Comments on: Other religions adopt the fray http://www.slaptop.com/blog/?p=100 A somewhat nonrandom collection of Harry's thoughts Wed, 08 Sep 2010 18:30:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: Harry http://www.slaptop.com/blog/?p=100#comment-3067 Harry Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:43:32 +0000 http://www.slaptop.com/blog/?p=100#comment-3067 I think being allowed to protest is quite different from being allowed to discriminate. I'm totally with you on the protests thing, in fact. See: http://www.slaptop.com/blog/?p=80. I don't think we have a right not to be offended. I do think we have a right not to be discriminated against based on attributes beyond our control. I don't think, by and large, that people choose to be gay. That's why I don't see any difference between homophobia and sexism or racism. A Bishop should indeed be allowed to shout whatever he likes. And we should be allowed to shout whatever we like back. I do believe that the solution to bad speech is more speech! One's actions are a different matter. He shouldn't be allowed to refuse to provide adoptive services (or indeed any other service) to said blacks or gays, though. If we do allow that kind of discrimination, where does it end? Is it ok for a supermarket to to put a sign up say "No gays, due to my rights of conscience"? I think not. I think being allowed to protest is quite different from being allowed to discriminate.

I’m totally with you on the protests thing, in fact. See: http://www.slaptop.com/blog/?p=80. I don’t think we have a right not to be offended. I do think we have a right not to be discriminated against based on attributes beyond our control. I don’t think, by and large, that people choose to be gay. That’s why I don’t see any difference between homophobia and sexism or racism.

A Bishop should indeed be allowed to shout whatever he likes. And we should be allowed to shout whatever we like back. I do believe that the solution to bad speech is more speech! One’s actions are a different matter. He shouldn’t be allowed to refuse to provide adoptive services (or indeed any other service) to said blacks or gays, though. If we do allow that kind of discrimination, where does it end? Is it ok for a supermarket to to put a sign up say “No gays, due to my rights of conscience”?

I think not.

]]> By: NK http://www.slaptop.com/blog/?p=100#comment-3066 NK Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:20:03 +0000 http://www.slaptop.com/blog/?p=100#comment-3066 Gays shouldn't, and don't have to repress their sexuality. Unless they want to a) keep xtians happy or b) join the church themselves. Oh, or c) not get beaten up by c*nts. Should "anti-gay" protests be legal? Sure, why not? They're offensive, unkind, and perpetuate ignorance. Like most rap music, come to think of it. But I don't want to discriminate against their "right" to be offensive, unkind and stupid. So long as no-one gets hurt. I'm all for freedom of speech, me. So long as I've got the freedom not to listen to it. A bishop can shout "all gays and blacks should be hung" for all I care. Because I know that, by his very words, he has declared himself a twat that shouldn't be listened to any further. Gays shouldn’t, and don’t have to repress their sexuality. Unless they want to a) keep xtians happy or b) join the church themselves. Oh, or c) not get beaten up by c*nts.

Should “anti-gay” protests be legal? Sure, why not? They’re offensive, unkind, and perpetuate ignorance. Like most rap music, come to think of it. But I don’t want to discriminate against their “right” to be offensive, unkind and stupid. So long as no-one gets hurt. I’m all for freedom of speech, me. So long as I’ve got the freedom not to listen to it.

A bishop can shout “all gays and blacks should be hung” for all I care. Because I know that, by his very words, he has declared himself a twat that shouldn’t be listened to any further.

]]> By: Harry http://www.slaptop.com/blog/?p=100#comment-3020 Harry Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:24:03 +0000 http://www.slaptop.com/blog/?p=100#comment-3020 I don't see the separation: that argument is equivalent to saying that it's fine to be gay as long as you stay in the closet. Why should people who are homosexuals not live their lives as they please? Why shouldn't they enjoy their sexuality in the same way as heterosexuals? Why should they have to repress themselves because of an outdated system of irrational morality? Why should they have to decide between repressing themselves and adopting children, or living as who they are and witholding a valuable service to society? I don’t see the separation: that argument is equivalent to saying that it’s fine to be gay as long as you stay in the closet. Why should people who are homosexuals not live their lives as they please? Why shouldn’t they enjoy their sexuality in the same way as heterosexuals? Why should they have to repress themselves because of an outdated system of irrational morality?

Why should they have to decide between repressing themselves and adopting children, or living as who they are and witholding a valuable service to society?

]]> By: NK http://www.slaptop.com/blog/?p=100#comment-3016 NK Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:55:08 +0000 http://www.slaptop.com/blog/?p=100#comment-3016 Not that I condone gay-bashing or any sort of ponce-related discrimination... but I CAN see a moral seperation between predujice towards application of sexuality, and predujice towards race, disability etc. I'm not arguing being gay is a choice; I'm arguing that doing sex with people is. It can be a case of "loathe the sin, love the sinner"... which in fact is official church policy in some areas. It's not all to do with hate. Many xtians love the gays, but still see "men laying with men" as a sin replete with punishment in the afterlife, and are desperate to save people from that punishment. Not by an attempt to alter their sexuality, but by condemning its practise. It may be foolish, crass, and ultimately immoral, but then a lot of things born from love are. Not that I condone gay-bashing or any sort of ponce-related discrimination… but I CAN see a moral seperation between predujice towards application of sexuality, and predujice towards race, disability etc.
I’m not arguing being gay is a choice; I’m arguing that doing sex with people is. It can be a case of “loathe the sin, love the sinner”… which in fact is official church policy in some areas.
It’s not all to do with hate. Many xtians love the gays, but still see “men laying with men” as a sin replete with punishment in the afterlife, and are desperate to save people from that punishment. Not by an attempt to alter their sexuality, but by condemning its practise. It may be foolish, crass, and ultimately immoral, but then a lot of things born from love are.

]]>