Jump to content

What are you?


crinklystarfish

Recommended Posts

In view of the flavour of a couple of threads lately, where in my view there have been some pretty borderline values on display, I think the whole subject of …ists and …isms  is worth a bit more of a knock about.

In the ‘womenspeak’ thread Frank Said:

whilst I actually agree that legislation is sometimes necessary to change public attitudes there are some things that people will never agree on and the state should not force people to accept what to them is unacceptable.

Take homosexuality. To some people the male homosexual act is abhorrent. My attitude is that I couldn't care less if that's what such men wish to do, as long as it doesn't impinge on me or the good order of society.

But to force religious people for example to have to employ homosexuals in their faith schools, is disgraceful.

Homosexuality is nothing like race or disability. It is a subject on which there is no answer…

And I think there are some points that can be drawn from this to help illustrate where we sometimes go wrong.

Where any group are united by some common attribute or values, like for example, women, Jews, Asians or fundamentalist terrorists, there is scope for prejudice, discrimination and hatred.

In some cases, as in the case of fundamentalist terrorists, there is clearly no issue in holding these ‘anti-group’ views. So where is the point at which it’s not alright to discriminate?

Well, as Frank alludes, where the group in question – in spite of its common attributes or values – does not impinge, or seek to impinge, upon the freedom and enjoyment of any other individual, or of society in general.

I’d suggest that in this case the group should be afforded equity and tolerance.

It is quite simply wrong to discriminate against a group that does not harm the enjoyment and orderly running of society. Of course there will be homosexuals, and Asians, and white English men who are criminals or prats, and they should rightly forego respect; not because they are homosexuals, and Asians, and white English men, but because they are criminals or prats.

Where a homosexual, or Asian, or white English man is not afforded the chance to work in – again to draw on Frank’s example – a faith school, notwithstanding their merit, and simply because they belong a ‘group’; then surely society is wrong?

It would be nice if 'ordinary' members of society could right these wrongs, but even looking at our own seemingly ‘ordinary and benign’ group of people into motorhomes, it clearly won’t happen unaided. I have little time for the ultra-PC brigade, or state intervention, but the harsh reality is that they are a product of our own shortcomings.

So how is this relevant here? Well, as I say, there have been some pretty dubious and ugly values on display in recent threads and I truly believe that people don’t fully realise how bigoted they might be.

I offer this as a discussion point, and maybe a chance to have a think about how we conduct ourselves.

By all means decry and denounce criminals, idiots and prats, but do it because that is what they are, regardless of race, creed, sexuality, beliefs; or even caravan ownership.

I don’t for one second think that we should stop the harmless sarcasm and banter that goes to-and-fro providing it's being aimed in genuine jest at a person or people who is / are members of the forum and who are able to respond.

Some of the posts in recent times have clearly gone beyond this though.

Just to head off the dimmer forum users, I am a heterosexual white English male in a long term relationship and simply have grave misgivings about the mess we are in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Guest caraprof

This discussion is to profound to be really explored in depth on a forum like this, but I would just make one point:

Crinkly wrote:

Where a homosexual, or Asian, or white English man is not afforded the chance to work in – again to draw on Frank’s example – a faith school, notwithstanding their merit, and simply because they belong a ‘group’; then surely society is wrong?

This is where we go wrong. Of course people should not be attacked for being different. But there's a huge difference between attacking someone and affording them privileges which common sense tells us is wrong.

I cite again the example of the two gay men recently jailed for abusing their foster child. Why should two gay men be allowed to foster or adopt a child? They could never have a child of their own through natural means and to make them parents by default just because of some twisted political correctness is a travesty. Apart from which every bit of research ever done tells us that children brought up in a stable family with a mother and a father are far less likely to go off the tracks.

But we seem unable to stop the juggernaut of political correctness and when two homosexual men apply to adopt a young boy the council falls over itself to facilitate their wishes. It then ignores inappropriate photos found at their home and talks of the couple's 'foolish mistake' and allows them to carry on fostering. And the social workers are so blinded by their craven acceptance of this new creed that they have carte blanche to sexually abuse the poor child over a long period.

So yes, these men belong to a minority 'group' but there is no reason why certain groups, whilst being deserving of our tolerance and respect, should also be allowed to participate in parts of society for which their group membership quite obviously makes them unsuitable.

Again, a Roman Catholic seminary should not have to employ someone who openly supports abortion and is a practising homosexual activist, because both of these stances are alien to the teachings of that organisation.

Why are we unable to apply just a little common sense in our society?

And finally, yes, I accept that there's probably been a little bit of over-the-top mickey taking but let me tell you, I might take the mickey occasionally but if I ever found any member of a minority group being attacked by say, a bunch of yobs, then I'd be the first to wade in to help them. But it's just so sad that we can no longer have a bit of fun about racial stereotypes, or proclivities or about our own personal failings and even sadder that some people take offence far too easily and cannot differentiate between what is harmless leg pulling and real hatred and intolerance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you both writers, excellent read and some great common sense and decency.

 

I do have my own views on the subjects but while I am quite forceful and self righteous at times in them , I am also a coward and can't stand the thought of all the rebuke and sometimes blatant put downs you get on the forum by certain members, so will keep them to myself.

 

Hats off to you both.

Mandy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mandy&Andy - 2007-09-13 6:44 AM

 

I do have my own views on the subjects but while I am quite forceful and self righteous at times in them , I am also a coward and can't stand the thought of all the rebuke and sometimes blatant put downs you get on the forum by certain members, so will keep them to myself.

 

 

one of the most amazing statements i have had the pleasure of reading on a forum. What do you expect to happen if you post this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Mandy,

 

Good for you!

 

There are people who are "straight speakers", and say what they think. It is easiest not to argue with such people. I wonder if they get offended when a straight speaker says something to them? Or do they enjoy the debate, and expect you to enjoy it too?

 

Should deviants (either direction) have rights? Of course they should, but not at the cost of my rights not to like them, and act accordingly.

 

602

Link to comment
Share on other sites

handyman - 2007-09-13 8:17 AM

 

i hate catholic weddings. They take way too long, with all the standing, sitting, chanting, and handing out pringles............

 

I went to a lovely Catholic wedding last year, it was short and congregation-friendly. I think they have realised at last that there is a lot they have to change if they are going to survive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest caraprof
J9withdogs - 2007-09-13 8:13 AM What of the Catholic Priests who have abused young boys, in the full knowledge of their superiors, for many years? I abhor what they have done, but it doesn't mean I hate Catholics.

Please supply one item of proof about the number of priests "who have abused young boys, in the full knowledge of their superiors, for many years?

This is a disgraceful accusation. Some senior churchmen may have tried to cover up such accusations for obvious but wrong reasons, but to say that this abuse went on with the full knowledge of the Catholic Church is a downright lie.

If anyone on this forum had made such a vile claim against gays you would no doubt be jumping up and down with anger. Priests unfortunately don't seem to have the same protection of political correctness as gays, but there you are!

Thank you for reminding me, and reinforcing my argument that there are some professions which should be able to apply a certain level of control over the sexual orientation of the people wishing to be part of those professions.

And finally, what is with this gratuitous remark about 'not hating Catholics'? Where has anyone ever even hinted at hatred for gays?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I intend to return a little later to pick up on a few points but have to work right now. I am grateful to those of you who have offered thoughtful responses.

I would encourage the forum members who might have a constructive view, but fear rebuke, to come forward and offer a contribution. There is scope for a wide audience and with well reasoned responses one or two people might just start to think about their values.

It would be nice if we could focus on the views, if only on this thread, and resist the temptation to personalise responses in the hope of gaining a perceived ‘witty’ victory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok I'll step forward and offer some of my views.

Some of you may know - from my Nick Name/User name- and from responses I've made on other threads, that I'm from a mixed race background. Being half Thai/British.Born and bred in Thailand but now living and working here in the UK.

The one thing that I strongly believe in is a strong sense of values applied to society. I am a tolerant person but I must admit that my patience is getting shorter.

We all have a right to our views and opinions but I too am now getting fed up with the over PC England that I now see before me.It seems to me that our own values are getting eroded just to appease the so called minority people, whether this be based upon race, creed or religion.

Maybe the so called "British sense of fair play" is now been turned against ourselves.

My values are that I've enjoyed the freedom that has been afforded to me since I've been in the UK, and I abhor those that still want to have this freedom, which my father fought for, but then use this freedom and try and distrupt this country.

As I say, I'm a very tolerant person, and live by the code of live and let live. I do not hate gays or lesbians, but I detest people who abuse young children, rob and beat up old people, or anyone who belongs to the so called "minority" group that makes them members of a group that does not warrant our acceptance.

Thai

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has to be political Measures because it wasn't that long ago Black people honest hard working couln't rent a house .This is wrong.

 

Or be employed in a job that they were more than adequately qualified to perform . This is wrong , we now have a situation in some cases where people are promoted above their abilites because the employer meets their responsibility to be seen to be an equal opertunities employer.

 

It always looks good on a glossy brouchure its not much fun to work with if they are incomputent & it is insulting to other minority workers who have possibly more capabilities but don't play the minority card.

 

Seems that the majority of people on any thread have a base value of fairness which is what is exploited by others .

 

Its nice to know that the forum attracts a mixed bag of people who can discuss issues without upsetting any one member .

 

Its all about I suppose treating people with respect and doing un to others what you would have done to youself.

 

I have no problem with no man or religion sexual oriantation .

I do have a problem with it being rammed down my throat & the people filling their quotas for the position what ever it may be.

 

It should be the correct person for the correct job based on their abilities.

regardless of colour sex religion .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What am I? I hope I am the sort of person who accepts people as they are and finds no fault with them unless, by their acts (e.g. cheating, thieving, abuse of others) they display faults which deserve criticism.

 

michele - 2007-09-13 1:01 PM

It should be the correct person for the correct job based on their abilities.

regardless of colour sex religion .

This puts me in mind of when I was a school governor and we were choosing a new head teacher. At the end of the short listing one of the governors (who happened to be female) pointed out that all the short listed people were women and queried whether we shouldn't add a man for some sort of balance. The rest of the governing body was unanimous in turning down that proposal - if any of the male applicants had been up to scratch they would have made the shortlist on merit.

 

Like other posters, though, I do become irritated by the PC brigade. Before I retired part of my job involved implementation of the Human Rights Act so I could see at first hand where its flaws lay. The European Convention on Human Rights allows member states to "derogate" in order to allow their domestic legislation to take account of national characteristics and traditions as well as the Convention. One effect is to enable countries to give more weight to the rights of victims of crime than to the rights of criminals. I am disappointed that the government has not taken the opportunity to introduce amending legislation to correct the parts of the HRA which protect those who have, themselves, abused the rights of others.

 

Graham

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, Frank:
caraprof - 2007-09-13 9:41 AM
J9withdogs - 2007-09-13 8:13 AM What of the Catholic Priests who have abused young boys, in the full knowledge of their superiors, for many years? I abhor what they have done, but it doesn't mean I hate Catholics.

Please supply one item of proof about the number of priests "who have abused young boys, in the full knowledge of their superiors, for many years?

http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories4/072403_report.htmPerhaps we shouldn't believe everything we read in the papers? End of.Freedom of speech should be everyone's right, but only up to a point.We should be mindful on this forum that we are all strangers to each other and we do not know what is happening in each other's lives, so I would suggest that, before expressing our own opinions, we should consider whether what we say may upset or alienate others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As regards the homosexuality issue, I have what is probably an unusual mixture of views.

(WARNING: further down, this post inevitably strays into the realm of "religion." If that's a problem for you, stop at the end of point (2), but you'll only have half the story.)

 

(1) I believe that Government has to ensure that the law treats all law-abiding citizens equally. Therefore, once homosexual activity was legalised in the 1960's, it became indefensible that a long-term homosexual couple did not have the same legal rights (eg inheritance tax, next-of-kin for medical decisions etc) as a married couple. So I'm in favour of "civil partnerships" being available to homosexuals.

 

(2) Heterosexual couples already have that provision - it's called marriage, and can be carried out very simply at a registry office or elsewhere. That's how a man and a woman tell the rest of society that they want to be regarded as a "partnership" for legal purposes. If they don't want to do that, that's fine, but it's no good bleating that the law treats them badly. So I'm against any further legal recognition of so-called "co-habiting" heterosexual couples.

 

(3) Now it gets really strange. As an "evangelical" Christian, I believe that the Bible (when properly understood) has authority as the word of God. Both the Old Testament and the New are unambiguous in saying that homosexual practice is sinful, therefore that's what I believe and teach in our church. A just society will leave me free to do that, as long as I don't incite hatred or violence (which I don't - see 4). My church should also be free to insist that its employees and leaders are in sympathy with its teachings, and the Catholic church should be free to follow its (very similar) teachings in the way it runs its adoption agencies.

 

(4) As a sin, homosexual practice is no bettter or worse than any other - and the New Testament makes it clear that God loves sinners, and offers them (us!) forgiveness and help for the future. Therefore I don't go around telling non-Christian homosexuals how they should live their lives, but I do encourage non-Christians OF ALL KINDS to consider allowing Christ to forgive them and to help them change their lives.

 

(5) There are sins that I'm often tempted towards (mind your own business!) - and in fact we all have our particular "weak points" which make us susceptible to particular temptations. "Homosexual Orientation" is nothing more or less than a regular temptation to sin in this particular way. So EVEN THE CHURCH should not discriminate against people on grounds of orientation alone.

 

Sort that lot out if you can!

 

With love to all

 

Tony

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorted Tony - and congratulations.

 

No doubt you will be ridiculed or pilloried, by those who look for the chance to snipe or carefully select sections of text to answer out of context, but I think it's a very clear, excruciatingly fair and well balanced standpoint.

 

Although I'm not a practising Christian I would like to think I'm a christian person, and would support the whole of what you say with equal enthusiasm.

 

Well done that man!

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest caraprof
Old Git - 2007-09-13 3:26 PM Sorted Tony - and congratulations. No doubt you will be ridiculed or pilloried, by those who look for the chance to snipe or carefully select sections of text to answer out of context, but I think it's a very clear, excruciatingly fair and well balanced standpoint. Although I'm not a practising Christian I would like to think I'm a christian person, and would support the whole of what you say with equal enthusiasm. Well done that man! Dave

Is it Christian in viewpoint to assume that: No doubt you will be ridiculed or pilloried, by those who look for the chance to snipe or carefully select sections of text to answer out of context

Why have you made this assumption? It seems to me to be exactly what you're preaching against and is a snide attack on those whom you automatically assume will now attack and pillory Tony. I would respectfully suggest that you wait for such an attack to happen before condemning what may never even happen!

Your responses on this forum by the way are becoming so oleaginous as to make me want to throw up and I just find it dificult to understand why someone who is trying so hard to be liked can make assumptions like this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, very well put across Tony. It must be very difficult for a person in your position when your own liberal or tolerant views towards people can cause conflict within your workplace (for want of a better description).

 

I personally subscibe to the "each to their own" camp, and believe that sexual orientation is a personal choice and should not aid or hinder a person in the normal course of their life. This applies to all walks of life where discrimination may occur, however, the PC brigade can, and have caused more problems than most people understand.

 

A friend of mine, runs the same type of business as my partner and myself, i.e. a recycling plant. He was approached by a young girl in a wheelchair who asked him for a job, now as the work concerned entailed standing at a machine and manually feeding scrap plastic into a throat that is 6 foot above the floor, he told her that she was not suitable for the job because of her disability.

A week later he received a summons to appear at an indusrial tribunal and was to be charged under the disability discimination act.The girl in question, stated that a wheelchair ramp could have been provided to allow her to do the job. After viewing photo's of the workstation, the tribunal board threw out the case and warned the girl and her brief about malicious claims, even though he was totally aquitted, it cost my friend a packet in legal fees.

 

Sometimes, the people who complain about discrimination are their own worst enemy, and are shocked when they dont receive the support they demand be given.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thai makes some great points, especially this: 

I do not hate gays or lesbians, but I detest people who abuse young children, rob and beat up old people, or anyone who belongs to the so called "minority" group that makes them members of a group that does not warrant our acceptance.

For this captures the pivotal point. People should not be punished because of their belief, unless and until they prevent the lawful enjoyment and freedoms of others. At this point they should properly be denied equitable treatment.

Tony/> raises some balanced views, and though I have a strongly held view on the theological context, do not wish to divert the thread. In any event I see little that seems unjust, whatever the inspiration.

caraprof earlier also made some strong and well reasoned points, but I do have some views on the following:

This is where we go wrong. Of course people should not be attacked for being different. But there's a huge difference between attacking someone and affording them privileges which common sense tells us is wrong.

I cite again the example of the two gay men recently jailed for abusing their foster child. Why should two gay men be allowed to foster or adopt a child? They could never have a child of their own through natural means and to make them parents by default just because of some twisted political correctness is a travesty. Apart from which every bit of research ever done tells us that children brought up in a stable family with a mother and a father are far less likely to go off the tracks.

But we seem unable to stop the juggernaut of political correctness and when two homosexual men apply to adopt a young boy the council falls over itself to facilitate their wishes. [/Quote]

Now I don’t for one second argue that the two homosexuals just jailed for abusing ‘their’ child should be anything other than vilified, in fact I’d castrate them. However, they are repulsive because they are child abusers, not because they are in a same-sex relationship.

Given that some of the children that are ultimately placed with guardians are born to hopeless, stinking and filthy drug-addict single mothers; who joyfully bleed the welfare state, I have no problem with the state intervening and creating the need for adoptive parents.

Is it preferable that a child so removed is placed with well balanced heterosexual guardians? Undoubtedly so.

Are all heterosexual parents well balanced? Well of course not. Indeed some heterosexual parents are anti-social criminals of the worst order, who clearly demonstrate very dubious value systems.

Is it better then that a child should be placed based on the merit of the guardian? I would suggest yes.

Does it matter the meritorious guardians happen to prefer a same-sex relationship? Well why should it?

The central point can be extrapolated to any group. Catholic Priests are undoubtedly in the main good and honest people and make a huge societal contribution. Catholic Priests who abuse children aren’t. They should be castrated; not because they are Catholic Priests, but because they are child abusers.

And so to the “juggernaut of political correctness”. I too have no time for bleeding-heart liberal attitudes that radically overcompensate and positively discriminate. If a child were to be placed with same-sex guardians just for kudos then this is plainly wrong and I denounce it.

However, as I said earlier, I fear that this over-compensation - and I agree it exists – is a product of our own intolerance and insidious prejudice.

We are reaping that which we have sown.

Unless we become more thoughtful, understanding and tolerant of those who do not harm or seek to harm society and its members, we will continue give the ultra-PC brigade all the ammunition they need to cajole our political masters to allow the tail to wag the dog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that you should mention the Disability Discrimination Act, Donna.

 

A few years ago I undertook the task of preparing a report which analysed the various discrimination acts and set down the resulting obligations of my employer in different circumstances. In the main the various acts give similar rights to all sections of society but there are instances where some go further and give extra rights to the group with which they are concerned.

 

At around the same time the government was preparing a bill to replace the existing legislation with one act which would ensure that there were no differences.

 

The bill never got past the consultation stage because certain groups saw themselves as special and did not want the extra rights to be extended to others.

 

Such a pity that the government didn't stand their ground.

 

Graham

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GJH - 2007-09-13 4:23 PM  ...In the main the various acts give similar rights to all sections of society but there are instances where some go further and give extra rights to the group with which they are concerned...The bill never got past the consultation stage because certain groups saw themselves as special and did not want the extra rights to be extended to others... Graham

In which case they were as guilty as any bigot of prejudice and discrimination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest caraprof

There are some questions that can never be settled and this debate is typical of them. Some people will always have a deep-seated antipathy to homosexual practices, but not necessarily to homosexuals.

Take abortion - this is one subject on which I am glad that I'm not a legislator because one part of me has sympathy with women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy but another is repulsed by the thought of using abortion as a form of contraception and dragging a five- or six-month-old nearly-formed infant from its mother's womb and killing it.

So I really do not know whether we should or should not allow it.

So no matter how often we debate certain subjects, no matter how passionately we feel about them, we will never agree so perhaps it's better to leave them alone!

Does anyone want to talk about the joys of motorhoming?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...