Re: More stupidity from a public sector body? : Tue Nov 06, 2012 12:03 am  

Dally wrote:

I got the percentage from a debate on the BBC (that well known homophobic institution!),

Well it depends who said it, in what context and if it's true not what platform.

Re: More stupidity from a public sector body? : Tue Nov 06, 2012 7:02 am  

Dally wrote:

Taking your point to it's logical conclusion, if we have two sets of people in a tribal society with mutually exclusive views / beliefs and ones that simply cannot be accomodated by the other group of people how should the tribal elders decide whose views should prevail (assuming it is impossible for both sets of views to co-exist through strength of feeling)? If it's close to a 50% : 50% split, then they'd no doubt end in civil war. If it was more like 95 : 5% they'd have to find for the 95% otherwise the 5% would need to be banished from the tribe or face slaughter, In other words, wisdom would drive the elders and the 5% to toe the line.

So your solution is we should become more like cavemen?

Re: More stupidity from a public sector body? : Tue Nov 06, 2012 10:08 am  

Dally wrote:

No one is arguing against that but why vociferous minorities (of all types) be setting the agenda in our country? It is unjust.

No it isn't. A minority, vociferous or otherwise, has the right to be treated equally along with the majority. What is unjust is to discriminate against that minority.

Dally wrote:

Taking your point to it's logical conclusion, if we have two sets of people in a tribal society with mutually exclusive views / beliefs and ones that simply cannot be accomodated by the other group of people how should the tribal elders decide whose views should prevail (assuming it is impossible for both sets of views to co-exist through strength of feeling)? If it's close to a 50% : 50% split, then they'd no doubt end in civil war. If it was more like 95 : 5% they'd have to find for the 95% otherwise the 5% would need to be banished from the tribe or face slaughter, In other words, wisdom would drive the elders and the 5% to toe the line.

Except that is not a logical conclusion. It's a batshit looney tunes conclusion. We don't live in a tribal society, we live in a modern, civilised (relatively) democracy.
Although I would agree that those who believe in discriminating against homosexuals should indeed realise they are in the minority and toe the line.
Discrimination against a minority is not a legitimate point of view that is to be somehow balanced against equality.

Re: More stupidity from a public sector body? : Tue Nov 06, 2012 12:17 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

So your solution is we should become more like cavemen?

That could involve evolution for some on here - hey Mr Coddy?

Re: More stupidity from a public sector body? : Tue Nov 06, 2012 12:22 pm  

Him wrote:

Except that is not a logical conclusion. It's a batshit looney tunes conclusion. We don't live in a tribal society, we live in a modern, civilised (relatively) democracy.
Although I would agree that those who believe in discriminating against homosexuals should indeed realise they are in the minority and toe the line.
Discrimination against a minority is not a legitimate point of view that is to be somehow balanced against equality.

The same principle applies though. When push comes to shove any legislature in a democracy will need to protect the majority if there are fundamental, irreconcilble differences. The reason I spelled it out in illustrative tribal terms was that some people can't see through the chaff of political correctness and indoctrination to the basic fundamentals. It is a fact that rights are granted by society as a whole (ie the majority in a democracy) and if those rights become seen as abused then they will be taken away.

Re: More stupidity from a public sector body? : Tue Nov 06, 2012 12:36 pm  

Dally wrote:

The same principle applies though. When push comes to shove any legislature in a democracy will need to protect the majority if there are fundamental, irreconcilble differences. The reason I spelled it out in illustrative tribal terms was that some people can't see through the chaff of political correctness and indoctrination to the basic fundamentals. It is a fact that rights are granted by society as a whole (ie the majority in a democracy) and if those rights become seen as abused then they will be taken away.

But in this particular instance, which party is abusing its right to lobby for change, and how do the majority need to be protected from them ?

If we are trying to pretend that we live in a free society where homosexuals can freely go about their business without abuse or fear of prosecution (only recently granted), while at the same time being totally discriminated against by a registered charity purely for their sexual genre, then is this a free society, would you accept the same discrimination from Shelter for instance, or a hospice ?

Re: More stupidity from a public sector body? : Tue Nov 06, 2012 12:55 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

But in this particular instance, which party is abusing its right to lobby for change, and how do the majority need to be protected from them ?

If we are trying to pretend that we live in a free society where homosexuals can freely go about their business without abuse or fear of prosecution (only recently granted), while at the same time being totally discriminated against by a registered charity purely for their sexual genre, then is this a free society, would you accept the same discrimination from Shelter for instance, or a hospice ?

The point I am trying to make is that religious charities have long-enjoyed charitable status (for long before the gay rights movement was even thought of). A charity must act within its objects. If those objects encompass a particular religious philosophy (and I am NOT saying that Catholic Care's objects say that) then such a charity's trustees would be wrong not to follow that philosophy as they would be acting outside their objects and so uncharitably.

Re: More stupidity from a public sector body? : Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:30 pm  

Dally wrote:

The same principle applies though. When push comes to shove any legislature in a democracy will need to protect the majority if there are fundamental, irreconcilble differences. The reason I spelled it out in illustrative tribal terms was that some people can't see through the chaff of political correctness and indoctrination to the basic fundamentals. It is a fact that rights are granted by society as a whole (ie the majority in a democracy) and if those rights become seen as abused then they will be taken away.

No it doesn't, in that case the state needs to protect the minority. The majority doesn't need protecting, they are in the majority. Plus there aren't fundamental irreconcilable differences between the majority and the homosexual minority. There are fundamental differences between a minority who believe they should be allowed to discriminate, and the majority who believes in equality.
I'm glad you said that rights are granted by society (ie the majority in a democracy). The majority believes in equality and granted minorities (and everyone) the right of equality, it is only 1 minority (those who believe in discrimination v homosexuals) who, in this case, are opposed to the right of equality applying to another minority (homosexuals).
Exercising one's right to equality is not abusing the right to equality.

Re: More stupidity from a public sector body? : Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:47 pm  

Dally wrote:

The point I am trying to make is that religious charities have long-enjoyed charitable status (for long before the gay rights movement was even thought of). A charity must act within its objects. If those objects encompass a particular religious philosophy (and I am NOT saying that Catholic Care's objects say that) then such a charity's trustees would be wrong not to follow that philosophy as they would be acting outside their objects and so uncharitably.

A charity cannot be allowed to act within its objectives if those objectives are illegal regardless of whether religious fundamentals state that they are perfectly acceptable.

A charity to promote the stoning to death of adulterers would share the same privileges as your example charity were that not the case.

Re: More stupidity from a public sector body? : Tue Nov 06, 2012 7:36 pm  

Sheldon wrote:

A spokesman for the Catholic Church said Stonewall's announcement last night "reveals the depth of their intolerance and willingness to attack and demean those who don't share their views."

Is this a joke?

Why would it be a joke? Stonewall are intolerant. They are intolerant of anyone else's position on gay rights. I remember their first act of controversy - as it was considered to be when they acted it out. They marched into a church service demanding equal rights for gay men within the church. If you think that's moderate or seeking the middle ground then you're deluded. Imagine now if a bunch of straight Catholic priests went marching into a gathering Stonewall found very important and dear to their hearts demanding their own point of view. Nobody here would class the Catholic priests as anything but intolerant.

Stonewall and the Catholic Church are two of the most intolerant and intransigent organisations around today. Neither backs down from their position and so both end up insulting each other, which does neither any credit and certainly doesn't win converts from the opposite side.

Both have valid points. Unfortunately neither is willing to accept that and work on finding a solution to their differences in a balanced way.