Last Tuesday evening there were two amendments to the Equality Bill giving the right to “conscientious objections” to gay equality measures. They were tabled by Baroness Butler-Sloss, who supported Lord Alli’s later amendment to allow religious faiths the right to hold civil partnership ceremonies and has in the past been a strong advocate of gay rights.
The amendments related to allowing employees the right not to be “complicit with an action or circumstance” which went against their beliefs on homosexuality and giving Catholic adoption agencies an exemption from the 2007 Sexual Orientation regulations.
The last Catholic adoption agency in the UK is fighting for the right to bar gay couples at the High Court this week, while the first amendment was concerned mainly with giving registrars the right not to conduct civil partnerships if they feel it is against their religious beliefs.
Baroness Butler-Sloss said “All sorts of minorities need protection, not only the minorities who are in same-sex relationships. . . We should be able to accommodate various religions and various cultural beliefs. We are a broadminded society, and the Equality Bill should recognise that too.”
On the face of it her comments seemed innocuous but it was clear from her supporters’ views that what the Catholic Church members and some others wanted was the right to discriminate against homosexuals in the provision of services in a way that would be unthinkable if the word ‘black’ were substituted for homosexual. There is nothing to prevent Catholic [adoption] agencies from treating heterosexual couples consistently with their beliefs. All that they are prevented from doing is treating people less favourably because of their sexual orientation.
I thought the amendments reflected a minority ethos in the Chamber and called on the Government to resist them. I do not doubt that that was not the intention of Lady Butler-Sloss, but these amendments were homophobic. Listening to me, my friend Baroness Butler-Sloss heard the word “homophobic” and was clearly upset that I might have being referring to her. I sought her out afterwards to apologise for being intemporate in my wording and causing offence. I should have put my points in a calmer less emotive way…and perhaps I will at Third Reading.
Baroness Butler-Sloss’s remarks which you quote seem to only state the obvious. This debate simply points up the inherent problem with equality legislation in that it has to be discriminatory. You can’t enforce one set values, make it illegal to go against those values, without by that very act limiting values & beliefs falling outside of that definition. But then you said as much yourself in arguing against laws/actions that ‘diminishes the rights of other groups’. Which is why this debate ties itself up in such knots and essentially tends towards which groups/minorities are best at mobilising their influence to make sure they are on the side of the see-saw going up not down.
Croft is on fine form!
“This debate simply points up the inherent problem with equality legislation in that it has to be discriminatory. You can’t enforce one set values, make it illegal to go against those values, without by that very act limiting values & beliefs falling outside of that definition”.
My only way of dealing with this at a personal level is to use the word “distinguish” rather than “discriminate”.
“Discriminating” in the context of minorities
is wrong. “Distinguishing” probably is not!
The police generally ignore minority rights;
The Force does not consider that they need to worry about them, except when one of their number is passed up for promotion.
Their ignorance applies to ethnic minorities,
and the disabled, in many obvious cases.
They are the Law in uniform and they break it with impunity.
My Lady I don`t think one can simply, at times, change one minority for another in argument.
To change gay or homosexual for black heterosexual just isn`t consistent with the argument being presented. It`s a cheap trick and ill advised in these circumstances.
I personally have problems with Gay adoptions, I think children should have a Mother and Father, male and female. I`m not homophobic in anyway having friends and family who are homosexual, their personal life behind the bedroom door is not my business. How children may percieve such things is.
When we refer to homosexuality we are referring mainly to a particular taste in sexuality. Would my Lady be happy with children bought up by parents whose norm was bestiality (at the risk of the moderator this important) ? The difference is obviously acceptability, gay sex is legal the other not. However to a lot of people gay sex is not the norm, it is still not acceptable in their lives. They can accept if others want to be that way, it`s their choice but it is still not widely accepted as being normal, no offence intended.
Children can be influenced very easily and need strong peers, role models so they can develop into well balanced adults. If one creates a situation that is outside the norm for these children to grow up in I think you are heading for disaster. Not so much you but the child.
I have nothing against homesexuality, if that is your choice but understand if you choose that way, nature negates you having children. Since nature negates it, it is therefore unnatural.
I am not going to say that children cannot be bought up by homosexuals, or that if they were they would be any lesser but I have concerns.
From the 1960`s on we had the sexual revolution, which people promoted as openness and that it was good. We now see girls at a very young age having sex casually, std`s are common and pornography is rife leading to young adults delving further and further into deviant sex. This is because society decided it was acceptable.
If we decide that homosexual parenting is acceptable then what are the future consequences that the children of tomorrow will suffer ?
I have strong views on this and they may be in part to my being a victim of sexual abuse by same sex. However I am not known for being homophobic but I have no wish to perhaps one day see young boys being bought up by a homosexual couple who may think it is fine to dress him in gay attire or such, not that ALL would.
The word “homophobic” is easy to throw at people and often it is designed to silence opposition it doesn`t make them so. I have every respect for gay people, they are just people as everyone else, however my concerns for the wellbeing of children far outreach that respect.
I think a great deal of harm can come from accepting that which isn`t the norm or against nature and I will/do resist.
Carl.H
You seem to be intimating that gay people ‘recruit’ others, or at least that children should not even know that honosexuality exists.
The problem I see with your argument is that it assumes that you can tell something about how a person will treat children from their sexual practises, and I don’t agree at all.
As for this:
“If we decide that homosexual parenting is acceptable then what are the future consequences that the children of tomorrow will suffer ?”
What, exactly, do you think will happen?
‘honosexuality’ HAH!
Stupid cold fingers.
Carl.H: I used to have doubts about whether it was right for a child to be brought up by a same-sex couple. However, having since met expectant gay parents – educated, conscientious people, and hearing the preparations they were making, the seriousness with which they took the responsibility of bringing up a child – I’m of the opinion that many gay couples would make fine parents. On the other hand, some heterosexual couples are terrible parents. Just because they have the relevant physiological parts to produce children naturally doesn’t mean they necessarily should – and in many cases, when they do so, it means a disaster both for the child and for society as a whole. Ignoring the gender and sexuality of the parents, any adoption agent would choose that gay couple over many of the parents I see in the town centre each day.
And the idea that it will cause the child to be gay is laughable (although why is this an issue anyway if you’re not homophobic?) By that logic, why are there so many prospective gay parents now given that there were none in the last generation from which they could learn their ways?
There is very little good research into “same sex parenting”, most is biased one way or the other because it is such an emotive subject. The ones I have looked at tend to suggest that 14% of children of same sex parents may be homosexual in comparison with 2% of heterosexual parents. There is also a case to be made that same sex parenting can result in gender disorders or sexuality confusion in the children. There is of course other research that goes further in suggesting molestation figures are higher.
Whilst of course many of you will put the case of just one side, someone has to draw attention to the other. I may not be politically correct in having concerns for children but they are important and should be heard.
For your reading:
http://www.marriagewatch.org/publications/nobasis.pdf
http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_sexpref.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11899016?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_SingleItemSupl.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed
As I stated earlier there is not enough good research into the area. I agree with Jonathon that not all heterosexual parents may make good parents either however if research suggests that children may suffer mental illness, gender disorder because of same sex parenting this needs looking at very seriously.
All I ask is that you give the evidence a balanced view and not a “knee jerk”, pc correct, jump to the defence of a minority view.
Carl H: I’ve looked at your papers and I’m not convinced. In particular, Dr. Trayce Hansen’s work was fundamentally flawed as it viewed national demographics as being correct. Depending on the liberality of the country, studies show gay populations ranging from 0.1% (Australia) and 4% (America) to 12% (Norway) and 15% (Canada). This is likely because the volume of a population willing to identify as homosexual will depend on amount of social stigma a country’s population attaches to the term. Isn’t it simply the case that children brought up in homosexual households are more likely to be comfortable with their sexuality and, therefore, respond more accurately to sexual questioning?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation
http://www.governing-principles.com
Lord Norton, I stated I would attempt to put the case for the other side therefore the links were of that view.
“So on your line of reasoning, a married heterosexual couple unable to have children are unnatural.”
Correct, it`s certainly not a natural/normal occurance.
“The fact that homosexuality is abnormal is not particularly relevant:”
The fact the suicide rate amongst homosexuals is exceptionally high must show a good deal of emotional turmoil if not worse. If and it is if, some studies are true and children of same sex parents do have gender issues that is a concern to me. Understand that having been through abuse for a good many years I am thinking things could be along the same lines as I went through as a teenager. I stated at the beginning about the abuse, I cannot decide whether or not that fact clouds my argument, it isn`t for me to say. The blame for the abuse by the way can be layed in part at the door of the Catholic Church.
@ Governing Principles who said
“Isn’t it simply the case that children brought up in homosexual households are more likely to be comfortable with their sexuality and, therefore, respond more accurately to sexual questioning?”
Again we come to studies and I`m afraid the factual knowledge is still missing. I am hopeful that a British study maybe done as I would find this more neutral than the American ones would seem. If as you say the same sex children are more comfortable with their sexuality then I`m presuming heterosexual children aren`t in your view. Are you stating that we have a lot more closet homosexuals than we think ?
Governing Principle
I would not be happy with the stats from wiki in the link you provided, a lot of which seem to interpret any type of homosexual activity as a person being so. Teenagers are prone to experiment and concluding that people ARE homosexual from this will provide errors.
I would not accept as fact a lot of those figures.
Speaking of figures, 96% of sexual abuse is by men, men are known to think often with their genitals. Whilst I agree that at present that is almost certainly all heterosexual men this is possibly because they have the access to children. If we carry male figures over to homosexual parenting with predominantly male friends I believe their is cause for a great deal of concern. Add in to that the evident promiscuity of homosexuals and the chances of children being abused multiply greatly.
I fully realise I will get crucified for stating such but it does make sense.
Carl H: I was not trying to offer you the “correct” demographics.
The point I was making that there are no good demographics stats. Dr Hansen’s work effectively argues that homosexual parents turn their children gay on the basis that that more of their children self-identify than the average population. However, there are no good stats for amount of gay people in average population. Therefore her argument does not work.
http://www.governing-principles.com
To recap; your arguments are:
There isn’t much research.
Some homosexual parents make their children screwy.
Some homosexual children get molested.
Some homosexual parents aren’t good parents.
Therefore it should be banned.
This may come as a shock to you… but some heterosexual parents make their children screwy, some let their children get molested and, the heavens forbid, some heterosexual parents aren’t good parents.
If you wish to ban the homosexuals on the grounds that some are like that, then you must also advocate the banning of all parenthood.
But I’m sure you’ll agree, that we’d run out of people in several decades.
Further from you:
-Suicide rates amongst homosexuals are higher thus, they are in greater emotional turmoil
I think we can probably blame this more on the rest of society.
Imagine you live in a world where you feel that 6 billion people hate you, despise you, call you unnatural, just because of who you feel attracted to.
That’s a lot of hate they’re feeling. Is it any wonder the suicide rate is higher?
“Men are known to think often with their genitals”
Some men do. Some women do. Some people do.
Again, this comes back to the above; should we simply ban parents, and ban children?
Just because some people cause abuse?
And yes. I think we do have a lot more “closet homosexuals than we think”.
If society doesn’t accept it, more is going to be hidden.
Society doesn’t accept murder, abuse, or animal cruelty; to name but a few things.
As you may notice, you don’t get many people coming out and declaring to the world “I just killed Frank. Good eh?”
Society does not accept that.
Equally, every homosexual doesn’t declare it for the same reason. When society says that it is a crime to be homosexual, it makes it feel easier to make the hidden ‘crime’ stay hidden.
Anyhow, if you’re stating:
Twice the fathers, means twice the chance of abuse;
Homosexual men are more promiscuous leading to a further chance; and
That homosexual men mostly have male friends, meaning twice the men in the life.
I would counter-postulate that the majority of homosexual males prefer the company of other homosexual males, but as they aren’t in great supply, prefer female friends, who are; and who prefer males who aren’t going to treat them as a sex object e.g. homosexual males, heterosexual females.
I’ve seen the promiscuity of male homosexuals. I’ve seen the promiscuity of female homosexuals, I’ve seen the promiscuity of male and female heterosexuals.
All first hand.
Humans are animals. And animals are driven to breed.
Again I postulate – if you are going to state that for these reasons parenthood for homosexuals should be banned, then you cannot ban one without banning heterosexuals, because the argument applies to both sides.
A few bad apples does not make the entire crop blighted.
“I am concerned at protecting children from what I know may harm them forever. I am concerned that children through bad practice may become sexually confused (at least), spending a lifetime with regrets or worse like a good friend totally confused and committing suicide.”
I am concerned about protecting children from an oppressive society which is already hurting them forever. I am concerned that this bad practice causes them to be sexually hidden, spending a lifetime with regrets, or worse – totally confused and committing suicide. Which, as you already stated, they are.
There has to be a toss up between protection and exclusion.
Which is the greater evil?
The oppressive society that does not accept people simply because of who they find consentual, mutual love in; or
The free society that just does not accept child abuse.
It happens. We know it happens. That is why there are already laws which cover the protection of children from adults.
Unless you would suggest that the majority of males abuse children, and the majority of children of same sex parents become sexually confused; then ‘allowing’ a minority of a minority the opportunity to abuse, or the minority of a minority the possibility of confusing children, in return for allowing the minority the opportunity to have children of their own.
And the opportunity for children who would not otherwise have parents to have ones that will love them.
Unfortunately, I’ve yet to find a point of yours that couldn’t apply to children of heterosexual parents.
As I final thought I will leave you with this –
If, as you state, single sex parents is bad for children, that it is wrong and should be outlawed completely, regardless of anything else I have said, then you must also advocate outlawing the greatest number of single sex parents already out there.
Being the single mothers and fathers out there.
Who could be even worse for children growing up, as they only have one parent, one source of income, half the possibility of parental love, half the people to be parented by, and possibly see them less than half as much, as they may be working harder to raise those children.
This thread is getting awfully difficult to follow now.
I had made a decision to withdraw early yesterday as to be honest we`re probably covering argument that has been done ad infinitum, but….
@ Christian Cole who said
“I think we can probably blame this more on the rest of society.
Imagine you live in a world where you feel that 6 billion people hate you, despise you, call you unnatural, just because of who you feel attracted to.”
That simply isn`t true anymore, Gay pride weeks in various towns are the centre of attraction for all sexes. There are a few bigots and homophobes maybe but I do not believe Homosexuals are oppressed, certainly not the ones I know. It is all to easy to pull the discrimination card, we see it done all the time ” You only pulled me over cos I`m……….”.
Your whole argument seem`s based on the homosexuals are oppressed line and it doesn`t wash with me I`m afraid. Homosexuals may feel paranoid, they may feel oppressed but it doesn`t make it so.
My argument is based on risk factors, you state that the risk`s as they are, are acceptable to you, I say they aren`t from my perspective.
I would address more of your post but continuous scrolling up and down this morning seem`s to be irritating me.
The problem with the change in the law has been the knock on effect that in only recent years
s****y and b*****y have been legalised as unenforcable.
I suppose they call it cancer, when the consequences of such practices are weighed in the balance.
I am in favour of Gay rights, and the Butler Sloss amendment.
As an afterthought, armies have gone to war in the past, organized as civil partnership style couples, prepared to fight to the death for each other.
Carl H: So on your line of reasoning, a married heterosexual couple unable to have children are unnatural. The fact that homosexuality is abnormal is not particularly relevant: anyone who is left-handed is abnormal. So in this country is anyone who is male.
Carl H: Where was the first paper you list actually published? The copy you link to has been disseminated by an organisation that hardly classes as neutral and therefore falls foul of one of the criteria listed.
Carl H: You claimed not being able to have children was unnatural, not that it was not a normal occurence. Are you now saying being left-handed, or black, is unnatural? It is no wonder that suicide rates among gays has been higher than average given the oppresive social environment which they have had to endure. Fortunately, that has changed and is changing but there is clearly some way to go. Are you able to say where the first paper you list has actually been published?
My noble Lord Norton, I`m afraid we are never going to agree on this.
The first paper was published by Marriage Law Watch, Washington DC and you are obviously trying to get at that the research may have been deliberately one sided. The conclusions of the paper do not appear to me to be one sided.
I have seen first hand the promiscuity of male homosexuals, the predatory nature that is seen in increasing male rape figures and I am concerned for children who maybe at risk.
Now my noble Lord is doing as he feels he should in defending a minority group against what he feels is a bigot/homophobe and is to be commended for his effort. I feel however he is misguided, based on my own experiences.
I cannot give hard factual evidence in terms of research as we already know there is not good research in the field, however my Lord`s mind is already shut. Until in the future there is good research the subject is a matter for opinions, mine hasn`t changed.
The promiscuity of male homosexuals,the predominance of sex in their lives, the predatory nature in my mind does not make for good parenting, infact I feel puts children at risk.
You are obviously concerned about protecting a minority from what you see as bigots, I am concerned at protecting children from what I know may harm them forever. I am concerned that children through bad practice may become sexually confused (at least), spending a lifetime with regrets or worse like a good friend totally confused and committing suicide.
I am not alone in thinking that adoption by male practising homosexuals is wrong, some are, some are not homophobes. I do not fear homosexuals, nor do I dislike them if you wish to call me names please do so, it doesn`t hurt. I have an opinion, it is equally as valid as yours it may not be politically correct but I do not care, it is probably in keeping with a vast majority of worldwide opinion.
I am not saying hurt someone or do something bad, I am saying protect children. If you wish to castigate me for that, please do, it will have no effect.
Carl H: On the basis that being most scientists in the field believe homosexuality to be innate and therefore it is likely to be spread equally amongst the world’s population, it would seem that we still have a percentage of the population that is not happy being open about its sexual orientation. I would certainly suggest that our 6% is artificially low.
http://www.governing-principles.com
Unnatural: Dictionary definition
“At variance with what is normal or to be expected”.
“unnatural, not that it was not a normal…”
The word normal is to do with the norm, which may well be of more recent use, to do with the classification of people in society.
The word ‘natural’ is to do with nature, and ‘un-natural’ is more to do with human beings, their relationships and emotions, rather than the natural world which would probably use the word ‘supernatural’ for any freak occurrence.
There is a limit to the way in which the two words can be used simultaneously for that reason.
I don’t like any law that makes the views of someone who follows one of the major organised religions more important than the views of others. If a religious group were to be given the right to refuse to employ gays, then why not the small shop owner round the corner who disapproves of homosexuality, but doesn’t happen to be Catholic, Muslim or anything else?
Despite the debate concentrating on Catholic adoption agencies, as Lady Butler-Sloss’s amendment was worded, I believe it would apply to everyone, not just the religious, in which case on who is the burden of proof that it is “a genuine conscientious objection on the basis of the employee’s beliefs regarding sexual orientation”? Enforcement would either be biased in favour of those who follow organised religions, or else would be a free-for-all, in which case there may as well be no equality law at all.
If we are to go down the road of one minority being able to violate the rights of another, why shouldn’t BNP members (thankfully a minority) be allowed to violate the rights of black or Asian people?
I saw the exchange on BBC Parliament. It is obviously a sensitive area and I thought you took care to avoid any personal accusation of homophobia quite well.
The solution seems so simple, a church has the right to accept who they want and so do other private institutions that are a matter of conscience.
But adoption is an activity that is clearly a public good, and should not be dictated by sectarian principles.
I can sympathise with what Baroness Butler-Sloss seems to want to achieve, at least from your recolection anyway, no-one wants the state to trample on their freedom, but the state must also achieve an equitable society in the provision of services, no matter who they might come from.
Unfortunately this area is rather sticky, religious freedom Vs sexual freedom. I’m not sure about the idea of “contentious objection”, far too wooly a term, although objection based on doctrine (i.e. centrally mandated by the religions leadership) I find a bit more acceptable. At the very least, churches should be able to choose to allow ceremonies etc… and only should be able to object if their central leadership has a clear policy on the matter that has been written and published online.
While the black Vs homosexual point is well made, it needs to be remembered that some religious do discriminate on race and we allow it. Orthodox Jewish communities often consider converts to be less Jewish and the same for some other religions. Some choose to give fewer rights based on gender. At the end of the day, isn’t religious comfort a service? Don’t all religions discriminate in what kind of religious services they provide their practitioners based on some gender/sexual/racial grounds? Can we really meddle in this kind of stuff and still call ourselves a genuinely pluralist society?
http://www.governing-principles.com
“conscientious objection” not “contentious objection”. Sorry.
http://www.governing-principles.com
A bit of an ethical minefield, but here goes..
As you say, it is not a good idea to bandy around the word ‘homophobic’ when Catholic people, so far as I can tell, don’t ‘hate’ gay people. Any more than they ‘hate’ people who are living together out of wedlock. They just have a different view of these things.
My view is that despite being a left-liberal guardian reader, I just don’t think that the law should be used to legislate over issues of conscience as it doesn’t really work in any effective way.
The legislation over adoption agencies isn’t going to change a single Catholic’s view of the Bible, or their interpretation. And it is not going to help any gay people adopt from a Catholic agency, as I suspect they would close down before being forced down that road.
Of course, if there is discrimination since they are allowing unmarried people to adopt, that is of course different. But I can’t see why the law is interfering in this anyway – surely there are already agencies willing to allow gay people to adopt ?
As a non-religious person, I don’t see it as my right to go round and tell religious people what to believe, or not to believe, as the case may be. People surely should have some freedom of conscience, or all that will happen will be Russian style ‘underground churches’ ? Is that really what we want to end up with ?
You use the example that such legislation or opt-outs would be unacceptable if the word ‘black’ was substituted. This seems a little silly, as the Bible doesn’t discriminate on grounds of colour, although one could make an argument that other religions might.
Of course, there was a time when religion was used as a justification for slavery. If there is such a mis-interpretation, merely passing a law is not going to change people’s views overnight.
Slavery was defeated because of a long, long campaign to win round ‘hearts and minds’ THEN legislation was passed and THEN there was enforcement of it. People in Parliament to need to lead social change, but working with the grain of public opinion, and winning it over, rather than against it.
My argument is this – Why should, say, a Jewish adoption agency be forced to deal with non-Jewish people, or place a Jewish child with Gentile parents ? Surely they have a right to make such decisions ?
This does of course then raise issues of the ‘freedom of conscience’ on Sharia courts, the kirpan, Jewish divorce and many other things.
I would also make the point that in terms of equality legislation, the Sex Discrimination Act was passed in 1972, and that has not in itself achieved full equality for women.
The Disability Discrimination Act has helped in some ways, but closing down a premises if it is not ‘accessible’ doesn’t help anyone, least of all disabled persons. I would also argue that forcing employers to pay exactly the same rate to disabled persons is, while equitable, not resulting in elimination of unemployment among the Visually Impaired Community.
Social engineering can be very beneficial – but the Limits of Legislation are well known.
Bedd Gelert: going slightly off-topic, there is a fine line between religion and race in the example you give. The Jewish people are a race, and whether a child should be adopted by parents of another race is a different issue altogether. With race out of the equation, what makes a child of any particular religion? Belief is either what you are taught by your parents or what you form for yourself as you grow older. A child is born without a religion. When people speak of a Christian child or a Muslim child, don’t they mean a child whose parents are Christian or Muslim? In many cases, religion is not about belief at all, rather about tradition, and I see no reason when a child is given up for adoption shortly after birth that he or she needs to be brought up in the same tradition as the natural parents.
On a vaguely related point, I wasn’t aware that a decision had been reached in the Jews Free School case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews%27_Free_School
Whilst I sympathise with the parents in this case, I do have a concern that where courts are overturning the good conscience view of the Chief Rabbi [even though I think he is wrong on this case] it does rather interfere with people’s religious freedom.
I am not the biggest fan in the world of faith schools – but ultimately I believe parents have the right to educate their children as they see fit, just as the Home Educators are doing.
What is criminally wrong and what is only immoral are two very different things. Good, high personal standards and values, may vary considerably from what the law deems to be acceptable.
Catholic values are hopefully family values, whereas homosexual/Lesbian values as such may only be described as such with the greatest difficulty. Generally the opponents of Gay rights are the family values organizations.
In the UK we tend not to have obviously sets of ‘oppositional’ pressure groups, but France and NZ specialize, particularly in this case of Catholic family values and Gay/Lesbian rights.
My own experience is that the contretemps is
good natured and well reasoned, with no phobias.
I wonder, on reflection, whether Catholicism,
offers everything, those who have a phobia for family values, but being devout, actually join another kind of family, a Holy/religious family of monks or nuns?
I wonder whether the protestant resistance to
monastic orders actually creates a secular system of monasticism, which does not actually bear any definition, but exists in all those US cities named in the Wiki research presented by one correspondent above?
They ARE presumably monks or nuns; they presumably live godly, righteous lives, many of them, but capitalism makes the demand that they act as individuals and not as groups of
men, working and living together.
Civil partnerships, now lawful, in this country, go some way to forming something holy between men, in a non Roman catholic way; that the sum of the whole, in an economic, and fine, sense, may be greater than the sum of the parts.
That is a holiness in exactly the same way as
monasticism is holy between 2 or more people of the same gender.
I am much in favour of Partnerships of this sort.
I hope I am a holy person myself; I live alone, and I hope I know how to pray.
All the other correspondents here certainly have that skill in abundance.
Croft, I don’t think I accept the argument that equality legislation has to balance opposing sets of rights in quite the way you suggest.The distinction to me is about when our personal beliefs stray into the public arena. We all have the right to believe what we believe and to live our own lives according to those values UNTIL our behaviour impinges on other people’s right to be treated decently. Religious faiths obsession with conformity in matters of sex is historically understandable and I am happy for their devotees to abjure gay marriage, gay adoption and indeed any form of sexual relations outside marriage. The problem is that their vision of society demands that we should all conform to their private beliefs and therein lies the difficulty. In providing public services to a wide range of people of all beliefs and none, publically funded agencies should be willing to accept public service values. The Registar whose work involves celebrating civil partnerships but can’t bring herself to do it because it does not accord with her belief that homosexualiaty is wrong (as if it were a lifestyle choice)has a simple choice; do it or find another job; she is employed by the State to do a specific job. Of course there are many compromises; in a busy register office no doubt other colleagues can step in to cover on such occasions but that won’t be the case in a small office. But Croft if you can produce other examples of where competing rights are in conflict, can you say? I keep hearing your arguments expressed and I’m willing to be converted if you can give me other examples!
Let me turn to the matter of gay adoptions; the hard research evidence is very poor at the moment but so far we have not much evidence that one sex parents are worse parents although they do tend to split up earlier than heterosexual couples. What we do know is that children in care are infinitely better off adopted by one or two person parents of either sex than being left in the care of the State, where their life chances in education and work will be very much disadvantaged. And it is these rather difficult children with the worst chances who are often taken on by gay male adopters. Female couples often use IVF and donor sperm for one of them to conceive. No doubt my own experience of watching two women bring up 2 IVF children, a boy and a girl, of whom any parent would be proud, has coloured my thinking; twenty years ago I would probably have thought differently. I do not deny that there may be other consequences for these children’s sexual maturation and own gender identity but so are there for the many children brought up by a single mother. However nostalgic I am for the Janet and John scenario portrayed in the 1950s, I am now more realistic about family diversity.
Bedd Gelert, I have had the same thoughts about various pieces of equality legislation but there seems no doubt that legislation itself can help to change attitudes and move an ethos forward. Steel’s abortion law reform bill is the case that sticks in my mind most. That undoubtedly speeded up the change in most people’s attitudes to abortion, even though the change had begun many years earlier in some quarters. My anxiety about equality legislation is about the unintended consequences of some of the provisions and backlash problems. For example, I think the emerging evidence that maternity leave has a long term damaging effect on women’s career progression and does not enhance their chances of a more flexible future but rather narrows their choices is something we should take very seriously. Women don’t always know what negative results may accrue from an overtly positive benefit for their child.
Carl H I don’t know why I can’t substitute one minority for another in an argument, isn’t that the test? See Troika21
Stephen D, Jonathan, Toika 21 thanks for these comments.
Governing principles, ultimately of course people choose to belong to religions that give them certain rules by which to live. It is true that governments can’t change those beliefs but they can diminish the impact of them on the rest of us.
Naturally, the state has the right to choose how it delivers its services. However, the “right to choose your religion” argument is often misused by the state. I’m very secular in my beliefs but I have some very religious friends. They would not describe their beliefs as a choice as they are threatened with punishment in the afterlife if they break their religion’s rules. It’s a bit like saying that I have a choice to disobey the state. Technically I do but I will be punished for doing so. Is disobeying the state really a choice? Is disobeying your religion – if you really, really believe – a choice? I just think that the state, being quite secular in itself, often forgets that some people don’t view religion as a choice (in the same way that being gay is not really a choice).
http://www.governing-principles.com
” people choose to belong to religions that give them certain rules by which to live. It is true that governments can’t change those beliefs but they can diminish the impact of them on the rest of us.”
One needs to make the observation that most Brits, educated by the state, and who, in adult life, will say
“CofE I suppose”
regarding their religious commitment, are subject to that government, in such a way, that their beliefs are changed when the Law is changed, and the impact of it,on the rest of us is, therefore, not diminished.
The Spirit is above the letter of the law.
“Let me turn to the matter of gay adoptions”
Whilst civil partnerships are not deemed to be holy in the way that matrimony is, gay adoption
of a child of the same gender, would be entirely consistent with a monastic outlook on, and way of life.
Being the same gender as the adopted child would be crucial to the success of the adoption. It would otherwise be unholy in a traditional sense, although there are some orders of monks and nuns who co-habit successfully.
The whole point of partnership is to be able to create something greater than would otherwise be so; in the case of a married couple… procreation.
In the case of gay adoption, by civil partners,the right and good future, and success in life, of the adopted child, would be the creative skill. That would not necessarily exclude the gayness of the full formed adult,by association alone.
Oh dear this thread has gone down hill somewhat during my weekend absence!
I was rather careful with my words Lady Murphy in not commenting on the issue around catholic adoption agencies precisely because I thought this would happen and because I had remarked on it previously. I don’t have an issue with the ban but for rather different reasons. I see the start and end of the debate as the best interests of the child and see that as mostly likely to be served by not artificially excluding a section of the population from consideration. The gay rights -v- religious rights debate seems wholly secondary to that first and overriding aim.
As to the other point you answered your own question in part. Rights create differences in treatment even when not in direct opposition. The right to paid maternity leave is not equal but falls on the mother with precious little on the father. Does a female pensioner’s right to feel safe allow her to only choose an older female lodger or is that infringing the rights of young men. You can’t at the moment get a wedding licence for your own property (a nice earner if you have the right property) unless you allow all weddings irrespective of your religious beliefs.
I’m sure people could put both sides of the above cases, but the point I was trying to make earlier was that all rights have effects on the choices of others and are never quite so simply as they seem on paper.
Bare with me, this is long.
Baroness Murphy, I do wonder how someone can have no beliefs. A belief is simply something you think is true. Are there people who have no actual notion of anything? Its just silly to claim people have no beliefs. Its also silly, and for the same reason, to really postulate that some people have no Religion. I’ve said that elsewhere. Everyone really has a Religion, those who say otherwise simply confuse the word “Religion” to mean Belief in a god” or some such.
But not all Religions actually require Theism, or belief in a SuperNatural realm, or even Belief without evidence. A Religion is simply a set of beliefs regarding the Fundamental nature of our existence.
As such, everyone here, even those who would violently oppose the Lable such as Troika, actually do have a Religion. They may say they don’t, but if pressed you’ll soon discover that their thinking is influenced by Teachers who have a very clearly defined Philosophical Outlook, which has tenets, Doctrines, and even Dogma that they must adhere to.
They even often quote said Leaders. Richard Dawkins is alluded to by Jonathan who asks if when we say someone is a Christian Child or Muslim, don’t we really mean their parents are? This is exactly a thought that Dawkins had, wrote down, and is now copied on the lips and in the Minds of his Devotes.
In what way is he not a Religious Guru? Because he hides behind a claim that Religion is bad? Because he claims its all base don Reason and Logic and Science? Its not, its base don a Philosophical system of thought that didn’t even originate with the Scientific Advances they claim to use, but with the Enlightenment.
Even the love of Human Reason and its supremacy, provided Human Reason arrives at the Correct conclusions, is itself a Religious Dogma.
Materialism is a Philosophical tenet which differs not one wit from any alternative you can bring up in terms of what it is or how it effects us of we adhere to it.
In that way, they really are a Religion. The only reason we say they aren’t is because they postulate themselves as the alternative to Religion, and in our modern day Philosophy in which we accept unquestionably the Value of a Secular State, we assume that by Secular we mean the Same Philosophical Outlook they hold to. We also assume if the State isnt Secular then it becoems a Theocracy, and we all know Theocracy is bad and evil.
The problem is, what your actually doing bythis is forcing everyone to adhere to a Supposeldy Non-Religious view of the world, and are actign as if people, upon becoming Atheists, automaticlaly arrive at these same conclusions as they are base donly on logic, reaosn, and observation.
They aren’t. If you think Atheism eliminates any opposition to Homosexuality, for example, all you need to do is Visit modern-Day Russia. There are plenty of Atheists who still openly oppose Homosexuality and call it a Mental Illness.
Being an Atheist doens’t mean you will automatically accept Homosexuality. It doesn’t even mean your automatically left wing Politically. It just means you have rejected belief in a god. (Note: I said Rejected intentionally. No more Tommyrot about it being a mere lack, thats certainly not what it means to most who use it.)
Atheism, and beign “Non-Religious” doens’t make you adhere to the supposeldy Scular Values which we are Promoting in the modern western world. Nor does the use of Raw Reason. Instead, these ideals are emergent from a long, traceable line of Philosophical discourses, whose origins begin with men like John Locke and Montesquieu and Reusseu and Voltaire and Thomas Jefferson.
Worse, thy also include the Huxleys, the Russels, and yes even the Dawkins’s of our Literary Tradition.
Whether or not you arrive at the same conclusions depends heavily upon if you have been indoctrinated into the same general premises.
So it snot like pushing Secularism these days actually produces a Neutral society in which Religion has no say other than in Private life; Instead, what your asking is that anyone whose beliefs differ from the accepted Doctrines and Tenets of modern-Day Secularists should only have the right to their beliefs privately in their homes and churches, but mist, by mandate of law, accept the Supremacy of someone else’s Religion over their lives in Public.
Do you honestly think thats Fair?
You replaced, rather disingenuously, th word “Homosexual” with the word “Black”, which Ill get to in my next post, but what if we replaced the word “Religion” with the word “Philosophical belief system” or “Fundamental Beliefs”?
Is it right that what amounts to as the Doctrine of Secular Humanist Philosophy should be the official State Religion, that is enforced upon us all, and in which we must, by law, comply to?
Why are their Philosophical beliefs superior to my own? Why should I be a Secular Humanist in th Administration of my own Affairs? Why should my life be ordered based upon the Moral Values of a Secular Humanist?
Isn’t one of the complaints those “Who have no religion” have against Religion how its “Shoved down our throats”? Well, they want to in turn shove their Religion (Yeah I know they aren’t Religious) Down MY throat , and the throats of everyone else. Why is that Better?
Just because its “Not Religious”?
By forcing people to accept something they disapprove of, you aren’t safeguarding anyones liberty, you are enforcing a Religious ethos onto all society and demanding they comply with it.
As a Libertarian, I think the Government should allow people to choose who they hire or serve and who they don’t. Its really none of the Governments affair if an Adoption Agency decide not to adopt to Same Sex Couples. Its not even the Governments job to tell a small shop keeper to hire a Gay Man. Its not really relevant.
While I agree that Religious bodies that want to perform Same Sex weddings should be allowed to, its on this same Principle of essential Liberty.
The Government should neither Bar acceptance of Homosexuality, nor should it enforce it.
Then again, you compare Homosexuality with being Black. One is based on ethnicity which is beyond our control, the other is a Behaviour. I know that there is talk of this all the time, but its just silly to compare a Behaviour to an appearance. Even the Ku Klux Klan doesn’t say its Immoral to be Black, or complain about the choice of being Black. Everyone has always understood that being Black was innate. Homosexuality is not really in the same Category.
Yet, you make the similarity sound natural.
Its also an old, old argument, one you’ve heard elsewhere, showing your own Philosophical thoughts are influenced by others as well.
If honest we’d realise that this is a False Metaphor as you want to contrast something that is clearly beyond anyones control, with something that ultimately is under their control. ( No one is forced into Gay Sex, unless Raped.)
No actual Scientific evidence exists to suggest Homosexuality is innate. None. Its just assumed to be as this si Politically correct. What we do know of it though its that it is a Behaviour, not an Ethnicity. Its just daft to compare the two. Even IF Homosexuality were innate, so is Schizophrenia, but no one things of Schizophrenia as being analogous to being Black or any other Race.
Don’t blast me for comparing Homosexuality to a Mental Illness, my point was to show how absurd it is to compare it to being Black.
And it is Absurd. And Dishonest.
The two aren’t Similar at all.
But you think that Gay Rights are up there with Black Civil Rights. They aren’t really, not using Reason, but the ideology you adopt certainly links them.
But why should w use this sort of Emotional Blackmail tactic to coerce an ideology?
ZAROVE: when many of us refer to religion, we mean organised religion. The difference here is that if you follow an organised religion, you are following a system of beliefs thought up by someone else rather than forming your own views. Some people will follow ancient texts blindly, even when they don’t really fit in with the modern world, but thankfully others are rather more pragmatic in their interpretation, for example the many Christians who welcome gay people.
No-one is saying that beliefs of people who do not follow an organised religion are more valid than those of religious people. What they are saying is that people should not have a right to discriminate against others just because their beliefs happen to align with one of the major religions. It’s up to society as a whole to come up with a set of laws that are an acceptable compromise to the majority of people, not that pander to particular religions. If we were to say that every religious belief has to be respected, who’s to say what constitutes a religion? As you yourself say, even an atheist follows a religion of sorts. So if I write a book that says it’s OK to kill people, and I gain a few followers, does that then give my followers the right to commit murder? Clearly that’s nonsense. As with murder, society as a whole has now decided homosexuality is acceptable. If you are in the minority that disapproves of it and it offends you so greatly, I suggest you emigrate to a less tolerant country.
For the record, I’m in no way a devotee or follower of Richard Dawkins. I think he does no-one any favours, and I haven’t read any of his work in detail. I had no idea he’d put forward the concept of a child being born without any religion, that’s something I came up with independently while thinking about this debate. Perhaps that means there’s actually something in the idea.
I’ll leave commenting on your views on homosexuality in general to some of the other respondents.
One last point.
You say that Homosexuality is not a Lifestyle Choice. Can you prove its not?
As I said above, there is no evidence that its innate and unchangeable.
Its simply not valid to debate as if it is a fact. Then again, the whole point in creating the term “Sexual Orientation” was to reinforce this belief.
But what if your wrong and being gay isn’t innate and unchangeable? What if people aren’t born that way? What if it in the end is a Choice? or at least a Mental State that is not fixed?
Aren’t you banking a lot on an unproven assumption?
Zarove: And what evidence is there that it is not innate?
At present one cannot give an absolute answer either way.
http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Genetics:and:sexual:orientation.html
My Lord, Even without evidence on my side, surly you can’t favour your side based on total lack of evidence, can you? Is that logical? What your saying in effect is that you don’t need evidence but I do.
Worse still, there exists in our world people who classify themselves as Former Homosexuals, or more colloquially Ex-Gays. These people have said they have ceased the Practice. Many have claimed a drastic reduction, even a complete cessation, of the same sex attraction they once had. As Politically incorrect as the reality is, There are former Homosexuals. Should their voices be silenced so as to strengthen a position that it is innate, a position we are asked to accept without Question, and in the absence of any credible evidence?
Or would it count as evidence simply comparing Homosexuality to Infertile couples or blacks?
The problem wiuth this debate is that it is enturely one sided, and it violated the basic ideas of law. Homosecxuals aren’t in the same position as a Heterosexual Couple in which one party is sterile. In Nature male and female breed. If soem some reason due tio defect, injury, or illness either a man r woman can’t conceive, we see this as a medical affliction. Meanwhile, Homosexuals, be they men or women, have never been able to produce Children, and it is flagrantly agaisnt Nature for us to think they ever could. They aren’t the same.
Nor is ones behaviour the same as ones appearance.
Whereas I’m all for not being prejudiced agaisnt people for differences they can’t help, we can all help our conduct and ultimately we are demanding that Homosexuality be treated as something other than conduct in order to justify a sort of Cultural Gag order against it.
But yet I can critisise other behaviours and I am not seen as a Bigot. If I condemn Adultery I’m not castigated and told that by law I must serve Adulterers int he same way as Non-Adulterers. I can oppose Sex outside of Marriage for that matter and no one says anything. I can condemn Smoking, or overeating. I can even critisise Alcoholism. All of this is culturally allowed.
Yet I can’t, without wearing the Lable Homophobe and without drawing possible legal censure, condemn Homosexuality.
But, in the end, it has more in common with any of the above that it does with being Black, being infertile, or even being short or brown eyed.
By making it against the Law to Critisise Homosexuality and granting it greater and Greater protected Status, you really don’t do justice to the premise of Liberty at all,and in fact Violate even Common sense.
This issue really should be a Non-Issue. It shoudl be handled this simply. Homosexuality should be removed as a Class of people like Race or Gender, and placed into its Proper Category as a Behaviour. Then, we should not try to sue or silence those who disagree. We should instead focus on simply protecting the right of each person to life and property. Provided no Material harm comes to them, by way of loss of property, privacy, or bodily harm, then there should be counted no Crime.
Only withholding VITAL Services should be seen as Criminal. For example, they have a right to buy food, ect…
Simultaniously, as Civil Partnerships are Legal, why not be sensable and simply stipulate in law that these are Voluntary. Allow for those who don’t want to perform them for Moral Objections not to, including civil clerks. At the same time, allow those who wish to to be so permitted. Make sure the law reads that it is the right of any Institution or Orginisation to withhold performing a Civil Partnership on Grounds of Moral Objection. This includes not letting a Local Council deny the right to perform Marriages if they don’t also apply for Civil Partnerships.
The matter should be strictly Personal.
That said, even if you reject the Above, what makes Adoption a basic Human Right? By claiming that Adoption Agencies are denying their Services to Homosexuals that are open tot he Public, you also cheapen the purpose of Adoption Agencies, which are explicitly NOT Public Services. They are Services directed at the Family and that is Private, in th end. The Adoption Agency should only adopt to parents it finds suitable, and the State should only intervene should the State see the child’s own welfare is in jeopardy by this policy.
Jeopardy does not include refusing to adopt to a Homosexual Couple as no material Harm comes to the Child by this.
Is that really Irrational?
Note, when I said Homosexuals cannot produce Children, I meant with each other. Obviously a Homosexual can produce Children, but only with a member of the Opposite Sex.
Carl H: My point about the paper is directed more at the fact that it has not been published in a journal or by a leading publishing house. The reason you cannot provide hard evidence for your views is that such evidence is lacking. Given that there are only estimates of how many people are gay, it is impossible to obtain reliable and generalisable data on homosexuality and homosexual behaviour. Some people write about the percentage of gays who indulge in this or that practice without apparently any understanding of the scientific limitations of the means by which the figures were generated. Some people write as if there is no heterosexual promiscuity (‘oh, isn’t it dreadful – look at all these gay clubs’ – as if the equivalent heterosexual clubs don’t exist) – though one can understand why it has been difficult in the past for gays to form stable loving relationships in a society that frowns on such relationships. Those who have condemned gays for their behaviour have in large part been responsible for creating the conditions leading to that behaviour but seem content to continue to create conditions that militate against the formation of loving and lasting partnerships. You also appear to misunderstand the age by which sexual orientation is determined.
My Lord I feel you need to get out more, large area`s of cities now have gay communities and most of the public accept them. Brighton, Manchester and others have really good gay communities and the opportunities for settling down in a loving relationship are no different to heterosexuals.
The age sexual orientation is determined ? Please enlighten me and maybe the people who are struggling with their orientation.
One other thing. How do you know that Homophobia causes the problems in the Gay Community that prevents lasting and loving Partnerships? Please don’t turn this around on me and ask me to prove that it doesn’t, I’m not making an affirmation either way. I just find it illegitimate to make this argument as if it is fact when no evidence supports it whatsoever.
If you assume Homophobia causes the marked trend toward Promiscuity in Bathhouses or Gay Clubs, and treat that as an unassailable fact that cannot be Questioned,and your wrong, it won’t change the reality to ignore it.
As no evidence exists for this claim, it shouldn’t be the thought we use when formulating Legal advice.
Zarove: Using your terminology, there are also former heterosexuals. There is also such a thing as bi-sexuality. Homosexuality is not different from being, say, black in that it is not a matter of choice, nor is it unnarural in that homosexuality is known in nature and is natural to the individual who is gay. Nor is the debate one-sided. You must be pretty blinkered to believe that it is. You seem to notice only gay clubs but not the existence of heterosexual ones!
My Lord Norton, I never said that it was a one way street. I’m well aware of peopel who turn gay. The strange thing is, if a man is gay till he’s 40 hen decided ot be straight, we say he was either never really gay in the fits place, or claim he’s denyin his true nature. When a man is straight till he’s 40, we claim he’s discovered his true sexual orientation.
Its more based on our need to defend the assumption that one has a fixed sexual orientation, and our current cultures love affair with Homosexuality, than to do with reason.
The other problem inw hat you say is that being Homosexual is like being black in that ts not a Choice. Well, how do you know its not a Choice? I know that there are some gay men who openly claim to have choisen it. Are they lying?
I don’t think being Gay is 100% innate. I have seen too many peopel swap prefefence. I don’t beleive Sexual Orientation exists.
Its just a silly modern Philosophical truffle we toss about to justify what we want to support, and not based on anythign real.
But I will ask again, can you prove that people dont choose Homosexuality conclusively? Can you choose that, just like being Black, someone can’t change their sexual preferences?
Even if you could, peopel dont choose chronic depression or Schitzophrinia, but we don’t compare those to ethnicity, and rightly not.
Your argument is not valid, My lord, as you are crossing mental states with physical appearance, which is invalid.
I didnt spell check this as I was in a hurry. Don’t assume Im…
1: An idiot.
2: frothign at the mouth angry.
I’ve repeated numerous times I am dyslexic. Lets just focus on what Ive said not my poor spelling.
One other thing. I didnt mention Gay Clubs or straight. I mentioned only the fact that people chnage over from one to the other. We don’t have any evidence that people can’t chnage sexual prefrence, and no evidence that its an innate aspect of their being.
That not the same as not noticing clubs other than gay clubs. It sin fact not the same issue at all, as I didnt say anythign about gay Promiscuity or gay clubs or anything else other than causation and how behaviour is not ethnicity.
I’m a Vegitarian. I know thee are Vegitarian resreraunts. I dont htink thei all for carnovores. But shoudl I argue that I was born vegitarian?
Its the logic I am objecting to, and your not really responding to hat Ive said.
Carl H: I suggest you extend your dictionary search. The principal meaning usually listed relates to what exists in nature. If something is unnatural, is it unknown in nature?
No my Lord, it is at variance with it, not normal.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/unnatural
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unnatural
http://www.yourdictionary.com/unnatural
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/unnatural
Carl H: Let’s follow your logic then. You disapprove of something because it is unnatural. You assert that abnormal = unnatural. Being left-handed, black, disabled or male is abnormal and therefore, on your definition, unnatural. If these groups are not to merit your disapproval, you have to find some other reason for your dislike of homosexuals.
My Lord how can “Black” be unnatural ? We all descended from Africans.
I did not say I disapproved of everything that wasn`t perfect in the natural sense.
You are trying to associate me with homophobes, racists etc., this is simply not the case.
Saying I dislike homosexuals again is simply not true, where did I write that ? Again you try to taint me. You are trying to portray me as something not in keeping with anything I have posted.
I have said I have concerns for children placed with homosexual couples.
The fact that Political Correctness may lead people into not looking at things correctly is a major concern.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562313/Fear-of-prejudice-let-gay-carers-abuse-boys.html
Your knee jerk reaction to try to label me as some kind of nazi for merely expressing concerns about children gives me more concern.
You are ignoring what I am saying and applying stereotypical traits to me which are far from true.
Carl H: Black is ‘unnatural’ in this country because it is abnormal, at least according to your definition – unnatural=abnormal. Whether we are descended from people who are black has no relevance to the point I am making. I haven’t suggested you are a nazi; I am suggesting that the basis of your claims is unfounded.
Now! Now ! you two!
Any way this is an interesting definition.
“If something is unnatural, is it unknown in nature?”
It may well be. If it is un-natural in nature, it is probably described as supernatural.
If I am not mistaken the term ‘unnatural’ is used in the criminal court with regard to sexual relations, or was. I have had a post deleted as there were two terms technical to
the law courts which are also swear words but they are, or were, termed, ‘unnatural’ sexual relations, and refer to human beings and not to the whole of the world of nature.
‘Supernatural’ then may make a nonsense of someone’s argument.
Legislation used to reform opinions of a motley crew leads to fine ideals ending up looking like cheap meat posing as ham. As Bedd Gelert alludes to, parliament should first understand the broader public opinion before attempting to legislate for more utopian social engineering.
The failure of both the Equal Pay Act, 1970 and Sex Discrimination Act, 1975 to prevent discrimination of women in employment should have been a warning for those seeking emancipation before further legal sticks were preferred to carrots. Baronness Murphy suggests there is growing evidence of a backlash for all women by the gvt extending rights to maternity leave to nine months. I agree. The gvt may like to think otherwise but their double standards rewarded Alan Sugar with a peerage based on his commercial expertise that includes his comments on the employability of women.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7504637.stm
Most of you know how much I love Codes of Practice etc if only because they are written by self-serving stake holders who are uniquely placed to come up with gems such as this from one of several on disability:
“It is advisable to avoid making assumptions about disabled people… …Do not assume that because a person does not look disabled, he is not disabled…Do not assume that most disabled people use wheelchairs….” and so forth
yet later,
“A large employer [should] ensure that its recruitment brochure includes images of disabled employees…”
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/drc_employment_code.pdf
Baroness Murphy also cited an example of a registrar of life events with non-pc beliefs being replaced by another but that this would not always be possible in a small register office. Jonathan takes the issue a step futher and suggests that homophobic shop owners should be afforded the same rights as a Roman Catholic adoption agency (if their demands are met in the 3rd reading) in that they should be able to pick and choose which members of the public they serve. Elsewhere, I have been arguing for the re-instatement of key exemptions for microbusinesses (<10 employees), contending that equality and diversity can not be met in such small workforces. As politicans themselves make clear, aspiration is one thing, fulfillment is quite another.
I would like to register my resentment of the disproportionate penalties in anti-discrimination laws but won't labour the point here.
Finally, this extract from Gay Times last year is noteworthy:
"So we look for homophobia where none is there. Take Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy: a gay couple trying to sue a great grandmother and her elderly husband for refusing to let them stay in a double room in their Cornwall hotel. The hotel has a blanket rule about unmarried couples not sharing rooms, whatever their sexuality. If Hall and Preddy had any sense they would respect the hotel’s policy and stay elsewhere in future. But no, they scream “discrimination” and try and drag a great grandmother through the courts."
http://www.gaytimes.co.uk/Magazine/InThisIssue-articleid-5352-sectionid-703.html
“But no, they scream “discrimination” and try and drag a great grandmother through the courts.”
Which was why they stayed there, because they were, and wanted to.
Evidently they were in bad odour.
“The hotel has a blanket rule about unmarried couples not sharing rooms, whatever their sexuality.”
And how do they prove this for heterosexual couples? Do they demand marriage certificates? Perhaps they would give straight couples the benefit of the doubt, but if (as seems likely) they don’t consider civil partnerships to be equal to marriage, that’s discrimination against gays. And as a point of interest, what about same-sex friends travelling together?
I read in this mornings papers that the guidance for the ‘Equality Bill’ now protects teetotallers, pacifists and vegetarians from ‘religious or philosophical’ discrimination. I do hope Lotb’s very own Lord Norton has raised a cup of tea to celebrate the ending of his persecution. Personally I’m really not convinced they’ve made a proper effort! After all there were hunger strikes for union rights and great protests for dissenters; the suffragettes were throwing themselves under horses and chaining themselves to railings to get the vote. I haven’t even seen a teetotaller dressed up as Batman on the balcony of Buckingham Palace. And as for the Pacifists they’ve not foug… 😀
Croft: I only just saw your comment. Notwithstanding that the paper you refer to appears to be the Daily Mail, I think it’s only right that equality legislation applies to all beliefs. In the past, I’ve been subject to snide and unpleasant remarks because I don’t drink, which had they been made about a gay or minority ethnic person could have resulted in disciplinary action. This is what’s lead me to become a supporter of causes such as gay rights. Personally, I think being gay is giving up the best thing about being male, but I’m sure most people think not drinking alcohol is giving up the best part of their whole lives. So I’m always mindful of being tolerant towards other people’s preferences, and speaking against any form of discrimination. Now, if only there were as many clubs and organisations for teetotallers that there are for gay people…
Actually I’d read the times though I’m sure it’s in most papers.
Sadly, as often, my attempt at humour really doesn’t work so well on the internet.
Jonathon, I`ll join your club.
Dry for over 20 years !
I don`t get snide or unpleasant remarks, however I do get to drive a lot.
Croft: It is a burden I have had to bear, not least in dealing with people who – when told I don’t drink – reply ‘Are you sure?’ I don’t need legislative support in order to deal with people like that! I can usually find a few well-chosen words.
This is worth a look, and references ‘A little bit against discrimination?’ which is relevant in this context.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2010/01/lord-mackay-of-clashfern-religion-and-sexual-orientation-are-characteristics-which-should-be-afforde.html
Zarove, I don’t agree that any old belief is a religion. ‘Religion or belief’ in legislation refers to both religious and non-religious beliefs and is the term used in both national and European legislation. Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights refers to freedom of religion or belief, and ‘belief’ has been consistently interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights as covering philosophical beliefs including humanism. But the mainstream dictionaries agree that the word ‘religion’ means
“a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”
Religion includes a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny, is usually also an institution to express belief in a divine power and a belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the practices and institutions associated with such belief. It is in short the sum total of answers given to explain humankind’s relationship with the universe. Atheism and Humanism are not in that sense religions; neither is agnosticism, the “I don’t know one way or the other but find no convincing evidence for the supernatural” approach which is where I put myself. I entirely accept that negative attitudes to homosexuality are not necessarily associated with religious belief. Attitudes are also a function of age, social group and educational attainment. Curiously, though adherence to a particular religion is largely cultural of course, most societies have about 50% of the population believing in supernatural forces and I suspect there is an inherent need to do so which may well be an adaptive function of the human psyche
Homosexuality on the other hand has been the subject of the ‘nature/nurture’ research for a century. Of course we haven’t got all the answers to the causation or to the degree of variability in its expression within those born with the tendency. Since it comes within my area of academic interest as a psychiatrist I hope you’ll allow this little discourse. Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a lifestyle choice, not an ‘ethos’, as one of the bishops said last week, though sexual behaviour clearly is, in the same way that heterosexual behaviour is. Thus gay and lesbian people should have exactly the same rights and responsibilities concerning the expression of their sexuality as heterosexual people. (And can I add, because it’s often forgotten, we are talking about who one can love in a passionate way as well about sexual fancy). However, until the beginning of more liberal social attitudes to homosexuality in the past two decades, prejudice and discrimination against homosexuality induced considerable embarrassment and shame in many gay people, persuading many to contract heterosexual marriages in order to gain the respectable companionship of a ‘normal family’ and for lesbian women the opportunity to have children. It is also true that for a small proportion of individuals, sexual orientation changes through life and in others is less fixed than for most people. So for me creating a society which is discriminatory against gays is very similar to being racially prejudiced.
My Dar Baroness Murohey, you perform the same error many have when using the Dictionary. You ignore part of the Defintion you yourself use.
I mean no disrespect but, p[lase read it again. I blded par of it.
“a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”
It does say “Especially” regardign a Superhuman Agency or agencies, but the word “Especially” means what to you? TO me, it means this is an obvious Hallmark of something, but not a vital one.
A Religion dons’t require beleif in the Supernatural. It never did. It simply requires beleif in regard tot he cause, purpose, and nature of the Universe. You can cut the “Especially regardign Superhuman Agencies” out of it and still have the ifrt part. It isnt required.
I also didnt say Religion is any old beleif. I said it was a Beleif about the Fundamental Nature of the Universe, by which we understand our existance. The Definition you used was perfeclty in line with what I said. Humanism is a Religioin, for it tells us how to view our world in the same way Buddhism wudl, or Christianity. Saying its not a Religion is simply a tool used ot help us make it soemhow superior to Religion, and let us use its tenets to make our laws, whereas today we’d be appauled by similar consideratiosn form any other Religion.
And perfeclty displayed here.
Why do we assume it is more rational t o beleive Homosexuality is innate? Or worse, speak of it as innate as i its a proven fact and refer to people as Homophobes for disagreeing? Becuase of a Fundamental understanding of our world. It snot Science, as Science has said no such thing.
I am getting a degree in Psycology myself. I know full well that there is no actual evidence for Homosexuality to have Genetic Factors. Every time we find “The Gay Gene” it falls flat by later research. Most Researchers have abandoned the totlaly Genetic angle, at leats in the Biological Sciences.
Meanwhile, there are people who stop being Gay. And we have no evidence for “Sexual Prientation” even existing.
Just because its popular in academic circles to declare Sexual Prientation exists and some peopel have a natural tendancy to be gay doens’t make it true. If you doubt me, look at other Scientific Facts everyone agreed with that ended up false, like the Ether.
The truth is, there is no evidence that Homosexuality has any Biological Component, and there is evidence of people lessening or even stopping same sex attraction, or Aquirign it later.
Don’t you think this at least should give us pause to consider that its not innate?
There is an awful lot of polically correct silliness crept into this debate.
Racism has been mentioned by both the Lord and Lady and yet…..
The discrimination card has been pulled time and again, yet as a society with laws we draw lines, boundaries and not all can cross them.
Discrimination is done by us all daily, we would not be alive without it. As well as discrimination laws in this Country we have a thing called Health and Safety Law, the idea to keep us comparitively safe by assessing risk.
Now what I tend to do in my life and as far as I`m aware everyone else does is use my judgement to weigh up risks, just like at work, school or the House.
Let`s do a little risk assessment.
96% of child sexual abuse is by males.I will use a point system based on that fact.
2 women adopting a child 8 points
Male and female 100 points
2 males 192 points
Based on that fact alone the risk is too large for me to accept two males adopting and that is without taking into consideration sexual practices, lifestyle etc.
Am I discriminating against a sex, no I am that sex.
Now my lady may say it is not my job to assess the risks but societal judgement is what sets the limits. A society that didn`t care the risk`s would be far worse, the concern here after all is the wellbeing of children and as the Government put it every child matters.
I keep thinking back to the children that were abused in the story I linked to, now I know through my experiences they will suffer…extremely the rest of their lives. The villains will be out of prison within 2 years.
Maybe because I suffered the line I put where risk is not worth it is very low but it is not anti-gay hate. AS I stated before I have a gay nephew and friends, I`ve no problem with them or their own adult lifestyle but I am loathe to risk children, there were three younger than me I failed to protect.
—————————————
Innate or not innate.
Gosh I wish everone would make up their minds.
Lord Norton states one minute I “misunderstand the age of sexual orientation” then goes on to state it changes a lot.
So it`s innate but it comes and goes, it can be halfway or no way.
Kinsey of course used a scale as did others. There is no gene you can test for on a baby to state if it`s gay or not, nor anything else because that knowledge doesn`t exist. The best you can have is a “belief”……
Scienitist`s THINK it may have something to do with hormones in the womb, mixed with enviromental and socialogical stuff but they cannot say for certain but people do and have changed orientation nonetheless.
There are those of the good looks, sadly not I,that will go through woman after woman and get bored so change.
So descriminatory no…No more than I would stop a paraplegic going to sea with the Navy, but the government does that.
It`s a risk assessment and on my firm the risk is too great.
Carl H: I didn’t say sexual orientation changes; awareness may.
Bedd Gelert, I got carried away with my dissertation and forgot to respond to your pointer to Lord Mackay of Clashferns’ blog. I think Jonathan answers his points in his two comments.
Zarove: As I mention (and you neglect), there is such a thing as bi-sexuality. Sometimes people take time to discover whether they have a predominant preference. The best response to those who think homosexuality is a choice is to ask them when they made the choice to be heterosexual or homosexual. The only report I saw of a gay saying that he chose to be gay suggested that he saw a gullible person a mile off! That homosexuality is innate is the most rational explanation of homosexuality. (What would be the basis for choosing to be homosexual?) To suggest it is a matter of choice does not really bear much weight and is not involved in the nature v nurture debate.
My Lord Norton, Im not ignorign Bisexuality, but you are ignorign what I’m saying to hide behind what is, I’m afraid, nothign but Politcally correct Dogma.
You claim that Homosexuality beign innate is the most Rational Explanation for Homosexuality. No its not. Homosexuality in fact flies in the face of our Biological understanding. Heterosexuality actually leads to the continuation of ur speicies and continuaion fo an individuals Gentic Codes. Homosexuality doesn’t.
The idea that its more Rational to think a behaviour that is admitedly cotnrary to the actual purpose of sex and that undermines it is simply not rational in and of itself. (ASpare me the fact that peopel do it for other than procreation. i may be pleasurable and have other functions, but it was clealry primarily designed for Reproduction. I also know women too old to have CHildren have sex. But thats not the poitn either.)
The truth is, many, many, many things we do or see Animals do in nature aren’t innate. When a Dog is traiend to do triks, thse tricks aren’t resultant form Genetics. When a Human Plays Piano, its a learned trait, not something hat comes as a result of breeding.
Homosexuality can Rationally be undrstood as an emergent deviation from normative Sexual behaviour that is brought on by ones life expeirnces, or by Psycological factors unrelated to ones sexuality.
Psycological Causaiton can’t be ruled out, especially since there is no actual evidence for, and plenty of evidence agaisnt, it beign Genetic.
As to Bizsexuality, its still ultimaltey int he same Category as far as I am concerned. Human Sexuality is spectral and not absolute, but is still principly based around Procreation, with a secondary funciton of unifyign individuals.
That Biological Fact can’t be escaped form.
But beyond that, your not even looking at the rest of what I’ve said.
We have no evidence for Causation, and as a Result shoudlnt try to impose any specific understandign of Homosexuality. Ther eis no grounds for it, other than its popular to assume tis innate and htus its like race.
Worse, even if it were innate its still not at all like Race as its still ultimatley a Behavioural trait.
And lastly, the big point you seem to ignore is, as you can’t relaly prove Homosdxuality is innate, but it can be demonstrated that its not a Race, why shoudl the Government care about if peopel decide to Perform Civil Partnerhsips or not?
Midn you, I have said, and yo have ignroed, that hruches shudl have the right to perform them if they decide to. But they shoudl also be protected leglaly if they decide not to.
People shoudl have the right to “Deny Services” such as Adoption which really arent a srvice. Its not a Right to adopt a Child.
Peopel shoudl be given the Liberty to make thei own Decisions abotu if they accpt Homosexuality or not.
Is that relaly all that Irrational to you?
Zarove: I’m not hiding behind any dogma. I have yet to see any evidence to show that homosexuality is not innate.
People do not have sex necessarily for the purpose of procreation.
Your contributions remind of the quote usually attributed to Churchill: ‘I’m sorry this letter is so long. I didn’t have time to write a short one.’
My Lord can you point to the scientific papers showing homosexuality to be innate ?
Can you show evidence that my sexual preference for red heads was innate ?
Zarove, Not much point commenting further if you don’t respect scientific method. Science is about assessing the most likely explanation FOR NOW given the research evidence to date. Something ‘innate’ can be genetic or it can be as a result of influences in utero from hormones, diet, drugs or maternal illness. But we do know homosexuality and bisexuality are not choices.
We`re getting ever deeper into a scientific debate, it`s good educational stuff but I`m not sure it`s changing minds/attitudes.
My Lady states:
“But we do know homosexuality and bisexuality are not choices.”
Explain homosexual behaviour in long term prison inmates who are otherwise completely heterosexual.
Explain how some ardent gay-bashers are known to sexually abuse homosexuals physically in a homosexual manner.
Explain why sexual behaviour specifically in men (I really don`t know about women) often means indulging in whatever is available, is extreme and exciting.
Explain why the Church, Scouts, boys boarding schools, Navy etc., are known for the occurence of homosexual abuse practices.
“we do know homosexuality and bisexuality are not choices”
Using scientific method!
I suppose that philosophy teaches scientific method, so if we learn to be gay/lesbian by ‘philosophical’ introduction, that is scientific method.
I have got the same trouble with redheads as Carl, but brown eyes are essential also.
It’s not a choice! It’s innate!
I know an albino young woman who is looking for a dark haired/skinned, swarthy even, man. It’s not a choice; it’s innate!
Bless her heart!
I know an albanian young woman who is looking for a dark haired/skinned, swarthy even, man who works in the passport office. It’s not a choice; it’s innate!
Ooops Sorry my Lords..
🙂
“Using scientific method”
In the discipline of farming, and growth hormones, in recent years, in humans and cattle, scientific method has fallen very far short of common sense.
Case rests.
This red head one is interesting Carl. Tell me more.
Baroness Murphy, every time someone goes against the Grain of complete and total acceptance of the Stonewall version of Gay Rights they are accused of all Manner of things, and I for one am Very tired of it being aimed at me, especially when my actual Argument is ignored and I’m told rubbish about me not thinking heterosexual Clubs existed when Gay Clubs never even entered my argument.
You do the same thing with us Knowing being Gay is not a Choice. The simple fact is, no, we don’t. We have absolutely no idea what actually causes Homosexuality. There is no real Data. If you want to actually discuss the Scientific Method, you should do so apart form a personal preference for what it should discover.
There is nothing in Modern Science that suggests Homosexuality is innate. The fact that you can rattle off a list of possible causes that may make it innate proves that in and of itself. The only thing we know is that it is innate. We have no clear evidence for what actually causes it, but by golly we know its innate. Well how? If we don’t know the Cause, how do we know its not a choice and can’t be changed? If you don’t know the Cause, you can’t know its innate.
The truth is, we don’t. We assume its innate because it fits in better with how we’d prefer to treat this issue which we seem obsessed over.
That’s no Honesty, My Lady, its simply going Along with the Dogma of your Faith. Its also a Faith not everyone shares.
Worse still, you haven’t even addressed the Central point of my argument which is actually Legal.
That is, why should the Government care if I supply Services to a Gay man or couple or not?
If I own a Restraint, and I rent said Restraint out sometimes so others may use it for their occasions, then by our present Law, I have to Universally rent to all people no matter what.
This means that, if a Gay Couple wants to Solemnise and Celebrate a Civil Partnership, and wants to Rent my Restraint, they can. Even if I object on Moral Grounds. If I oppose Same Sex Relationships, I still have to Rent to them. That is not just, and the Restraint Owner shouldn’t be forced to Rent to the Gay Couple to celebrate something said owner opposes. The Owner should be free to dispose his Property as he see’s fit.
But before I’m referred to one against as a Homophobe and told how much I hate gays et all, keep in mind I also support the Right of Churches to perform such Unions.
I think that if I were a Minister and had no problem with Same Sex Relationships, then I should have the right, if such a Couple approached me for a Service, to perform Said Service. Just as I should have the Right, as a Minister, to Refuse such a Service.
It should really be left to each Individual, rather of the Clergy or not, to make their own Minds up about matters of Conscience, and the use of their Property.
All we’d really need to do in terms of Law is to make it so that people couldn’t be sued for Discrimination for refusing such Services, with no provision of Law hindering them. It really isn’t any of the Governments business who I rent a Restraint or Room to. Nor who decides o Solemnise what sort of Relationship. If a Gay Couple doesn’t like that I won’t Rent to them, let them go to someone who will. If they don’t like the idea of me not performing a Civil Partnership Service, let them find a Minister who will. Its not really asking the Impossible, and I‘m sure someone will accommodate them.
Especially on an issue that is Morally Contentious, and yet to have any definitive answer regarding causation.
You may say I am being unscientific, but I’m not. I’m simply using what we use to call Reason. Apparently these days Reason means going with whatever notion is popular in the in crowd these days. Soon we’ll ask to believe Science has proven the Earth to be flat because some Advocacy group has thrown a Hissy Fit over it.
My Lord Norton.
Zarove: I’m not hiding behind any dogma. I have yet to see any evidence to show that homosexuality is not innate.
You will never see such Evidence. Because you can’t prove a Negative without complete and total knowledge. In order to prove that no one has ever been born with an innate Homosexual tend any would require absolute knowledge of every Human Person who has ever lived and a full understanding of heir Genetic Code, Hormonal Balance, and who knows what else. Obviously this is well beyond Human Capacity. But what I can show you is that people have changed a Supposedly fixed and totally Innate Homosexual Orientation around to Heterosexuality. I don’t care for your evading the issue with the existence of Bisexuals and whatnot, I’m talking about the existence of people who were one thing then another.
Besides, my central point didn’t rest on Homosexuality being proven to not be innate. It rests on us not knowing so allowing essential Liberty to all Parties to do as they like. That I’d very much like to address.
People do not have sex necessarily for the purpose of procreation.
I believe I mentioned that in my earlier post. However. Sex exists for Procreation. People don’t always eat to stay alive, but we are designed to eat so we can. This really is a non-point.
Your contributions remind of the quote usually attributed to Churchill: ‘I’m sorry this letter is so long. I didn’t have time to write a short one.’
Then let me be Short.
Three points.
1: You cannot prove Homosexuality is innate. Just saying another bloke can’t prove its not innate doesn’t help your case.
2: People do not like being ordered to accept Homosexuality, nor being told not to.
3: My Solution is to let people make up their own minds and simply write the Law so that it permits people to service these desires or not. If a Minister wishes to perform a Same Sex Service, he can. If a Minister decided not to, he doesn’t have to. Bu the same right should extend well beyond the Clergy to Shop Owners and Restrainers. It shouldn’t be of Governmental Concern how I conduct my own Affairs, including Business matters.
That’s why I said I was a Libertarian. A Part of the Argument you seem to miss completely in your attempt to use Canned and very poor arguments to somehow prove Homosexuality is innate because someone else can’t prove its innate.
Carl H: Since you say you are not homophobic, you presumably have no problem with talking to people who are gay. I suggest you ask them when they chose to be gay. You could visit some of the gay clubs, of which you are so aware, and ask the people there. You could then extend your study to that greater number of gays who don’t go to clubs and perhaps talk to some who are not out, and who lead very quiet, unassuming lives, and ask them when they chose to be gay. It would be especially interesting to find someone who is gay and celibate and ask them.
I suggest you take Zarove with you.
My Lord sexuality of all kinds is a funny thing, ask anyone if they chose to like X, Y or redheads and they won`t be able to say they remember the day they chose it…It just happened.
I like cheese, I don`t remember choosing to like cheese. Innate or choice ?
My Lord the same was thought of criminality, and still is by some, are you born with a criminal gene or is it environmental.
I`m prepared to say my mind is open as nothing is proven, you however show a similar stance to that of a deeply religious person. Above I asked questions of prison homosexuality etc.,no one can answer them apparently.
It is a FACT that there is no proof that homosexuality is innate.
I have spoken with my nephew and he can tell me the approximate time he decided he was gay…….and that by the way was just after learning he had made a girl pregnant. Now “deciding” you are something may not be the same as what his Lordship means but we`re merely going around in circles.
Whilst this thread has been illuminating, especially seeing LN become so emotive and losing some cool rationality, I think it`s time to stop…So I`m choosing to stop.
One last hying. What is it withy iu and Gay CLubs?
My point rests on the Legal Argument that people shoudl have the right ot decide for themselves how they treat the issue as its Far, Far fromsettled as to the Cause of Hoosexuality.
I do not care that not all Gays are CLubbing or having rampent sexcapades with dozens of Ranom Partners. THat was never a part of my argument. It is utterly irrelevant if some gay peopel lead uiet, celibate lives.
What I’m sayign is that people who are for Civil Partnerhsips shoudl hae the right to support htem, but those agaisnt htem shoudl have the right to refrain form such support.
I woudl allow CHurches that wish to SOlomnise them to, and htose hwo don’t woudlnt have to. I’d also say that SHop Owners or Resteraunteers or otels dont hae to have htem performed on their Grounds if they dont want to, but wouldnt be stopped if they did.
WHy not address THAT argument?
Zarove: I don’t have a thing about gay clubs. Carl H does. The rest of what you say has nothing to do with what I was arguing.
Zarove: “But what I can show you is that people have changed a Supposedly fixed and totally Innate Homosexual Orientation around to Heterosexuality.” No you cannot. You may show a handful of people who claim that. What you cannot prove is that they are not bisexual.
Since your comment relies on what people say (‘I have changed orientation’), I suggest you employ the technique of talking to people who are gay. Or is their belief that they are innately gay to be ignored and only those few individuals who claim to have changed to be listened to?
Lord Norton, your tactic is utterly dishonest. I’m sorry but, Ive spoken to several Gay people. Ironically they agree with me and my central point, which is what you evade like a vampire Evades Holy Water. And now your just being utterly irrational and askign I reject peoples claims of changing preferences sexually yet take the word of other peopel about when their preferences came about. Don’t you realise that the Quality of evidence you are using is exactly the same as mine?
Lets see. I can’t trust people who have told me they stopped beign Gay, because maybe they were really Bisexual. Meanwhile I shoudl ask Gay peopel when they started to be Gay, and take their word for it if they tell me that they were always gay an born that way. Of coruse I’ve spoken to some Gay peopel who told me they did decide t be Gay, but I guess they lied to me.
Really, Lord Norton, your not being intellectually Honest here. Why shoudl one persons testimony be of more worth than another? Your still ultimately relying on word of mouth. It seems to me that you just Favour one persons testimony over another persons testimony because it suits your preferred beleifs better.
That said, why not actually, you know, cover the main point I made.
Why not let people themselves decide how they treat the issue? Why bother having Governmental Regulations on peoples privaley Owned Buisnesses or Religious Institutions?
Why not allow people to decide if they serve Same Sex Civil Partnerships or not.
It’d in the end be far easier and far more just, and far less costly to enforce.
Zarove: You haven’t really engaged with my substantive comments and nothing you write adds to what you previously said. Let’s just say I’m fairly confident that a survey of gays would show that all but a confused handful are conscious that their sexual orientation is not a matter of choice. I don’t think teenagers coming out to their parents will usually say: ‘Mother, father, I have something to tell you. I have decided I am going to be gay. I’m not worried about the homophobic bullying or the increase in attacks on gays, or the ignorance on the part of many about homosexuality – people who think I can be ‘cured’ – but having weighed things up, I think it is quite a good choice for me. I knew you would understand’
Perhaps you could invite Tom Robinson to the Lords to explain more about ‘Having It Both Ways’, since he is now a father.
http://www.tomrobinson.com/records/albums/hibw.htm
Although he still styles himself as ‘queer’ so I don’t think he has chosen to ‘change’ from what he was before, if you get my drift.
My Lord Norton, as my previous COmments seem offensive, and as you are an Expert on Parliment and Law, let me rephrase this very simply.
My Argument concerns individual Liberty over deciding about Personal Invovlement and support for a Lifestyle that has not been clealry shown to have a definite Cause.
It is my argument that people shuld simply choose for themselves if thy support htis or not, and the Law shoudl only Protect peopels choices either way.
This means tat, contrary to th Homophobic Bigot image youmay have of me, I’d allow Churhces who wish to perform Civil Partenrships to do so. I’d simply add a Stipulaiton in Law that says those who do not wish to can’t be Sued or forced to. But I’d extend this beyind CHurhces and also say that Hotels, Resteraunts, and Privately Owned Gardens may equelly Deny their property for use in Celebrations of Ciil Partnerships, and ae nto Required ot Rent to them. They also shoudln’t be Sued. But shoudl a Hotel, Resteraunt, or Private Garden owner agree to Rent his Property for such an occassion, he shoudl equelly be Allowed.
My Argument is thus one of Essential personal Liberty. It is my beleif that people can make up their own mind if they support Homosexuality or not, and shoudl be allowd to act in accordance to the dictates of their own COncience in both participation in such events or utilisation of their privatley owned Property to peopel who woudl use them for them.
In other words, the Law shoudl only protect peopels right to choose what they themselves do with their lives and own property, and shoudl neither force acceptance of Homosexuality, nor Force a lack fo acceptance of it.
You get so caughtup in the Causation issue and act liek anyone hwo even quesitons it beign innate is a Homophobe, meanwhile ignorign the Central Legal issue.
We know you support the view that Homosexuality is innate and you seem to think it ought ot be Treated as a Race, and you also seem to think peopele liek me who disagree on forcing people to service thse sorts of vents must be motivated by Bigotry, but please address the above.
To me its about letting peopel decide for themselves. Thats why I don’t bother goign into much Detial over Causaiton, as its not Proven oen way or the other and thus shoudln’t be a Factor in Legal THinking.