Other religions adopt the fray
As I suppose we should all have foreseen, and as others have commented upon, other churches have joined the Catholics in voicing their opposition to the Equality Act.
This is sad, especially since the Church of England — unlike the Catholic Church — purport not to consider homosexuality to be a sin. Harry supposes that they seek to prevent a precident from being established. In any event, this further reinforces Harry’s view that dogma is a very strong influences against reason. It seems obvious that prejudice against homosexuals is equally as bad as prejudice against people of other races, women, the disabled and soforth. These, one might think, are not things that the Church would be likely to endorse (implicitly or otherwise). Then one reads things such as the following:
In legislating to protect and promote the rights of particular groups the government is faced with the delicate but important challenge of not thereby creating the conditions within which others feel their rights to have been ignored or sacrificed, or in which the dictates of personal conscience are put at risk.
It would be deeply regrettable if in seeking, quite properly, better to defend the rights of a particular group not to be discriminated against, a climate were to be created in which, for example, some feel free to argue that members of the government are not fit to hold public office on the grounds of their faith affiliation.
The rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well meaning
Imagine if this letter had been produced by the Christian Separatist Church Society in respect of non-white people, rather than the Church of England in respect of homosexuals? Would any reasonable person do anything other than condemn it as outrightly racist and unacceptable? Why is this homophobic claptrap even being considered by the Government, let along debated within it?
“Rights of conscience” is a synonym for “doing whatever the hell I like”. Secular, rational society must stand against this attempt by the religious to usurp the rights of a minority they happen not to like.
Bookmark this post: 
January 25th, 2007 at 15:55
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.
January 25th, 2007 at 16:24
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?
January 26th, 2007 at 14:20
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.
January 26th, 2007 at 14:43
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.