled by an institution which believes it has a sole and god given right to tell people how to live their lives
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
> ... while they rely on dogma.
>
> But why doesn't that make me feel confident of the outcome?
Because Blair is a barrister, and doesn't care about anything except winning his case. His only interest in logic is to see how he can put fallacies in a plausible form and sell them to others. And he's reputedly sufficiently technophobic as to be unable to use e-mail ...
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"It is wrong to give legal protection against some forms of discrimination but not against others. Last year's Equality Act gave full legal protection against discrimination to people of faith.
Some religious leaders are now demanding that the protection they have secured for themselves should be denied to lesbians and gays. It is hypocrisy and double standards. They want the law to give them privileged protection and for gay people to be treated as second-class citizens.
If anyone was demanding the legal right to discriminate against Christians, these zealots would be outraged. Yet they want the right to discriminate against gays. They are two-faced homophobes"
there are times you just have to admire Peter Tatchell! calling the entire straight christian movement two faced homophobes publically in a major national newspaper, just wow
i also note that jewish groups are now distancing themselves from todays torchlit protest at Westminster Palace...
quoted in The Times
The Board of Deputies of British Jews, the umbrella organisation representing British Jewry, says that it will play no part in the demonstration and has issued its guarded support for the regulations, which it hopes will "provide a further platform to combat discrimination in this country". The Board issued a milder statement expressing hope that the new laws must not restrict Jewish community members' "freedom of conscience and conviction" at the same time. A Board spokesman said: "To my knowledge, there are no Jewish groups who will be participating in the protest."
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. My faith is strong that there is no God.
2. On the basis of this faith I find it appalling that other people try to justify discrimination against others based upon the supposed word of entities that do not exist.
3. By similar logic I should be entitled to deny access to any goods and services that I may provide to religious groups who behave in a way that is not in accordance to my 'faith', i.e. who discriminate against others.
Does the law support me? If not, why should religious people be entitled to any rights to which I am not entitled?
David
P.S. I'm fully aware of the apparent hypocrisy of discriminating against others because they discriminate against others, and I wouldn't, of course, consider actually doing this because it would mean stooping to their level. I don't think it invalidates the logic, however.
[Updated on: Tue, 09 January 2007 14:07] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i must say, i'm incredibly heartened by the posts on the BBC's "have your say" on this issue. comments from christians and no christians alike, catholics and even one signed by a reverend in support of the regulations, and stating that the protestors don't speak for all christians. its good to know
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
not wholly relevant in this position, yet relevant overall:
"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one." from Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, a popular history of popular folly by Charles Mackay, first published in 1841.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6243323.stm
Gay rights laws challenge fails
New rules outlawing businesses from discriminating against homosexuals have been upheld in the House of Lords.
A challenge led by Lord Morrow of the Democratic Unionist Party failed by a majority of three to one.
He had argued that the rules forced people to choose between obedience to God and obedience to the state.
But Northern Ireland Minister Lord Rooker said it would be "quite wrong" to elevate the rights of one group above those of another.
Demonstration
Lord Morrow's call to annul the regulations, which have applied in Northern Ireland since 1 January and are due to be implemented across the UK by April, was defeated by 199 votes to 68.
The Sexual Orientation Regulations have been criticised by some religious groups who say people will not be allowed to act according to faith.
Hundreds of Christians demonstrated outside Parliament, but gay rights groups say no mainstream religious groups supported the protest.
Critics say the new rules mean hotels cannot refuse to provide rooms for gay couples, and religious groups would be obliged to rent out halls for "gay wedding" receptions.
They also argue a Christian, Jewish or Muslim printer could be forced to print a flyer for a gay night club, or a teacher would have to break the law to promote heterosexual marriage over homosexual civil partnership.
Tory peers were allowed a free vote but the Liberal Democrats supported the government, whose Labour supporters were whipped to attend and vote.
'Obedience'
Lord Morrow told peers: "The regulations make it possible for homosexual activists to sue people who disagree with a homosexual lifestyle because of their religious beliefs.
"They require religious organisations to choose between obedience to God and obedience to the state."
He added: "The regulations threaten to override the conscience and free speech of Christians and others who object to homosexual practice."
Conservative Lord Tebbit said: "Black is about being. Sexual orientation is about being.
"And we would not wish to discriminate against people for being black nor on grounds of their sexual orientation.
"The concerns which are being expressed this evening are primarily about sodomy rather than about sexual orientation - that is doing, not being."
But Labour's Lord Smith said: "I am somewhat puzzled by the arguments that have been advanced.
"It seems to me, in my simplistic way, that what they (the opponents of the regulations) are arguing for is quite simply the right to discriminate and the right to harass.
"And those arguments are being made in the name of Christianity."
'Fence in behaviour'
One of those taking part in the demonstration outside Parliament, Ralph Brockman, a Baptist from London, told the BBC: "I'm concerned that the Biblical laws should be upheld.
"People may have different orientations but we need to have laws that will fence in our behaviour, as it were."
John Studley, a Christian from London, said: "This government is placing sexual rights over religious rights."
But Neil Partridge, a gay Christian man, said: "Everyone has a right to their faith but is it fair to say to someone 'you can't share a bed in our hotel because you are gay'.
"A hotel is a business, surely. I just think some of the people at this demonstration need to listen to the other side of the argument."
He added: "Recently British Airways was criticised for not allowing staff to wear crucifixes and now some Christians are advocating this policy. I think the recent law is a good thing."
Supporters of the regulations say they simply extend to gay people the same rights that had been granted to people of different faiths in 1998.
A High Court judicial review against the regulations in Northern Ireland, brought by the Christian Institute, will be heard in March.
[Updated on: Wed, 10 January 2007 00:03] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The answer, apparently, is that no, I would not be entitled to do that, but that (hopefully, if some bigot doesn't manage to put a spanner into the works before the law comes into effect), in the UK, at least, a religious businessman will soon not be allowed to discriminate against me, either, on the basis of my sexuality. Which is fine by me.
David
[Updated on: Wed, 10 January 2007 02:29] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey David, you stated in your post
"1. My faith is strong that there is no God."
I guess I am happy to see you admit your belief is a faith just like mine. I don't think it is accidental that you said that. My whole point about God and evolution etc has been really just about that; both require faith.
Nothing about either belief is absolutely black and white in my opinion. I am not convinced that life began the way you think it did and would be appalled that anyone would persecute you for not believing the way I think it happened, but that is the problem with religions and all "faiths", there is a tendency to discount all other thought on the matter.
If I can live long enough and find money enough, I would sure like to be able to visit you in the future and sit down with you and have a couple of beers. You are a really smart guy and I admit I just dont have the ability to put my points down the way you do, but I can sometimes get someone to understand my point if given enough time and can answer all the questions to what I say. It is hard to argue some fine points of things when others assume you are rejecting the whole premise and that is my problem. Just because I believe in God doesn't mean I go along with all the things said by others who profess to believe in Him. I am just as angry with some of the things done in the name of religion as you are although you may not think I am since I defend some of the points of religion.
It is similar to the fact that even though I don't beleive we are born gay, I don't necessarily think it can be reversed either. Maybe it doesn't make any difference to you as to the origin of the preference, but it does to me.
Now where does that tendency to ramble come from? Forgive the rambling and ignore most of this. Just put it down to my being a geezer.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alas this fight is not yet over
With a judicial review before the NI High Court, that will no doubt go to the HoL and take ages, and what will be an even bigger fight against the regs in the rest of the UK, the biggest battles are yet to come.
As for the person who said biblical laws should be upheld...
how many of these are enacted in law??
1/ Thou shalt worship no other God except me
Explicity contradicted by the Equality Act 2006, which prevents religious discrimination.
2/ Thou shalt not worship false idols
As Above
3/ Thou Shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain
in part protected by the criminal offence of Blasphemy, but also contradicting by the Right of Free Speech found in the Human Rights Act 1998
4/ Observe the Sabbath Day and keep it Holy.
The prohibitions on sunday trading have long been lifted
5/ Honor your father and mother
Protected only as far as any other person may be free from harm and harassment
6/ Thou shalt not murder
Prohibited by Common Law (no statute)
7/ Thou shalt not commit adultery
No prohibition
8/ Thou shalt not steal
Prohibited - Theft Act 1968 as amended
9/ Thou shalt not bear false witness
Prohibited in Tort, by Defamation, Malicious Falsehood and the offences of Contempt of Court and Perjury.
10/ Thou shalt covert not thy neighbours wife, nor his other possesions.
I especially like the language in this one... his OTHER possessions... lol
not prohibited.
so thats what, 3 of the 10 commandments are upheld in Law... and people, complaining about biblical law not being upheld, are worried about something mentioned in a minor passages in leviticus refering to methods of ensuring cleaniless for entering the temple that even the majority of Jews do not feel has any relevance.
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ken,
>Hey David, you stated in your post
>"1. My faith is strong that there is no God."
>I guess I am happy to see you admit your belief is a faith just like mine.
It was not accidental that I said that; I intended to provoke discussion.
Religious people commonly maintain that God is outside science; there is no way to test for his existence. Come up with a method that pleases someone (at least, until it turns out not to work!) and someone else will say, "This doesn't affect my God, so the outcome is irrelevant". As a hypothesis, "God exists" is not scientific; it's not falsifiable -- in other words, there is no way for it to be proven wrong.
If "God exists" is not a scientific hypothesis, then of course "God does not exist" is exactly the same, because it is the flip side of the same hypothesis! To maintain either with absolute conviction and without justification, you need faith, and the faith is the same.
I'm afraid to tell you, Ken, that I do not maintain, without qualification, and with absolute personal conviction, that God does not exist; what you saw in the parent post is a 'devil's advocate' position. I did not expect anyone to take it seriously. To counter me legally, you would have to prove that the faith used in the logic there was a different sort of faith from religious faith, and as I have just pointed out, it is not. It is just as scientifically dubious.
My actual position is that there is no evidence for a God, no realistic scientific justification for one, no way of testing for it, and therefore, as I live (or try to live) my life according to logical, scientific and humanitarian principles, God is of no use to me. I have no faith, and that includes no faith that there is no God. I am, however, perfectly willing to accept the possibility either way if a valid hypothesis and good evidence for it is presented to me.
I do wish you hadn't mentioned evolution (again), for evolution is not a matter of faith. Actually, let me say that again with a bit more emphasis. Evolution is not a matter of faith. Evolution is a valid scientific theory with a hypothesis which is falsifiable. The abundance of evidence in favour makes it very likely that the theory is correct. But the fact that it's scientific means that evidence against it can be sorted, categorised and used to improve or even potentially disprove the theory. This is about as far from the fuzzy "God exists" as it is possible to get.
I welcome comments from other posters.
David
[Updated on: Wed, 10 January 2007 22:41] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have mixed feelings about this David. On the one hand I agree that people should be able to rent a room at a hotel no matter they are black or gay or liberal or concservative, but on the other hand are we to say that someone has to agree to a principle such to say that being in a homosexual relationship is exactly the same thing as being in a hetrosexual relationship. Even though I think this law is a good thing, I think this is where it starts to get difficult. It is the same as for me to say that you are required to agree that God exists or you can be sued or for you to say to me that I have to agree that God does not exist or I get sued.
Is it correct to say that someone who is renting out a room in his own house has to rent to someone gay? What if the person wanted only to rent to a male or a female as they were more comfortable in that situation? What if you are a gay person renting out a room in your house and the person who applied to rent the room said he was homophobic and you are still in the closet to your family and friends? Would you think the law correct when it forces the person to rent the room to him?
Well as an example, I would not try to become a bartender if I had some kind of strong belief that alcohol was bad or wrong or against my religion since it is a fundamental part of the job to serve it. Is it the same though to say to a church that they are not allowed to choose who can rent their facilities? This is exactly the reason I am against calling a civil union of gay couples a marriage as that connotates that it is to be a ceremony performed in a church. Will it be right to force a church to have that ceremony even though it may go against their religious beliefs?
Trust me, I am not some religious bigot. In defense of myself I want you to know that my two roommates I have just rented a room to are a couple and we get along just fine.
I would not want to be told I had to rent to a gay couple nor to someone I was not comfortable being around, no matter what his orientation. I think that there is some kind of give and take necessary for society to work. I dont think I should be forced to work for a company I dont like nor should they be forced to hire me. I think the idea and law is noble and certainly something that should be the norm, but it should be because people are willing to be kind and understanding and just..........not forced to be so.
Now of course if there is provision made to get around this on religious grounds, we would suddenly find a lot more "religious" entities around the countyside. It sure is hard to legislate morality isnt it?
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
as for renting out your own rooms, the regulations do not, as far as i'm aware, apply to lodgers and the like, but would apply to registered guest houses such as B&Bs.
renting the facilities of the church is the church engaging in a business venture no different than a community hall, or private property. its a fundamental principle of the rule of law that the law applies equally and to everyone. There is no reason why a church's commercial activities should not be regulated the same as every other business.
nor is anyone being forced to rent to a gay couple. Churchs aren't being told they have to advertise their facilities in the gay media, hotels aren't being told to stick notices in the dorr saying gays welcome.
all the regulations do is state that if a gay person applies for a serviice in the normal course of business, it is illegal to refuse to supply that service on the basis of race gender religion or belief, disability age and sexual orientation. (as based on Article 13 of the Treaty of Rome as modified by the Treaty of Amsterdam)
if for example, the gay group applied to use church facilities and wanted to use them for a gay film festival, and the church didn't have the appropriate licence, they are not doing anything wrong by refusing that service, because its not being refused on the basis of sexuality.
if a gay couple ask a hotel for a double room, and its refused on the basis that the hotel only has single and twin rooms, again, not illegal.
nor is there any requirement for positive discrimination, to actively offer your services to the community.
nor, despite what the christian right would have us believe, is there ever going to be any requirement for a priest to bless a civil union, because the regulations only apply to the supply of goods and services in a commerical sense, much as the various consumer protection laws do. private dealings between two people (lodgers for example) and the religious activities of churches are not covered here.
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Um, I ought to start with your last paragraph as I think you've missed the point of my follow-up.
>Now of course if there is provision made to get around this on religious grounds, we would suddenly find a lot more "religious" entities around the countyside. It sure is hard to legislate morality isnt it?
In the UK, there is no provision to get round on religious grounds! It does help if you follow the topic before leaping in.
>Even though I think this law is a good thing, I think this is where it starts to get difficult. It is the same as for me to say that you are required to agree that God exists or you can be sued or for you to say to me that I have to agree that God does not exist or I get sued.
No-one is saying that you are required to believe that God does or does not exist. The law treats all entities, religious or atheistic, alike. Surely that's equality?
>Is it correct to say that someone who is renting out a room in his own house has to rent to someone gay?
I think it depends on whether your rental is a public business or a private arrangement -- but you'll need to consult the rules here. I don't know them well enough.
>What if the person wanted only to rent to a male or a female as they were more comfortable in that situation?
The Black Prince knows this much better than I do.
>What if you are a gay person renting out a room in your house and the person who applied to rent the room said he was homophobic and you are still in the closet to your family and friends? Would you think the law correct when it forces the person to rent the room to him?
Again, I don't know what the rules are here, but it seems like a rather unlikely situation to me. Most of these arrangements are organised on a private rather than a public business basis.
I would assume the rules are exactly the same as if your potential housemate was rude to you, or insulted your mother -- you would be entitled to turn them down on the grounds that you did not think they were a suitable person. And you could do this without admitting you're gay, for it's not just gay people who are offended by homophobia.
Such agreements rarely go to court, and certainly not because of homosexual slurs, so I don't know what the precedent is. Outspoken homophobia certainly does not have the same level of legal protection as sexual orientation, because even if you are homophobic it's something that you are perfectly able to keep to yourself. So turning someone down on the basis of their homophobia is quite different from turning them down on the basis of their sexual orientation.
>Well as an example, I would not try to become a bartender if I had some kind of strong belief that alcohol was bad or wrong or against my religion since it is a fundamental part of the job to serve it. Is it the same though to say to a church that they are not allowed to choose who can rent their facilities?
Yes -- if a church is running a business that provides services to the public, then it stands to reason that it should offer itself to everyone, regardless of sex, orientation, race, creed and so on. That is the purpose of the new law.
You must remember that the churches are already bartenders! They already provide services to the greater community. It is slightly like you, a religious person with beliefs against alcohol, becoming a bartender in the full knowledge of what bartenders usually do, but you discover that you can get away with serving only soft drinks. Then your boss comes along and discovers that you aren't serving alcohol, and tells you that you should from now on. The reasonable expectation when entering public business (taking on the job) is that you will serve everything to everyone, and if you don't like that you have two alternatives: i. put up with it (serve everyone and keep your beliefs private) or ii. resign (stop providing a public service).
>This is exactly the reason I am against calling a civil union of gay couples a marriage as that connotates that it is to be a ceremony performed in a church. Will it be right to force a church to have that ceremony even though it may go against their religious beliefs?
In the UK we don't have gay marriage. We have 'civil unions' which are not the same thing; they do not count as religious marriage and do not take place in a church. For the legal implications you'd have to ask the Black Prince.
Personally, I have no more respect on average for religious beliefs than I do for other people's moral beliefs. I judge them according to the same criteria. If they are clearly discriminatory then I have no respect for them at all. Just because someone thinks that their beliefs are mandated by God doesn't mean (a) that they are, or (b) that everyone else should pay attention to them.
>I would not want to be told I had to rent to a gay couple nor to someone I was not comfortable being around, no matter what his orientation. I think that there is some kind of give and take necessary for society to work. I dont think I should be forced to work for a company I dont like nor should they be forced to hire me. I think the idea and law is noble and certainly something that should be the norm, but it should be because people are willing to be kind and understanding and just..........not forced to be so.
I'm afraid to say that if such things had not been made law, people would likely still be trying to get slaves to work on their farms, discriminating against black people, and women would not have the vote. The law gives people reason to consider what is and what is not socially acceptable. Many people who supported racism never gave it a second thought until they were prompted to.
The Bible appears to support slavery -- does this mean you object to laws which prevent it? (You object to laws which prevent discrimination against homosexuals -- what's the difference?) Or have you conveniently forgotten this because it was made illegal such a long time ago? I hope that the same thing will happen to homosexuality in time.
The law is not ideal but it's a step in the right direction.
David
[Updated on: Thu, 11 January 2007 14:23] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i missed your comments about marriage here
marriage was a state institution long BEFORE the church came along.
there was no such thing as religious marriage until the 5th Century (200 years after the foundations of the church in its modern form) when the church started taking an interest in blessing what were then civil marriage ceremonies. marriage didn't become a sacrament until the 12th century.
it was not until the council of Trent in the 1500s that the catholic church stated that marriage was to be performed only by a priest and in the presense of 2 witnesses. until that time civil ceremonies were still common. (24th session of the council, 1563)
today, marriage once again is very much a civil ceremony presided over by state registrars, not priests. according to the office of national statistics, over two thirds of marriages in the UK are civil not religious.
the churchs great jurisidiction over marriage spans a mere 430 odd years. compared to well over 1200 years of christian religion in which marriage has been a state institution.
i have no problems with not focing priests to marry gay couples in their churchs. i wouldn't want to set foot in one of those places anyway. but i strongly object to not being able to marry in a civil ceremony, and have that ceremony later blessed by a priest of my own religion (who would be quite willing). settling for civil partnerships only enhances the differences and segregation between the two communties. we want equality, not one law for straights and one law for gays. thats a very dangerous path to walk
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the US everyone who is to have a "marriage" in a church must first get a paper stating they have the right to do so; a marriage license. This is of course a civil union in every sense of the word.
I argue vehemetly to make that civil union available to every couple no matter what the mix. I dont see it necessary to allow 3 people to join in a civil union or 4 or whatever.
I think if that were done, the distinction between a gay union and a hetro union would soon blur and both come to be called marriage in a casual way, but not in any official legal way. This has happened in Germany and I think that it is great to see that. I would hope for the same to happen in the US. Too many people pushing their agenda to force one side or the other into their own belief system is the roadblock to it as I see it.
The way you fellows describe things, your law will perhaps work quite well, but I wonder in what way it would get perverted in this country. If you think we do not have some of the nuttiest people in the world living here, then you obviously do not read "New Of The Weird" which is printed in my newspaper every thursday. Somewhat on the order of the Darwin Awards but for people doing stupid things and sometimes the court system affirming their right to do it. You may think that some of the bizaar things I say cannot happen, but I am not so sure.
This is my only fear really and I hope you guys dont really think I am some kind of homophobe..........I dont really hate myself you know!
I think I got some reasonable answers to what I said and I would like to see how it goes now when the law is in effect. My opinion is that it will not be the cause of much discord or disorder and that people will soon forget what all the fuss was about in the first place. I hope.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry David, but I always think of what is the case in the USA and when I saw your response.........In the UK, there is no provision to get round on religious grounds! It does help if you follow the topic before leaping in. .........I realized we are dealing with a bit different set of rules.
See my other comments please as I am not so far apart about this as you might assume.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am sorry for my rudeness in my first two sentences, Ken. I think I read the "if" and "would" wrongly, with the assumption that you thought they were going to happen -- just because something is not the case doesn't mean that it's not worth thinking about if it were!
I have to say that I think the UK is so secular, and the US is so much more religious than the UK, that I don't think you can assume that such legislation would end in the same result in both countries, at least without justification.
>Now of course if there is provision made to get around this on religious grounds, we would suddenly find a lot more "religious" entities around the countyside. It sure is hard to legislate morality isnt it?
This is quite possibly the case in the US. However, most people over here don't have strong religious affiliation, and most people who are religious over here aren't (particularly or at all) homophobic, so for a person to prove that he is both religious and is justified as being so homophobic as to refuse goods and services by his religion rather than his native bigotry would, for the vast majority of the population, be more trouble than it is worth. In America, however, many more people are religious fundamentalists and religion-pushed bigoted views are (as I understand it) much more common, so I can believe that it might happen there.
David
[Updated on: Thu, 11 January 2007 20:18] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ken said,
>I argue vehemetly to make that civil union available to every couple no matter what the mix. [...] I think if that were done, the distinction between a gay union and a hetro union would soon blur and both come to be called marriage in a casual way, but not in any official legal way.
It has sort of happened here. However, the newspapers persist in calling civil unions 'marriages' in quotation marks, which implies that a gay civil union is a sort of fake marriage, or it's a quotation they don't really believe. (In tabloid talk, the headline Vicar had affair with 'verger' implies that he had an affair with someone who was probably not actually his verger.) I don't think this will ever change unless civil unions legally become marriages.
>This is my only fear really and I hope you guys dont really think I am some kind of homophobe..........I dont really hate myself you know!
I don't. My only worry is that you attach too much importance to the accuracy of Biblical texts and use them to justify scepticism in scientific or legal concepts (evolution, marriage) where everyone else uses science and logic only. It's important to realise that for many people Biblical dogma and logic are in no way compatible, especially in science.
Best wishes,
David
[Updated on: Thu, 11 January 2007 20:22] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
iknow full well are laws would never get passed in their form in the united states. i cannot honestly imagine even a democratic controlled congress being able to push this through, especially in a country that still has serious race issues in certain places, and where homosexuality is regarded as an absolute sin by a large proportion of people without thought nor substance behind their belief, but simply because they are told it is so by the voice of god.
the fact that so many states have now passed laws banning all forms of same sex marriage adds credance to the idea that gay rights and gay equality is a long way off in the so called land of the free.
Vox Populi vox Dei.
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I worked out what I did. I skipped over the 'if'. I read:
>Now of course there is provision made to get around this on religious grounds, we would suddenly find a lot more "religious" entities around the countyside. It sure is hard to legislate morality isnt it?
It's grammatically suspect, of course, but you sometimes miss these things if you read too quickly (as I do sometimes).
The rest of my post ('Ahem!') holds true, I think.
So -- my apologies again, Ken.
David
[Updated on: Thu, 11 January 2007 20:36] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the Black Prince wrote:
> Vox Populi vox Dei.
I believe it was Robert Heinlein who pointed out that often the best translation of this phrase is
"My God, how did we get into this mess?" !
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
First of all, my apologies for staying below the parapet for a while – I’ve had health problems for a few days, but things are improving, although my appearances may be brief and irregular for a week or two. Who was that I heard cheering?
If I’d been around, I’d have been sticking my nose into almost every aspect of this thread. Even looking at it in retrospect there’s quite a bit I want to add, so readers may wish to change the channel now!
First of all, whilst I’m firmly behind the principle of outlawing discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, I think that on any rational view the articles to which TBP drew attention in his original post could hardly be regarded as unbiased. The journalistic quality was on a par with our gutter press, and any dissenter was dismissed as hysterical. Now I don’t necessarily disapprove of that; it’s one of the endearing characteristics of the gay press. It’s fun to read, but it needs to be scrutinised carefully. And, of course, if OUR press goes overboard, we can hardly complain if others do likewise!
Next, I have the urge to dissect TBP’s subsequent post in response to my own brief comment. He said:
“Because science is subject to regulation, the government is made up of Catholics, the person responsible for ensuring our rights is a member of Opus Dei, and dogma is a domain of unbridled stupidity and medieval traditions controlled by an institution which believes it has a sole and God-given right to tell people how to live their lives.”
I agree absolutely that regulation of science according to ethics which are religious rather than absolute is totally wrong. If using embryos from cows to culture human stem cells will help us to find cures for debilitating diseases, I am all for it. But the science which supports the view that there is a significant genetic component in determining homosexuality is science past, not science present – and I’m aware of no suggestion that UK Governments of any persuasion have attempted to deny the existence of completed research, even if they don’t agree with it.
I confess that the next bit does rather irritate me. I know that a number of leading figures in the Labour Party are Roman Catholics (Tony Blair isn’t among them, though his wife is a Catholic) but then one could say the same about the number of Jews in the Conservative front ranks. So far as I’m aware, they are not in either case a majority, nor have I seen any evidence to suggest that religious affiliation has exerted any significant influence upon the policy of either Party.
It is true that the Minister responsible for anti-discriminatory legislation, Ruth Kelly, is a member of the Roman Catholic ‘Opus Dei’ sect. I was suspicious about Opus Dei long before ‘The Da Vinci Code’ brought it to prominence, and I remain suspicious. I would even agree that it would be preferable that a Minister with such a sensitive portfolio should not have ties to any particular religious group. However, so far as I can establish, Ruth Kelly has behaved extremely well. It is true that she has a record of absence or abstention from votes on which support for the government line might compromise her religious principles, but she has no record of active opposition, nor has she used her influence to suppress such legislation within her own department. The present Regulations have been drawn up and introduced to Parliament under her authority. I may not like her religion, but I cannot fault her political ethics.
And then there’s the bit about religion. As I’ve said so many times, I’m not a Christian, I’m not religious and I don’t believe in God. Nevertheless, I don’t claim the moral right to dictate what someone else believes – though I’m quite happy to argue the scientific basis for taking a different view. Essentially, if we expect tolerance, we should BE tolerant – so invective should be directed against the misguided extremists, not against religion as a whole.
Moving on to NW’s following post:
“Because Blair is a barrister, and doesn't care about anything except winning his case. His only interest in logic is to see how he can put fallacies in a plausible form and sell them to others. And he's reputedly sufficiently technophobic as to be unable to use e-mail ...”
… I confess real disappointment. I’ve argued amiably with NW about many topics, but I can’t see any sort of justification for this stream of invective. Look at the facts. This legislation was introduced by Ruth Kelly’s Department, in Tony Blair’s Government. It had already been approved in the House of Commons, and was about to be debated in the House of Lords. In the Lords, Labour Peers were instructed to vote in support. Liberal Democrats chose to give their support. Conservatives were allowed a free vote. The opposition was led by the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party – the closest UK politics comes to a ‘religious right’. The result was a Government majority of 131 votes – three to one in favour of the legislation. On what basis, therefore, is an attack on the Labour leader justified in this context?
Moving on to the protestors outside the House of Lords, they were a motley crew of extremists with little or no mainstream support. As Deeej has indicated, they were in essence arguing that they were suffering discrimination by being denied the right to discriminate against others. No sensible person or group is anxious to leap onto that bandwagon!
I don’t (at least for now!) want to get involved in the ethical/moral arguments in the latter part of the thread, but maybe I can clear up some misunderstandings.
Like the rest of the anti-discrimination legislation, the Regulations apply to services provided in the course of business. I haven’t read the ‘raw’ legislation, but ‘business’, which embraces trades and professions, is normally interpreted in accordance with a considerable body of case law. On this basis –
- The celebration of religious liturgy is not a business, so no priest could be obliged to carry out a religious blessing of a same-sex civil union by virtue of the Regulations.
- If a church makes church property available to church groups (Young Wives, Mothers’ Union, church-sponsored youth groups, discussion groups or the like (even if the groups make a contribution to costs) it is not carrying on a business and it is not affected by the Regulations.
- If, however, a church makes its property available for rent by the wider community, it IS offering a service within the meaning of the Regulations and refusal to allow use by a gay-orientated group would contravene the Regulations.
I’m not absolutely sure about the renting of rooms, but I suspect that long-term rental will probably be outside the regulations, but short-term rentals and bed-and-breakfast establishments will be treated in the same way as hotels and will therefore be caught by the Regulations.
The general principle is that if you set up your stall in the open market, you cannot choose your customers. You cannot turn them away because they are gay, any more than you could because they were black, or Muslim. And that seems to me to be an entirely civilised and proper result.
In practice, members of racial or ethnic minorities are inclined to patronise businesses which welcome their custom. I hope gays have the wit to do the same, limiting legal action to flagrant breaches of the Regulations, rather than seeking to provoke contention where it isn’t really a problem.
If you’ve stuck with me to the end, treat yourself to a large whisky! Me? I’m knackered! I’m off to bed!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey David if we were keeping score I would bet that most of the other guys around here would figure it to be David = 99 Ken = 1
I know that you are honest about what you say so I dont ever take any offense about it even if it is directly opposed to what I say at times.
I am probably pretty old in your eyes, but I will tell you that I am still learning and I stand ready to learn from anyone......age matters not at all.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sadly I think you are correct. My contention is that most of the reason that equal rights for homosexuals and a civil union giving equal rights for all no matter gay or straight is not becoming the law, is that many gay advocates seem to push for calling the civil union "marriage" and that creates a reaction with people who are even only mildly homophobic. (If you get what I mean by only mildly homophobic)
If attention is only paid to getting a civil union for anyone no matter gay or not, then demanding that those couples get equal rights and treatment by everyone else, it will come to pass that the lines will blur and calling it marriage will be a moot point with most people.
It helps not to be so confrontational about things like this. Sometimes you can lead a person around to agreeing with your answer by doing it little by little and by taking care not to "push their buttons".
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dammit Cossie I wish I could express myself the way you do it! I agree almost 100% with what you said............actually now, I am not sure I can find anything I disagree with in what you said.
"The general principle is that if you set up your stall in the open market, you cannot choose your customers. You cannot turn them away because they are gay, any more than you could because they were black, or Muslim. And that seems to me to be an entirely civilised and proper result."
Oh Yes, what a true statement. You state that exactly as I belive to the way it should already be.
Now the only place I can find any fault with your reasoning is where you say that a church's litergy is not going to be within the Regulations. In my country things like this are not so clear cut. Some will say that the church IS a business and that a marriage ceremony is just one of the services offered by that business. So you can see where that might go in the USA, what with all the lawyers we have here. This is probably the only thing I see as being a problem with this law or any similar one brought forth in my country.
If the US ever gets to the point where it can pass a similar law, it will TRUELY be a place of freedom for all; it will be interesting to see what happens in the courts at that point. Hate and fear dont die easily.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
> Moving on to NW’s following post:
>
> “Because Blair is a barrister, and doesn't care about anything except winning his case. His only interest in logic is to see how he can put fallacies in a plausible form and sell them to others. And he's reputedly sufficiently technophobic as to be unable to use e-mail ...”
>
> … I confess real disappointment. I’ve argued amiably with NW about many topics, but I can’t see any sort of justification for this stream of invective.
I'd intended it somewhat lightheartedly - obviously that didn't come across well.
If I were seriously to do a stream of invective about TB (which this board is not the place for), I'd probably aggravate my RSI to the point where I could never type again!
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, Cossie.
An intelligent, insightful and fairly reassuring response (and not merely because you didn't criticise any of my posts!).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
perhaps... but full gay marriage has been upheld by some countries you wouldn't ever expect to have legalised it, including Spain and South Africa.
If a staunchly catholic religious country like Spain can pass Gay Marriage, why can a generally religiously apathetic country like the UK not, especially when the margin for passing the civil partnership buill was so high (only 42 nay votes)
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oh my...
do you know why the regulations were implemented in NI, and not the rest of GB?
did you know the regulations were supposed to be implemented nation wide back in November? and that for GB it MAY be now on the 6th April. As per the Education Secretary, Alan Johnson, the reason for the delay is Ruth Kelly refusing to sign off on them. Johnson didn't go as far as to accuse her publically of slowing the agenda based on her religious views, but given the "intense cabinet fight" i wouldn't be surprised if it was mentioned behind closed doors.
Given that she's the one implementing these regulations you'd hope that she'd also be voting on them, but Kelly has so far managed to absent herself from every vote that passes gay rights law and gay anti-discrimination laws.
There have been several reports of Balir leabning towards converting to catholicism, but no idea where he stands. Not sure precisely how many catholics are in the cabinet, though they include Margaret Beckett, and i believe Des Browne (Foreign and Defence)
as for misguided extremists, if we look at what the basic christian doctrine teaches us, then look at the actions of the catholic church throughout history, and today, you'll perhaps realise why i would have no problem calling that entire church misguided extremists, why many people call catholicism a christian heresy, and why many others state catholicism as something different from christianity.
the protestors were endorsed and supportred by the Christian Lawyers Association, the Muslim Council of Britain, and the Archbishop of Birmingham (a senior british catholic). Hardly what i'd call motley or indeed extremist support.
i agree totally with your interpretation of the regulations.
the only areas of contention i have with what you state are Church Sponsored Youth groups. simply because its ambiguous. As i understand it, if the youth group is available to members of the church, and a member of the church is then excluded on the basis on sexuality, that may be covered. I say may, because it really isn't clear as to what footing these youth groups take, and it will vary according to practice. A group on the nature of a school club will clearly be exempt. A group on the nature of the Scouts will not. where is the line? Only the courts will tell us.
ultimately though, i dont expect that case to ever arise in court. it would require a christian gay youth to openly challenge his own church. if the church is the kind to prohibit him joining the group based on sexuality, i don't think its likely he'd be openly gay at church anyway.
AFAIK if you rent a room out to a lodger that kind of thing won;t be covered if its on an informal basis. If you make a professional or commercial use out of it, such as a guest house, or B&B, then it does become covered.
Interestingly though, these regulations must surely mean the end of Gay only clubs. Those big clubs such as Essential and Vanilla in manchester that have gay only and lesbian only door policies must fall foul of discrimination too. Of course, the very nature of a gay bar is such that you don't get many straight people going there, but ii wonder how long before it is that some clever person on the right challenges the existance of the "gay bar"...
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the Black Prince wrote:
> If a staunchly catholic religious country like Spain can pass Gay Marriage, why can a generally religiously apathetic country like the UK not, especially when the margin for passing the civil partnership buill was so high (only 42 nay votes)
The answer is probably rather complex. However, I think it might run something like this ...
Spain is relatively new to democracy (ie post-Franco) and the general mindset of the country is to do with being modern and forward-looking, casting off the repressive shackles of the past. So relatively liberal laws about sex (they have a low age of consent, as well, IIRC) fit with the general outlook of most Spaniards.
The UK doesn't have the buzz of excitement about being newly-liberal. Instead, it has a lot of people who have been badly affected by a series of economic depressions in the 1970s and 1980s, and by a rapid shift away from heavy industry leading to considerable community breakdown in some areas. This means a lot of people in their 20s, 30s, 40s have a feeling of general uncertainty about life, which tends to make people look backwards to an imaginary "golden age". At the same time there is an awareness (and considerable and disgraceful media comment) that the UK is now a multicultural society, and the shared values which were assumed for the past can no longer be relied on.
The Church of England - for all that most people rarely set foot in it - is seen as embodying stability, and it is a truism that most people only set foot in a church for "hatches, matches, and despatches". So heterosexual marriage is still surrounded for many people by the whole romantic / traditionalist thing ... is seen as an ideal state. And perhaps because it is increasingly apparent that many marriages aren't like that, it joins the rest of the fairytale image of a glorious past.
So, according to this analysis, many people want "them" to keep marriage the way it always was, in much the same way as many people want "them" to keep the "listed" street facades when sites are redeveloped, or local shops which are uneconomic. At base, we are currently a country based on nostalgia (aka "the Heritage Industry").
Don't get me wrong - I think that the failure to even try to legislate for secular marriage (between two persons of any gender) was utterly pusillanimous. I think that it would have got through - though with considerably more discontent, public protest, and a much smaller majority. But I can understand why politicians were worried about the public acceptability of it.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah that is sort of amazing isnt it? I wonder if it was due to my own pet theory about the gay rights issue. I feel that a lot of the resentment and effort to thwart gay rights is sometimes due to the amount the issue is pushed by gay rights groups. I have always felt that they should just appeal to a sense of fairness and justice and try to make all those religious people feel really guilty (as they certainly should) for opposing those rights. Maybe that is the way it went in Spain?
I do feel that equality for gays is going to happen at some point in the US but it doesnt help to keep polarizing people on it. Noone in my family knows I am gay (well that may be only my belief) as I have never said, but in talks with them about gay rights issues there is little opposition to it as long as there is no attempt to force religions into some kind of acceptance that the lifestyle is not wrong. Their perception is that we not only want the same rights but to force others to accept being gay as perfectly normal and that is where the problem lies. If we would just back off on that part of the issue, I think the rights thing would pass and after a while the distinctions and all the rest would melt away.
I suppose I am being naive again, but I feel it is an issue similar to leading a horse to water, but you cant make him drink.
So, do you know if the gay rights issue was a hotly contested thing in Spain or South Africa?
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that might be a reasonable explanation.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ken said,
>I suppose I am being naive again, but I feel it is an issue similar to leading a horse to water, but you cant make him drink.
To extend the metaphor to the point of absurdity, would it be better to put an ill horse, one with a chance of full recovery, on an IV drip, or let it suffer terrible thirst and eventually die?
Putting an ill horse on a drip, like legislating against prejudice, cannot be a long-term solution (to poor health or to religious homophobia), but at least it allows the horse a chance to recover, for people who would otherwise be discriminated against a chance to live their lives in peace, and maybe even for the religions to re-appraise their positions.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was sent this rather wonderful link earlier today (well, I'm not a Telegraph reader, those living in the UK will no doubt be unsurprised to here).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/14/wbish14.xml
I think it makes the "Catholic" nature of Spain a bit clearer...
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
brilliant quote here from that article
However, three quarters of Spaniards believe that the church hierarchy is out of touch with social reality, according to the same poll. The situation mirrors that in France, where a poll last week found that only 51 per cent of the population now describe themselves as Catholic.
now if only the church could understand that they are the only people in europe who still think they're in the 13th century, they might understand why church numbers are falling.
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the Black Prince wrote:
now if only the church could understand that they are the only people in europe who still think they're in the 13th century, they might understand why church numbers are falling.
This is something that I implied in my introductory post in the thread on Ethical Maxims. Why don't you visit that thread and suggest a couple of maxims for the post-religious era.
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
