If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Homophobe appointed to Equality and Human Rights Commission
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Story.
Quite disgusting. A shame really, Labour has done a lot of good scrapping Section 28 and bringing in civil partnerships but in other areas they've been a disgrace. Their bizarre support of religious schools and city academies - which invite creationist homophobic evangelicals to dictate the curriculum are steps backward...And so is this.
Quite disgusting. A shame really, Labour has done a lot of good scrapping Section 28 and bringing in civil partnerships but in other areas they've been a disgrace. Their bizarre support of religious schools and city academies - which invite creationist homophobic evangelicals to dictate the curriculum are steps backward...And so is this.
0
Comments
I wouldn't say it was New Labour at all, I think it was more the hard work of LGBT activists and the support of Ken Livingston (who, or so I have heard off LGBT activists has always been supportive). The same with civil partnerships, it was all inevitable. New Labour aren't any more gay friendly than any of the other bigger parties.
Yeah, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
I find it strange that Christians are quite prepared to sing "All things bright and beautiful" and not extend the same courtesy to gay people. I may not be the butchest button in the box but I certainly am the most glittery.
The Conservatives led by William Hague strongly and publicly opposed repealing Section 28.
I accept that Labour hasn't ever been particularly enthusiastic - progress hasn't been particularly fast and without pressure from the EU and LGBT activists progress would have been a lot slower...But I really don't think it's true that it was all 'inevitable' and saying Labour isn't 'any more gay friendly than any of the other big parties' isn't fair... Labour has been a lot more receptive to change than the Tories and there's no way we'd be where we are today on LGBT rights if it wasn't for Labour. Maybe the Conservatives would have equalised the age of consent for gay men (but in eighteen years they didn't...) - but there's no way they'd have passed the Gender Recognition Act, Civil Partnerships, Adoptions and repealed Section 28. -- I can't remember the last time I've defended Labour's record!
Btw I don't think there's a big diff between Old/New Labour on gay rights; when it comes to immigration and LGBT issues old Labour types and Tory traditionalists have a lot in common. Blair's Lab govt however has a good record.
Religion has always seemed to have a rather unhealthy obsession with all things sexual. Though if i were gay the last people i'd give a fuck about what they though of me would be the religious.
Not all Christians are like that, not all churches are either. But those that are seem to get quoted more and used in more documentaries because it makes a better story.
True - but those churches seem to be on the fringes rather than mainstream.
By the way, my comment :
I should have qualified it with a "
You know? "All things bright an beautiful"? I'm glittery ... ? Therefore, I must be "bright" and "beautiful"?
No?
*sighs* :impissed:
As for the appointment, words fail me. It's almost as barmy as the idea of Tony Blair, a man with the blood of thousands on his hands, helping to bring peace to the Middle Ea... oh wait...
Iraq has been such a disaster Blair doesn't immediately appear a particularly wise choice...but there's a lot going in his favour: he's generally on good terms with the US and the EU, both of which bankroll the Palestinians (the Israelis too get American money). He's liked and respected by the Israelis, he gets along with Abbas and he knows how to deal with the UN...And he'll have no doubt got lots of advice from Bill Clinton who tried and very nearly made a lot of progress.
I'd say that was a good thing to oppose.
Um - no.
From the National Secular Society:
(Edwards is leader of the Evangelical Alliance).
He's a homophobe.
I think it's lip service, I wouldn't go so far as to call the Labour Party homophobic, but it worries me when their leader objects to Carol Ann Duffy being awarded the Poet Laureate (spl?) because of her sexuality. That shouldn't matter.
I think that it's all down to the activists and Ken of course.
No, I agree they've always been receptive to change, I just believe that it would have happened anyway. But Blair's love affair with Murdoch to me says something...
I also wonder if being a Catholic has an impact on his beliefs.
Nope. It is only discriminatory to prevent someone from doing a certain job because of their beliefs, if their beliefs affect their ability to do the job. A teacher who thought heroin was great would be fine. A teacher who public stated that they thought herion was great wouldn't. A teacher who took heroin on the weekends would be fired straight away. Belief, therefore that everyone doesn't have equal rights compromises someone's ability to do a job where they are ensuring equal rights for all, but he could be fine if he kept it to himself and didn't let it affect his actions. Any public statement reaffirming these beliefs could harm his ability to do the job. And action he took discriminating against a certain group most certainly would.
Similarly, an actively gay person is hardly in a position to tell others that they are going to hell for being gay. A woman who believes in a strict muslim dress code isn't going to make a great stripper. The list goes on. It's not discrimination because everyone can change their beliefs. People believe in God because they think there is a benefit to do so. There is not a person on the planet who is going around saying, "I just wish I could not believe in God." People believe because they want to believe, and since it's a personal choice, they should accept that others can judge their suitability for a position based on that choice (the exception to this is those who are indoctrinated into a religion and denied any information to the contrary - but in modern society, this is relatively rare). Being gay isn't a choice. Having gay sex is a choice, which is where the argument in the church comes from.
Don't get confused SG, that was in no way liberalism.
I don't want to side-track the thread, but i'm presuming you're religious and gay? How do square the two things off, intellectually if nothing else?
EDIT: I was listening to this Radio 4 show last night. Nice to hear Desmond being reasonable and sane on the matter of homosexuality - though of course there were the regular conservative Christian fuck-wits on the opposing side, as usual.
But there's nothing to suggest that he doesn't believe that all men are equal. I agree with you that he would be unsuitable if he didn't believe that. I think he doesn't believe homosexuality is right, that doesn't cancel out his belief in the equality of men. Equality doesn't mean identicalness.
I think to say something isn't discrimination 'because everyone can change their beliefs' is a false distinction to make. By that argument it wasn't discrimination to ban, as we did for a while, Catholics from being members of parliament; it wouldn't be discriminatory to ban Atheists from being members of parliament either because they 'can change their beliefs'. Those are cases of discrimination and they are wrong because Catholics and Atheists are both just as suitable as others to be MPs. What you can't seem to bring yourself to say, is that discriminating is not a bad thing in itself. People are not identical, and it is right to discriminate on the basis of a person's suitability for something.
There are lots of people who are religious and gay...I'm personally not. I drift between atheism and agnosticism.
I guess religion roughly works in two ways for most people; they either accept what they were taught growing up and don't really question it - or they think rationally about it, question it and remain committed to some form of religious belief.
In Christianity and Judaism for example, some denominations see same-sex relationships as perfectly compatible with religious beliefs... Just because somebody is attracted to people of the same sex it doesn't make it intellectually impossible for them to believe in God... (Although, I don't really see how anybody who is gay, intelligent and rational could defend the Catholic Church...)
You seem to misunderstand my definition of discrimination. Choosing someone based on a set of attributes designed to measure their ability to do a job isn't discrimination; it's just selecting the most suitable candidate. It's not discrimination to say that the candidate must have a degree in law to join your law firm, or must not be on the sex offenders register for a job in a school. It's not discrimination to say that the lead character in your play must be white, female and 20-25. These are all things that affect their ability to do the job. What I (and most people, I think) refer to as discrimination is rejecting a candidate for a position because of an attribute that has nothing to do with their suitability to the role. So yes, disqualifying an atheist or catholic from being MP's would be discrimination because it has nothing to do with their job. Disqualifying an atheist from being a preist wouldn't be discrimination, it would just be assessing their suitability to the job based on relevant factors.
I agree. It's only when people profess to believe in a specific dogma (be it Catholic or whatever) that expressly goes against their lifestyle that confuses me. But then gay people aren't the first group who pick and choose which parts of thier chosen book to listen to and ignore the rest, or perform the sort of philosophical gymnastics that would confuse Plato himself to justify it to themselves.
To make any selection you have to discriminate. In effect, when you refer to 'discrimination' you're referring to a person or persons discriminating on the basis of prejudice or bias ? anything, as oppose to logic. Which is what people calling for this guy to be removed are doing, and what some of the same people might confusedly accuse the church of doing by not allowing gay priests.
Everyone knows the CRE is a joke.
:yes: Me too ... I am in an atheist phase at the moment.