It’s good to be back from America and thanks to all who commented on my observations from over there. I feel more comfortable here in our more caring society, which shows more concern for the needy. Especially at this time of economic turmoil and difficulty. People have a better chance of coping here – do you know that there is no statutory redundancy pay in America? However, over there they are more robust in challenging the power of the banks. Our attitude here reminds me of our fear of the trade unions in the 1970s.
It is also good to get back to a place where there is a concerted effort to deal with climate change. Growing scepticism in America means that their actions are being reversed.
Where we should not be copying America is introducing more competition into health and politicising the police. Actions we will regret. America comes near the bottom on quality and access to health and police operations work best where there is least political involvement.
What does surprise me on my return is the rise in racial tension and especially anti semitism which is markedly greater than when I left.
What doesn’t surprise me is that no progress has been made in the reform of the House of Lords. Meanwhile the conventions are breaking down and the large increase in numbers is creating difficulties. In the absence of concensus for major reform we shall have to reform ourselves with a series of small steps, such as managing the change to a smaller House, codefying our conventions – especially our relationship with the Commons and restating our role as a revising and scrutinising chamber.
rise in racial tension and especially anti semitism which is markedly greater than when I left.
Have I missed something ?
In the absence of concensus for major reform we shall have to reform ourselves with a series of small steps, such as managing the change to a smaller House
All talk again, no action. I don’t see how you can progress without the Commons. But news is from
Prime MinisterNick Clegg a reform package is coming soon, very soon…You know the one that was supposed tobe here before Christmas !@Lord Haskel:
Your thread is like a breath of fresh air.
It is also good to get back to a place where there is a concerted effort to deal with climate change
I have given up my car and I am growing vegetables. It’s bound to have an effect.
Where we should not be copying America is introducing more competition into health and politicising the police.
The noble lord may have got his double negatives wrong there, but he may not.
We are hoping for more; they are hoping for less, re health.
The IPCC (independent police complaints commission)does not seem to be of much value.
Since all charges made by the police are “political” in the sense of, known to all as soon as they are pressed, the police are very much involved in what amount to political acts against the alleged criminal. Ah! Well.
There does not seem to be any potential for the Chief Constables to be elected by popular mandate as was suggested just before the 1997 General election. At least some of the police constables would know the name of their employer, which is often not the case at present!
Chief Constables always seem to be men of the highest integrity to me, regardless!
Harking back to Dr Joad, it all depends on what you mean by “the needy”.
People see what they want or expect to see. I live in America these days and, quiet frankly, I don’t think its more or less compassionate a Society than the UK. It will depend on where you are in America, as each State differs and its no where near Homogenous, and parts of each State differ from other parts of the same State of course, but on the whole people are people. I don’t think they are really cruel here.
I think that the Average American is simply not inclined to the same general Principles of Social Democracy as the UK and most of Europe are, but this owes to its own History, just as those who do hold to Social Democracy owe this to their own.
Also, not all in the UK buy into Climate Change.
I think perhaps Your Lordship is perhaps a bit hasty in Juding the Americans in there behaviours.
Zarove 0832am090311
?
“Juding” (Hey Jude-ing) or “Judging”;
“there-behaviours” or “their behaviours”
?
“Also, not all in the UK buy into Climate Change.”
Not all in the UK buy into the germ theory of disease, either, but that doesn’t mean we should listen to homeopaths when formulating our vaccination policies.
Also, not all in the UK buy into Climate Change.
Being in the USA yourself you base this evidence on whom ?
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Environmentandgreenerliving/Thewiderenvironment/Climatechange/index.htm
I’m dyslexic. You shall have to pardon the occassional Tyeping mistake.
Zarove: That’s okay. No doubt it is a lifestyle choice.
It’s always odd to see what racial tensions other people see as being on the increase.
For example, while Lord Haskel has been away, newspapers of all stripes, but particularly Desmond-owned rags such as the Express and the Star, have been increasing the frequency and virulency of their Anti-Islam rhetoric, often running headlines on the front page specifically designed to alarm.
However, upon the Lord’s return, he spots an increase in Anti-Semitism which I will admit I didn’t notice, hiding as it was behind the shouting about whether it is most of our Islamic neighbours who want to kill us and rape our daughters, or only some of them.
I’m intrigued as to what he’s been looking at over here that makes Anti-Semitism stand out so much for him, even over and above front page headlines slamming Muslims and setting them up in opposition to the “White Working Class”. Not to deny that anti-Semitism still exists, of course, I’m just saying that it doesn’t strike me as the current racism growth industry.
“However, over there they are more robust in challenging the power of the banks.”
This must be a relative thing, because I haven’t noticed the Summers-Geithner clown show being particularly strong at all. But then, I suppose all we have over here is supine sycophancy.
If even the Obama Administration looks like the tough guy on financial criminals in comparison to you, I’d say that was a sign your government should probably give up any pretence that it’s not a fully bought and paid for subsidiary of the financial sector. That’s really embarrassing.
I’m just saying that it doesn’t strike me as the current racism growth industry.
Is there one other than anti-multiculturalism, which may be rescinded any day now?!
Lord Norton, you should know that Insults are not becoming. This is especially True given that my condition is seen as a Disability, not something everyone else should Celebrate.
That said, to all, the United Kingdom is home of many Climate Change Sceptics, and I do have Family and Friends there, and have been back on occasion. I have witnessed such myself.
But all one needs to do is do a quick web search. If one doesn’t trust the Daily Mail one can always look to the Telegraph. One may not like either Paper but they represent a rather large readership in the UK, and loads of those readers express their doubts regarding Climate Change.
As do many Scientists.
Unlike Germ Theory, the Climate Change Hypothesis has not been thoroughly proven beyond all Reasonable Doubt.
Below shows that many do not agree, even Engineers or Scientists.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6678469/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html
And this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/oct/25/climate-fools-day-sceptics-parliament
It may be derogatory, but it names specific names.
The Prince of Wales also seems to make mention of Climate Scepticism, which seems odd if its such a Minority view as to be negligible.
As seen here.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/8314052/Prince-of-Wales-climate-change-sceptics-playing-a-reckless-game-of-roulette.html
Did I mention that many High Profile Tory Backbenchers in 2010 made the news, along with several others, in their opposition?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8088204/Climate-sceptics-launch-campaign-to-overturn-green-targets.html
Climate Change has its fair number of critics, and is not a proven absolute Science. it’s a bit premature to just discard any opposing view.
Zarove: I wasn’t being insulting. I was making a rather serious point. I suggest you take everything you have written about homosexuality and replace homosexuality with dyslexia and you may get some idea of how your comments will be seen.
Lord Norton, do you seriously propose I consider Homosexuality a Disability? For this is what Dyslexia is classified as.
Zarove: No, but that isn’t particularly relevant to the point I am making. Some may believe that people are quite capable of learning to spell correctly, that dyslexia is therefore a choice rather than inherent, and that those who claim to be dyslexic are engaging in behaviour that is not acceptable. They would argue that they are perfectly entitled to argue the point and can maintain their claim in the absence of evidence that dyslexia is intrinsic.
Lord Norton-
[quote]No, but that isn’t particularly relevant to the point I am making. Some may believe that people are quite capable of learning to spell correctly, that dyslexia is therefore a choice rather than inherent, and that those who claim to be dyslexic are engaging in behaviour that is not acceptable. They would argue that they are perfectly entitled to argue the point and can maintain their claim in the absence of evidence that dyslexia is intrinsic.[/quote]
Three main problems occur.
1: Whether intrinsic or not, Its not a Choice. And even the Homosexual debate is not left with only “it’s a choice” VS “Its Innate”. Something can be neither chosen nor innate. Many forms of Depression are not innate, and immutable. I know of no one who chose to be depressed though.
Depression in them was triggered by life experiences, and was not Chosen. This means its neither a condition they were Born with, nor something they chose.
Homosexuality can be much the same. It need not be Freely Chosen in order to be changeable, and not choosing it doesn’t make it something one is born with.
2: As a Dyslexic I spent years in a Special Educational Therapy in order to learn to read and write. It was treated as a Disease, and I was taught how to function with it. If your analogy is followed to its Logical conclusion we should at least make therapy Available for those Homosexuals who do not wish to be Homosexual, but somehow that’s not permitted either.
I know of no one who considers Dyslexia as anything other than a Disability, and its certainly not a Lifestyle.
No one really lives a Dyslexic Lifestyle.
3: There is actually evidence that Dyslexia is a Condition people have and its likely innate. The cause is not exactly known but its far better known, and documented, that Homosexuality.
Thusfar we have no evidence whatsoever that Homosexuality is innate, a all. Its just a Politically Correct thing to believe and has become Dogma.
In fact, if it were proven by some report somewhere that its not, it’d be denied, because too much is invested in it being innate.
Meanwhile, if Dyslexia were Shown not to be innate and caused by some mental problem that was easily curable, people like me would welcome the Change.
On the whole that’s the problem with the Gay Rights movement. Its more or less one resting more on emotion and an Ideological basis. Heck, even your own bias make me into a Homophobic Monster who is obsessed with this, even though Carls the one constantly bringing it up in threads its not mentioned in to use as a club against me. You also never seem to address my real argument, which is that people should have the rights to their conscience, and thus should be permitted to follow their Moral Values. The biggest problem I have with the Gay Rights Agenda is how it eliminates Individual Liberty.
Its easy to shout “HOMOPHOBE!” at anyone who doesn’t believe Homosexuality is Moral, but depicting them as cruel, heartless Monsters simply for holding to a Moral tenet that’s been a part of most Human Societies throughout History, rather than adopt the more recent ideas that, despite our claims to being a rational society that has learned a lot more still hasn’t a shred of evidence to back it, is not and never could be fair.
Its also unjustified to force someone to facilitate behaviour they believe to be Morally Wrong.
As I said, this was never about Homosexuality as much as its about personal Liberty. That’s something you, Carl, and others seem to completely ignore because the moment you focus on it you loose ground, and you all but loose the case as soon as you admit there isn’t any evidence at all that Homosexuality is Innate and that you‘re just pushing a personal belief onto everyone else.
After all, if its shown that Homosexuality is not innate and something that’s fixed form birth and hat never Changes, if its shown in the Future that it can be Changed, what then becomes of your arguments you use now, but that they fall?
As I said, I don’t hate Gay people. Not everyone who is leery of the gay Rights movement does. I don’t want to make it a Criminal Offence. However, when you have Bed and breakfast owners fined because they don’t want to provide a single room for a gay Couple, and have Lords saying Christians who hold to Traditional Moral tenets o their Faith shouldn’t be allowed to Foster or Adopt Children, then you are discriminating against them for their beliefs, in favour of protecting someone’s conduct that is not at all proven to be unalterable.
That is not Justice.
Meanwhile, I know of no one who see’s Dyslexia as a behaviour, and no one see’s it as a Lifestyle. There are no Dyslexic Pride Parades, and no one is discussing it at all.
Lord Norton, I spent years in actual Therapy to become literate and able to function. Dyslexia, whether or not innate, is still considered more of a Disease than a mark of Honour.
Yet it is my understanding that anyone who offers Psychological counselling to Homosexuals to help them get rid of unwanted Same Sex Attractions, even if the Homosexual requests it, would be considered in a Breach of Ethics these days.
The problem with replacing everything I’ve said about Homosexuality, which on this board is actually little, is that it makes no sense to equate something that is a Disability with something else that you are trying to pass off as akin to Race.
People today are working on a Cure for Dyslexia. If they succeed, most who are Dyslexic will advance toward it. Work toward a cure for Homosexuality and your seen as a Homophobe.
Its really absurd. Then again, most of the time Homosexuality comes up in regards to me its Carl using it as a Club to show me as an inhuman monster, but no doubt I’m the bad guy who goateed him into it even when I never addressed him fist and am obsessed with homosexuality.
The Truth is that you’ve just accepted the whole Narrative of gay Rights and naturally support those who support it and see as some sort of evil Bigot those who don’t. I’m always going to be at fault and somehow the ignorant fool who just hates Gay people, even if my only point is that people need to have Freedom of Conscience.
If you cannot provide evidence that Homosexuality is innate, why do we have to pretend it’s a proven fact? Why do we have to set laws on the basis of how Homosexuality is innate when this cannot be demonstrated at all by anyone? Why penalise people for holding to a Morality that has existed for most of Human History and which had been the general Consensus of society till recent years?
Unless you can provide evidence that Homosexuality is, in fact, innate, I see no reason at all to pretend it is, and to use this to force people into accepting it. After all, it may turn out that your wrong, and tis not innate.
Before you try to turn this round and say I may be wrong, I’ve said we do not know its causes. How can I be wrong? I make no positive assertion that its not innate, I merely say it has not been proven to be. I have nothing to prove, and my current argument rests on the fact that you can’t prove your stance.
And quit frankly I agree with a Gay Rights Activist in regards to this. David Starkey said it was wrong to force people to accept Homosexuality, and called this a New Tyranny. I Agree.
Jut because you want to see me as a Bigot motivated by hatred who needs to look at this in a new light doesn’t mean I’m anywhere near as hateful as the gay Rights Narrative demands I be seen as, and just because you want to pretend to hold some moral high ground doesn’t invalidate my point that current pro-gay laws are Draconian and rest on nothing more than mere pronouncement.
“That’s something you, Carl”
Dear Lord Norton kindly remove your hand from my backside and moving my lips, I actually said nothing. Surely this is some type of “ism”…Zarove yet again sniping from long distance.
If on the other hand Zarove has a fetish about my name and simply doesn’t get off without mentioning it I’m prepared to forgive him. Provided he rents a room, in a Hotel where it is not immoral to practice such fetishes. Then again being what I am I may demand all hotel owners be forced to accept “Carl” without bigotry.
My Lord is it time to let lose the beast yet? Quiet Peter Tachell, Master will free you soon.
Did I mention zarove enough? Darn, forgot to in someway disrespect religion and mustn`t forget Dog…Ooops sorry little dyslexic there but I got the capital right. How comes dyslexics can always smell disskleksick and trying as hard as they do to understand text how do they see Zaroves text ?
Sorry Zarove, just jesting of course it’s not a choice to just use a spell checker.
To all other dyslexics I’d like to humbly apologise for my mirth, it is a debilitating illness that most rise above and I salute them.
I am of course quite mad as I’m amoral in thinking homosexuality is acceptable. It is quite obviously against
Dogsorry the big bearded guy upstairs whose sexuality is yet to be decided-why do I feel a lecture coming-and could infact be quite homo or even a dyke or a stream of somekind.All those without a sense of humour please say “Eamon”. 😉
Lord Norton- Since when is Dyslexia a Moral Issue? One that people are ordered to accept as a lifestyle?
Do Parents find the Government ordering them to teach their Children abou thte Jos of Dyslexia?
Do we hav Dyslexia Pride parades?
Do we have Lords in Parliment lirterlaly sayign some may not be fit becsuse they don’t accept Dylexia?
What about Private Hotel ownrs beign forced to accept it?
In that regad, yoru whole thing collapses, doesnt it?
No one see’s it as a Moral issue.
Also, its disingeniosu to positi this as “Either Homosexuality is a choice or its Innate”. There are plenty of thigns, such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which are not CHosen, but not innate.
Things really aren’t that simplistic.
Zarove: I have never resad anything quite so ludicrous. Your points are irrelevant to the point I am making regarding the comparison and the fact that dyslexia is on a par with homosexuality in that it is not a matter of choice. If you think it is, you are on the same planet as those who regard dyslexia as a matter of choice.
There is definitely an odd thrust to all of this anti Christian attitude on morality. And how is it going to be dealt with? Are we to cast aside two thousand years of history all for the demand that the people of the land accept sexual diversity as Godly?
Lets look at the Courts and their practices. When you are in the dock you are asked to plead guilty or not guilty, with the implication that you swear before the almighty when you do so. If you are a witness you are required to swear on the bible, or, some other religious writing, or alternatively ‘affirm’ that you will tell only the truth and the whole truth, so help you God or some other kind of deep belief. And you can be incarcerated if you lie, under a charge of purjury against you.
Add to that, Judges are required to swear an oath of allegiance to the Monarch, carried out with all the gravity of a religious service. Bibles used and a deep meaningful promise to be working in the best interests of your country and Queen.
What to all of that now? Will it no longer count as perjury if you lie? Will the Judge no longer owe his allegience to our Queen and country for it means nothing any more?
Is this the next move of those hell bent on changing this society from God fearing to complacent don’t care or give a damn brigade? I’m not bovvered to be part of the oath now?
What is this future our leaders plan for us? Their vision of tomorrow?
And to raise the already cited Wednesbury issue. This judgment did not appear to take into account the basis of that ‘unreasonable’ ‘illogical’ Council decision with any respect to the majority of people in this country.
The Judicial control of government power is an essential elementof democracy. So what happened here was a flaunting of the power given to the courts in respect of decisions not being in the interest of the people. In this case, the need for children who are abandoned, to have the charity of a good and stable homelife. Instead the Judges decided that the 2% of homosexuals of this country were more equal (to raise Orwell) than those children.
Can they really sleep at night?
http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199277285/01student/onlineglossary/
And the dreaded Tabloids.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1363641/These-judges-want-destroy-core-moral-values-We-simply-let-succeed.html
Lord Norton-
Zarove: I have never resad anything quite so ludicrous.
If you want to make Dyslexia equivalent to Homosexuality, yes you have.
Its like Making Adultery the Equivalent to walking with a Cane.
Your points are irrelevant to the point I am making regarding the comparison and the fact that dyslexia is on a par with homosexuality in that it is not a matter of choice.
Which is proven how?
The biggest problem with your entire assertion, and the whole Gay Rights agenda, is that it assumes well too much beyond any reasonable evidence. Law is suppose to be rooted in Reason, not in Whimsy, but that’s what the Gay Rights laws today are, Whimsy.
They rests on the unproven assumption that Homosexuality is innate and unchangeable. This cannot be Proven. It doesn’t matter that you, or anyone else, insists that Sexual Orientation is a Fixed Trait at Birth, until you can present actual Evidence that this is the case there is no Logical Reason to treat this as a Proven Fact, and certainly no Reason to impose on everyone else complete acceptance of Homosexuality.
And its not as simplistic as “Choice VS Innate” either. Even if not Chosen, it could still be alterable. As I have stated before, people HAVE Changed. Some only become Homosexual in later life. We say they “DIscovered” their True Sexuality, but did they? If a man never reports Sexual Fantasies about the same sex and never even had such urges till he’s in his mid 30’s we are still to asusme he was always gay? Really?
Worse is when people go the other way. If a man is gay but then decides to not be any longer and is now into women, you only suggestion, no doubt to make a Homophobic Bigot like me thinks of possibilities I just won’t consider, is that “Maybe they were really Bisexual”. Well, prove it. Why should I consider that possibility when your so narrow minded as not to accept the alternate possibility that maybe they really went from 100% gay to 100% straight?
The Truth is, there is not a single shred of evidence to support the concept of Sexual Orientation itself. Nothing even says Sexual Orientation exists, at all. There are even Respected Researchers who promote the idea that everyone was Born Bisexual, and a Gay or Straight “Orientation’ is simply the result of life experiences. Others postulate that Homosexuality is a Variant that develops over time form a Heterosexual Norm, which is itself created by a need to procreate. There are other theories as well, form Hormones in the Womb to pure Psychological Development. But the one thing that’s not proven, and in fact that’s nearly disproven, is that one is born with an innate and fixed Sexuality that never fluxgates at all during the course of ones lifetime.
Twin Studies alone show that less than half of Identical Twins will share a Homosexual Orientation, which shows it can’t be Purely Genetic. This is a Fact. There is also research which shows that the chances of Homosexuality developing increase with the number of Children and age of the Mother at Birth, which can’t be Genetic. (Though I’ve read some ignorant of Genetics say this is proof of it being so,.)
Genetic factors may be involved. May. But what if they aren’t? what if its Hormonal? Worse, what if it’s not and it is the product of Psychological Development? In that case, it may not be a Choice, but its also not innate either.
And what if, just what if, Homosexuality is not Immutable?
What does that do to the current Dogma?
If you think it is, you are on the same planet as those who regard dyslexia as a matter of choice.
But you miss my point.
I spent years in Therapy to learn to read. If I suggest Homosexuals spend years in Therapy to become Heterosexual, then I’ a Bigot. No one thinks my Mother was a Bigot for not accepting my learning disability.
Zarove: If you spent years in therapy for something that is natural to you, then you know how many gays have felt being ‘treated’ for something that is in their nature. I am quite well aware that some people think everyone has bisexual tendencies. I am also well aware that exactly the points you claim about proof can be turned on their head. There is more empirical evidence of homsexuality not being a choice than there is to the contrary. I appreciate that millions of gays could be wrong, and a few individuals like you could be right, but I doubt it.
maude elwes, You are right. Homosexual Rights in our modern world take precedence over our Individual Conscience, Religious Beliefs, and personal Morals, and they take Precedence over the best interest of our Socie3ties Children. This is why I dislike the Gay Rights Agenda.
Its really about pushing an Ideology, not what’s best for all concerned, not the Truth. Its just about ensuring compliance with the new Dogma.
@Zarove:
The important issue in this matter is this, the teaching of homosexuality as ‘normal’ (thumped on here time and time again by those wishing to herald the cause) or, imply it takes precedence over health and safety, as well as the right to disassociate from the practice ‘without punishment,’ should a person wish to do so, is a grave cause for concern as well as it is perverse.
To ban smoking, whilst at the same time promote homosexual practice, especially in schools, is unconscionable. To harp about diet, exercise and all other inconsequential activity, as a more important public health issue, is mindless and sinister.
Oh but we all know Maude that any opposition to Homosexuality is seen as motivated by Hatred, don’t we? Because its really just a way for people to feel like they are part of some Grand sweeping Progress Society is making, and to recapture the Feelings form the Civil Rights movement an make themselves Heroes in the same Vein.
They want a Sequel to the Civil Rights Era, with them as the Stars, and this was cobbled together to create that.
But as with most Sequels, the Script just rehashes older Elements and is far, far weaker.
Zarove: The important question is why such distorted views are held and why people have to engage in the most bizarre contortions in order to claim that discrimination against homosexuals cannot be equated with discrimination against those who are black. Those who seem consumed by the issue of homosexuality are not gays but those who object to homosexuality being seen as a natural part of life. Some people are gay. Get over it.
Lord Norton-
Zarove: The important question is why such distorted views are held and why people have to engage in the most bizarre contortions in order to claim that discrimination against homosexuals cannot be equated with discrimination against those who are black.
You know, these “Distorted” views were the accepted Morality for the majority of the History of the British Peoples, and are still understood to be True by a great many. Its only been in the last 30 or so years this has actually Changed in society, and even then more because of advertising and bullying, not Science.
Homosexuality is seen as an Unhealthy practice by many and damaging both Mentally and Physically. There is evidence that Links it to Health Risks in both to back these claims.
Simply dismissing this as “Distorted” isn’t a solution.
But it is distorted to think of belong Gay as like belong Black. Its in fact idiotic. Two men having sex is not the same as one man Being Black. Being Black means you have a darker coloured skin and (usually) slightly different facial Features. Its purely an Aesthetic distinction.
Being Gay is purely about behaviour.
One doesn’t have to engage in any sex at all. Homosexual Sex is not something that is utterly impossible to not do, and is certainly not a Physically distinguishing feature.
So its really silly to say that discrimination against Homosexuality is the same as discrimination against Blacks, when one is actually arbitrary Discrimination against the way one looks, and the other is moral opposition to how one behaves.
The Two aren’t really equitable. Its just a popular bandy word these days to win an argument by attaching Homosexuality to Race and thus to the Civil Rights Movement. But it is still Sophistry.
Those who seem consumed by the issue of homosexuality are not gays but those who object to homosexuality being seen as a natural part of life.
As for Homosexuality being Natural, prove it.
You can’t.
The claim that Homosexuality is a Trait that is innate and that cannot be changed at all and is fixed for life is an unsubstantiated one.
As for the claim that it’s the evil Homophobes who won’t let the issue die, this is flagrant Dishonesty that can be proven by reading this Blog, or even this thread.
If this were True then why are we even discussing the issue now? If you read this thread you will discover that I didn’t bring up Homosexuality, you did by mocking my Dyslexia. Indeed, the vast majority of the time I am called into these discussions its because someone else attacks m for my position (Or what they think my position is) Rather than because I brought it up. Carl brings it up in threads that are unrelated to Homosexuality to beat me over the head with it.
Do you really think I am obsessed with the matter of Homosexuality when I don’t go out of my way to being it up but merely answer the absurd objections to my opposition to it, often based on things I never said? Or how about if someone does a deliberate Internet search and finds something I said several years ago and post a link to that?
Come off it, the obsession over Homosexuality is purely from the end of those trying to force it down everyone else’s throats.
Its not like the Couple who wanted to offer services as Foster Parents, the John’s, went out of their way to bash Gays, they were merely told they had to endorse the Lifestyle and said they couldn’t. So the Government declared Christians unfit for Adoption, and Lord Falconer agreed. Or what about the Couple who wanted to run a Bed and Breakfast according to their Morals.
No, Lord Norton, you are quiet wrong here. The obsession is on the end of the ‘Gay Rights”, not those who oppose. Those who opposed long ago adopted a Live and Let Live ideology, its only the Gay Rights m cements insistence on complete acceptance by everyone being forced onto all by the Sword fo the Law that makes this an issue today.
As for Homosexuality being Natural, prove it.
You can’t.
The claim that Homosexuality is a Trait that is innate and that cannot be changed at all and is fixed for life is an unsubstantiated one.
Some people are gay. Get over it.
Bullies say that those they bully are really he Aggressors. You do too. However, I’ll Get over it once you get over the fact that not everyone agrees that Homosexuality is a Natural, normal part of Human sexuality and have a right to their moral Conscience.
You have no proof that Homosexuality is innate and unchangeable. You are forcing people to Violate their Moral Conscience out of something that you merely assert without evidence.
Why should I just get over the loss of Liberty and imposition of an Arbitrary Moral Code onto unwilling persons?
Because that is what the Gay Rights movement now means.
Lord Norton-
Zarove: The important question is why such distorted views are held and why people have to engage in the most bizarre contortions in order to claim that discrimination against homosexuals cannot be equated with discrimination against those who are black.
You know, these “Distorted” views were the accepted Morality for the majority of the History of the British Peoples, and are still understood to be True by a great many. Its only been in the last 30 or so years this has actually Changed in society, and even then more because of advertising and bullying, not Science.
Homosexuality is seen as an Unhealthy practice by many and damaging both Mentally and Physically. There is evidence that Links it to Health Risks in both to back these claims.
Simply dismissing this as “Distorted” isn’t a solution.
But it is distorted to think of belong Gay as like belong Black. Its in fact idiotic. Two men having sex is not the same as one man Being Black. Being Black means you have a darker coloured skin and (usually) slightly different facial Features. Its purely an Aesthetic distinction.
Being Gay is purely about behaviour.
One doesn’t have to engage in any sex at all. Homosexual Sex is not something that is utterly impossible to not do, and is certainly not a Physically distinguishing feature.
So its really silly to say that discrimination against Homosexuality is the same as discrimination against Blacks, when one is actually arbitrary Discrimination against the way one looks, and the other is moral opposition to how one behaves.
The Two aren’t really equitable. Its just a popular bandy word these days to win an argument by attaching Homosexuality to Race and thus to the Civil Rights Movement. But it is still Sophistry.
Those who seem consumed by the issue of homosexuality are not gays but those who object to homosexuality being seen as a natural part of life.
As for Homosexuality being Natural, prove it.
You can’t.
The claim that Homosexuality is a Trait that is innate and that cannot be changed at all and is fixed for life is an unsubstantiated one.
As for the claim that it’s the evil Homophobes who won’t let the issue die, this is flagrant Dishonesty that can be proven by reading this Blog, or even this thread.
If this were True then why are we even discussing the issue now? If you read this thread you will discover that I didn’t bring up Homosexuality, you did by mocking my Dyslexia. Indeed, the vast majority of the time I am called into these discussions its because someone else attacks m for my position (Or what they think my position is) Rather than because I brought it up. Carl brings it up in threads that are unrelated to Homosexuality to beat me over the head with it.
Do you really think I am obsessed with the matter of Homosexuality when I don’t go out of my way to being it up but merely answer the absurd objections to my opposition to it, often based on things I never said? Or how about if someone does a deliberate Internet search and finds something I said several years ago and post a link to that?
Come off it, the obsession over Homosexuality is purely from the end of those trying to force it down everyone else’s throats.
Its not like the Couple who wanted to offer services as Foster Parents, the John’s, went out of their way to bash Gays, they were merely told they had to endorse the Lifestyle and said they couldn’t. So the Government declared Christians unfit for Adoption, and Lord Falconer agreed. Or what about the Couple who wanted to run a Bed and Breakfast according to their Morals.
No, Lord Norton, you are quiet wrong here. The obsession is on the end of the ‘Gay Rights”, not those who oppose. Those who opposed long ago adopted a Live and Let Live ideology, its only the Gay Rights m cements insistence on complete acceptance by everyone being forced onto all by the Sword of the Law that makes this an issue today.
Some people are gay. Get over it.
Bullies say that those they bully are really he Aggressors. You do too. However, I’ll Get over it once you get over the fact that not everyone agrees that Homosexuality is a Natural, normal part of Human sexuality and have a right to their moral Conscience.
You have no proof that Homosexuality is innate and unchangeable. You are forcing people to Violate their Moral Conscience out of something that you merely assert without evidence.
Why should I just get over the loss of Liberty and imposition of an Arbitrary Moral Code onto unwilling persons?
Because that is what the Gay Rights movement now means.
Zarove: The length of your comment, never mind the content, demonstrates that you are totally obsessive about the subject. You tie yourself into knots. The Sexual Offences Act was hardly the product of bullying, rather the result of mature reflection. Homsexuality is not behaviour, it is a condition, the same as heterosexuality as bisexuality. Discrimation against those who are gay is comparable with discrimination against those who are black. The point I made about empirical evidence stands and you are not able to refute it.
There is no arbitrary moral code, no more than yours. The fact that you are incapable of recognising what exists is your problem.
Lord Norton,
Zarove: The length of your comment, never mind the content, demonstrates that you are totally obsessive about the subject.
If you read very many of my posts you see I have a habit of posting long replies. If this reflects obsession on the Gay Issue, then I’m pretty well obsessed with Footwear, movies, and basically anything else I’ve ever discussed anywhere on the net.
I simply write a good deal and am very verbose.
On the other hand, you inserted the whole topic of Homosexuality into this thread which is not even about it based on my apology to another poster and explanation that I am Dyslexic.
You tie yourself into knots.
Howso?
The Sexual Offences Act was hardly the product of bullying, rather the result of mature reflection.
It was Politically Correct Twaddle.
The product of a Cultural Fad.
Homsexuality is not behaviour, it is a condition, the same as heterosexuality as bisexuality.
I suppose you have some hard evidence to back this assertion up?
Discrimation against those who are gay is comparable with discrimination against those who are black.
No, its not. Homosexuality is still ultimately about who one has sex with, and the Discrimination against it is really simple moral opposition to said behaviour. Saying it is a Condition is not evidence that it cannot be halted or changed.
Meanwhile, not even the most Hardened Racists say its Immoral to be Black, only that Blacks are Inferior, and being Black is not really of any note as to who the person is.
The point I made about empirical evidence stands and you are not able to refute it.
Except you have presented no hard evidence to really support that Homosexuality is an innate and immutable feature.
There was no point about Empirical Evidence, only a false comparison to my Dyslexia made for no apparent Reason.
There is no arbitrary moral code, no more than yours. The fact that you are incapable of recognising what exists is your problem.
If Homosexuality is innate, and if it is True that you have Empirical Evidence to back this up, then by all means present it. Otherwise, what you say about me not accepting what exist being my Problem is meaningless. You can proclaim that you have proven something and I can’t refute it, but until evidence is actually presented, what you say doesn’t really equate to anything more than simply a passing decree.
You cannot Decree something into Reality, no matter how Politically Correct it may be.
And this still doesn’t explain why others can’t respectfully disagree and be permitted to live by their own Moral Conscience.
Zarove: It is not unuaual for someone who is obsessive about one subject to be obsessive about others. It tells one a lot about the person. I shall not waste time repeating points I have made, including about evidence (which you confuse with proof), which you seem unable to absorb. On discrimination, blacks were discriminated against on what were seen as moral grounds (indeed, in South Africa apartheid had a biblical base) and if you substitute dyslexia for homosexuality in what you write you may just grasp why your writings are so offensive.
Lord Norton-
Zarove: It is not unuaual for someone who is obsessive about one subject to be obsessive about others. It tells one a lot about the person.
But being verbose is not a Sign of Obsession. It is merely a sign of being Verbose. I often talk at length about thing I’m not even interested in.
It means nothing, its simply how I am when I speak.
But it is odd that you try to depict me as obsessive. It seems this is simply another mean to Vilifies me. That is what you come across as, someone who wants to depict me in a negative light in order to make sure I’m not really listened to. This also lets me fit your stereotypes of how people who aren’t fully behind Gay Rights must be Bigoted and hateful and driven by Animosity.
But it doesn’t change the fact that you brought this up, nor the fact that there isn’t a shred of evidence to support the idea that Homosexuality is innate and immutable.
I shall not waste time repeating points I have made, including about evidence (which you confuse with proof),
I don’t confuse Evidence with proof. However, you haven’t presented Evidence, and this is because there is none.
Not really anyway.
If you ask those in the Scientific Community who perofmred the Research thy certainly don’t refer to the issue as proven or evidenced. They are much more cautious.
On the other hand, you treat the matter as a proven fact, and have even say it when you say “Homosexuality is a Condition” and declare its immutable and innate and cannot be Changed.
You have no basis for these claims, and thus no basis for limiting the Freedom of Conscience of others.
Which is what I stand up for anyway, that people need to have Freedom of Conscience. You seem to want to force your private opinion onto them as if it is a Proven Fact.
which you seem unable to absorb.
You know, the whole “You’re an idiot” line of argument doesn’t actually work. You are just trying to diminish me by verbal abuse in order to appear to have won something.
On discrimination, blacks were discriminated against on what were seen as moral grounds (indeed, in South Africa apartheid had a biblical base) and if you substitute dyslexia for homosexuality in what you write you may just grasp why your writings are so offensive.
No, they weren’t. The Theory used was they had the Mark of Cain, but everyone understood that Black people were Born black and would die that way. It was still not Morality proper.
And the three things are still radically different even if all three are innate. One is ones sexual Behaviour, another is ones appearance, and the other is a Learning disability.
They aren’t remotely connected in any way.
And, when considering the fact that Homosexuality cannot be shown to be immutable, and plenty of people have actually left it behind, its rather daft to think of it as the same.
You can think me an idiot, ill informed, and offensive, and driven by hatred all you like, but you are forcing people to act against bier Moral Conscience on nothing more than Dogmatism.
All I want is for them to be let alone and e to make their own determinations. Really, that’s hardly hateful, and your declarations of how horrible a person I am means nothing.
Also, if you think what I’ve said is offensive, why did you bring the topic up? Again, I didn’t.