Religious homophobia?
Christian, Jewish and Muslim groups will in Westminster tonight in opposition to planned new equality legislation to be debated in the Lords. The legislation, which bans discrimination against lesbian and gay people in the provision of goods and services, became law in Northern Ireland at the start of the year. We debated this legislation in Northern Ireland for a good part of last year, and the consultation process which paved the way to the legislation will be judicially reviewed by the High Court in March.
is surprised that these faith groups would come together in support of discrimination, rather than to oppose discrimination. She puts that point more forcefully: it is homophobia, not a sense of injustice, that really fires the faiths.
I recall witnessing some pretty nasty anti-gay protests in the United States, where religious campaigners carried banners declaring that "God Hates Fags". I suspect the English protestors will be a little more circumspect than that, and try to make a point about the collision of rights they perceive in the new legislation. I don't think it would be overstating the matter to say that their opposition to this equality legislation will, nevertheless, be seen as amounting to the same claim by some members of the gay community. That perception should surely concern any Christian, Muslim or Jew taking part in tonight's rally. Shouldn't it?
Comments
AS A CHRISTIAN I AM EMBARRASSED BY THESE PEOPLE. They do not represent me or my God. They are opposed to human rights and equality. Outrageous. Christianity is not about hate it is about love. Please please please, if there are gay people watching the news and seeing this, do not think that God hates you. You are loved.
As a Christian, it concerns me greatly that these people act in such a fashion. When I see signs like "God hates fags" it makes me fill up with rage. God does not hate homosexuals. Anyone who thinks that He does is deluded.
Personally, I feel their time could be much better spent showing some love to people - maybe even the hundreds of homeless people they will walk past during their protest - rather than spewing selfish hate and discolouring people's view of God.
Did Jesus protest about "sexually immoral" people? No - He had dinner with them. What He did complain about, however, was self-righteous "religious" people whose only goal in life was to make everyone else's miserable.
Sorry for the rant, but I get annoyed about things like this!
Will is right that the groups in England will use different language but the effect might be the same. The Christian Institute seems to exist to abuse gay people. It's a disgrace. Why don't the traditional churches stand up and speak out against christian homophobes? Until they do, others will believe they AGREE with these protestors.
One of a religion's highest priorities is to segregate the "us" from the "them" in its establishment and exercise of its power over individuals. In Western society, religion no longer engages in physical torture, murder, and war the way other religions like Islam do as the punishment for transgression and as instruments of enforcement of conformity to its edicts, it restricts itself to psychological torture such as ostracism, denial of salvation, and condemnation to eternal hell. We call that "enlightenment", "liberalism", and "tolerance."
It has occurred to me that if the human race becomes extinct through global warming, nuclear war, or some other self inflicted mortal wound, it would deserve no better and should not be lamented. That was I think first made the subject of a movie in the science fiction classic of the 1950s "The Day the Earth Stood Still."
I posted this on an earlier thread but I think it bears repeating here. It has to do with Jeanette Winterson.
Recently she was on 鈥淔aith and Reason鈥 with Bill Moyers and talked about growing up in poverty in a fundamentalist Pentecostal evangelist household. She went to Oxford to study mythology and now writes numerous books with a basic theme of 鈥淲hy myths still matter鈥. She published her first book at age 23 entitled 鈥極ranges are not the only Fruit鈥.
Her mother permitted only 6 books in the house as she was growing up, one was the bible and the other five were about the bible Jeanette was made to memorize the bible by heart 鈥 it was her mother鈥檚 understanding that if you believed in Creationism and Armageddon everything in the middle was taken care of.
As Jeanette became older and was able to buy books she would sneak them into the house and hide them under her mattress. Unfortunately, her mother noticing some problem with the bed discovered several hundred books hidden there and the first one she picked up was 'Women in Love' by D H Lawrence.
The books were promptly burned and her mother admonished her saying:
鈥淛eanette, the trouble with a book is that you never know what鈥檚 in it until it is too late鈥.
Jeanette understood as she got older that she was a lesbian and when her mother found out she ordered Jeanette to give up her girl friend or leave home. So Jeanette left home and as she was leaving on the final day her mother said:
鈥淛eanette, why be happy when you could be normal鈥?
Regards,
Michael
Helen,
I'm confused again...perhaps you can enlighten...
Which traditional churches officially believe that the act of homosexual intimacy is not sinful?
Are you saying that someone who believes that homosexuality practice is sinful is homophobic?
* 6.
* At 12:47 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
* rubberduckie wrote:
"Helen,
I'm confused again...perhaps you can enlighten...
Which traditional churches officially believe that the act of homosexual intimacy is not sinful?
Are you saying that someone who believes that homosexuality practice is sinful is homophobic?"
I can't answer for Helen, but I'm certainly not saying that. But people who hold protests about it are. Do the same people hold protests about the sin in their own lives? Is homosexual intimacy a worse sin than any other sin? I think not.
JK,
The issue is not whether homosexuality is a sin. it's whether churches should stand up for equal rights for gay people even if they disagree with their gay lifestyle
* 8.
* At 02:16 PM on 09 Jan 2007,
* henry grant lee wrote:
"JK,
The issue is not whether homosexuality is a sin. it's whether churches should stand up for equal rights for gay people even if they disagree with their gay lifestyle"
I didn't bring up that issue, rubberduckie did.
The Church should stand up for the equal rights of ALL people. Gay, straight, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist... etc.
The Bible teaches ALL people are LOVED by God. The Bible tells Christians to LOVE:
"1 If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
2If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
3And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.
4Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant,
5does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered,
6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;
13But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love."
1 Corinthians 13
The planet has evolved to where everyone gets rights, regardless:
Never could this populus recognise that both good and bad genes are being encouraged and fostered.
The only way for this planet earth to succeed is for the bad genes to be filtered out, either before or during birth.
Why do humans think they can progress goodness from imperfect ingredients, whether by legislation or remedial incarceration?
Are you talking eugenics?
please elaborate Baza
alan
Anyone care to hazard a guess on which way Lord Eames is going to vote, now that he has time to concern himself with these more worldly issues?
I think Lord Eames will vote for gay equality. He's a good man.
The problem with this legislation is that it will crimilalise individuals and organisations who sincerely believe that homosexual practice is wrong. Examples include Christian adoption agencies which refuse to place babies with gay and lesbian couples, a Christian printer who refuses to publish material promoting gay sex and a Chuch which offers its premises to community groups but refuses to allow its use for the local gay and lesbian association.
Do those contributors, who have expressed amazement that anyone could object to this legislation, have any sympathy for the examples above? If so how do they suggest that we protect the rights of those with sincerely held beliefs?
I think it is also worth pointing out that believing that homosexual practice is against the teaching of scripture does not make someone homophobic. Do we then say that anyone who believes that sex outside marriage is immoral has a phobia of co-habiting couples?
Paul: interesting questions. I don't think discrimination should be permitted just because someone has a RELIGIOUS reason for their discrimination. What if we have a church adoption agency that refuses to place children with mixed religious couples? Or Catholic-Protestant couples? Should the agency have the right to do that? Anyway, I don't think too many gay couples will be rushing off to the catholic adoption agency in search of a kid anytime soon. Those relgious agencies who wish to exclude gay couples, ask this: are you also trying to exclude unmarried couples? If you're not consistent there, you're just homophobic.
Printers? If a gay pub goes to a printer and asks for a NON-pornographic advert to be published, why would a Christian printer have a problem? He'd print a sign for a humanist group or a Muslim group, right? No one expects a printer to AGREE with every sign that's printed commercially. That's ridiculous. No one expects the printer to print any material thats overtly sexual - as long as the printer adopts the same policies for heterosexual adverts. So it's a red herring to say that christian printers will be required to publish gay sex materials.
If a church offers its space for hire and allows non religious community groups to use the space, i think it's unlikely that a gay group would want to force itself on that church if that makes them uncomfortable. But think about this: if you are a christian church and you have a chance to show hospitality to a gay group, why wouldn't you? WHy are these christian groups so small-minded and cold-hearted?
The SOR laws are developed to protect gay people from being mistreated in commerical dealing. So they wont get kicked out of hotels for being gay. Or kicked out of restaurants for being gay. How come we havent heard christians complaining about THAT injustice? That kind of thing has been going on for years, gay people have been mistreasted and abused and the churches havent given a damn. Now YOU expect the rest of us to be worried about your RIGHTS? Come off it. Your concerns are bogus. They disguise a basic homophobia. You're a disgrace and the spirit of christ is not in you.
Paul Johnston #14
"The problem with this legislation is that it will criminalise individuals and organizations who sincerely believe that homosexual practice is wrong."
It will do nothing of the sort, they can continue to believe anything they like. They won't become criminals unless they deny homosexuals equal treatent with everyone else in matters of business and public accomodation solely on the basis of their homosexuality. That's a very big difference from what you said. This law is consistant with other laws which forbid the same kind of prejudicial discrimination against people based soley on their race, religion, or sex. It seems entirely fair to me.
#15 Mark
Thank you for you comments.
I would still be very interested to know if you have any sympathy with the examples listed. If so, how can their rights of these individuals and organisations be protected?
On reading through the postings it would seem that the greatest degree of intolerance is reserved for those with sincerely held beliefs. Check it out!
#15 Kat kit
You didn't really answer my questions. Do you believe that
1. A chritisn adoption agency should be prosecuted for refusing to place a child with a homosexual couple?
2. A christian printer should be prosecuted for refusing to publish material promoting gay sex? (I am not talking about a non-pornographic advert)
3. A church should be prosecuted for refusing to allow its use for the local gay and lesbian association? (I agree that it might be a reasonable thing to do but what if a Church does not?)
These are not bogus issues but are GENUINE concerns for some.
I am disappointed by your typical response to anyone who disagrees with you - call then a homophobe! I think your comment ...."Now YOU expect the rest of us to be worried about your RIGHTS?" ....speaks volumes.
Well done to those people hiding behind scripture - your outpouring of homophobia has only served to demonstrate the need for this legislation more than ever. This is nothing to do with religious belief , it is do with equality. It is interesting hearing the interview with Lord McKay in which he put forward a predictable argument of 'we don't mind gay people, we just don't want them in our guest houses'! It's just more NIMBY and more justification for the legislation. The equality legislation affords people with religious beliefs and affiliations protection so that they cannot be discriminated against. Therefore this issue is one of parity: if one group has it all should have it. It's not complicated. Sure, the other way of looking at this is to take this away from everybody and leave the decision-making on this up to individuals' consciences. I don't, however, think this is exactly the kind of world we would all want to live in. Thankfully, the over-zealous relgious faction has lost out re the legislation, but I suspect it will take a successful prosecution before this group changes its behaviour.
You fundies must all read the same nonsense - PB never keeps quiet about this "put upon christian printer".
Wind your neck down..
Admit it, you'd like to see all gays rounded up in a concentration camp, or at least sew a pink star on their sleeve. You just aren't men/women enough to admit it and show your fundamentalism for the mad religious pit bull it actually is.
People deserve equality - your nonsense examples can be turned on their heads - is a religious group going to insist a gay printer is prosecuted for not publishing their homophobic effluent???
Say what you really mean - the fundamentalists here are not only disingenuous about their creationism, it would appear to pervade everything. What a stunning ad for christianity - your attitudes disgust me.
Get on with what you do and leave others to do their thing - for goodness sake.
#19
You still won't give an answer to the examples listed. A simple yes/no would do.
You decent into name-calling and caricature demonstrates your irrational fear of anyone who disagrees with you (i.e. phobia). I have no problem with the legislation in general but feel that there may be a small number of areas where protection needs to be afforded to others. You clearly share Kat Kits opinion 鈥淣ow YOU expect the rest of us to be worried about your RIGHTS? Come off it.鈥
Re 18
Do you believe that
1. A christian adoption agency should be prosecuted for refusing to place a child with a homosexual couple?
If it is not using public funds but is funded solely by donations from a private agency then I would answer, 鈥榥o鈥.
2. A christian printer should be prosecuted for refusing to publish material promoting gay sex? (I am not talking about a non-pornographic advert)
If the printer only prints 鈥楥hristian鈥 material and nothing else and its business is set up to serve a 鈥楥hristian鈥 organization and no other organizations, then I would answer 鈥榥o鈥.
3. A church should be prosecuted for refusing to allow its use for the local gay and lesbian association? (I agree that it might be a reasonable thing to do but what if a Church does not?)
Again if the church is functioning as a private orgainzation then this is no different than a private citizen restricting access to their own home. I鈥檓 sure a church could refuse the local Nazi party from holding a meeting in one of the church鈥檚 hall without prosecution.
Regards,
Michael
#21
I'm sure your comment relates to #18, however, I'm intrigued by what you're saying. If you feel there needs to be protection afforded to you so that you can choose not provide goods or services if you think something is fundamentally wrong, are you also saying that other groups of people could exercise a similar right towards religious groups because they thought their religion was fundamentally wrong,i.e. what if a non-religious organisation felt that placing children during adoption with Christian couples was not the right thing to do, because they didn't agree with Christian teachings and thought they were fundamentally wrong? Or they felt that local community hall could not be used by the local Islamic group because they believed they disliked what this stood for? How would you feel if that was the case? The protections you are talking about are ones which you seem to think would only be there to protect religion. I don't mind having this discussion and am interested in hearing your views but they do not seem balanced arguments: they are purely from your point of view and not taking into account parity at all. Why can't you see that you simply can't receive all of these protections and then not offer them back to groups who are typically marginalised? If you think that you are being balanced, would you be prepared to accept that, if what you are requesting was granted, then other groups would also be able to discriminate against you and your religion in order to protect their dearly held beliefs?
#23
If an atheist printer refused to publish my Christian material I would accept that and look elsewhere. I would no expect the law to require him to print my material.
If a local Muslim organisation refused to let a Christian group use their premises I would not want the right to take them to court.
Where is my inconsistency?
paul - you think u'r openminded but think this through. Lawmakers have to decide about the values of a good society. DO you want a society where black organisations can be refused commercial goods and services (say, printing) because the printer is a racist? I dont. I say put the guy in a court for that.
#24
Interestingly, you don't answer your own point about adoption. I asked what you think if a non-religious adoption agency was able to refuse to place a child with a Christian family because it didn't believe in Christianity? Would you accept that level of discrimination because that is the level of discrimination you are talking about. Your argument is inconsistent because you are saying that you would accept someone discrminating against you and not printing your material etc, yet you already have those protections under the law. Are you saying that, in order for people to be free to make their own decisions that all of the equality legislation should be repealed, including protections for religious groups and individuals? I agree totally with Frankie in #25.I don't want to live in a world like that. We have to stop discrimination- it's damaging and is the cause of deep-seated and long-lasting problems at a local community level and across the world. I backed earlier equality legislation which supported religious groups not being discriminated against, despite not having any religion and not agreeing with much of the teachings. Why can't you do the same about this? Why can't you shelve your personal beliefs and think about the bigger picture? That is what legislation is all about: objectivity.
I'm sorry if I'm bargeing in on some kind of a exercise in collectivist arrogance, but if I own a business, then it's MY business. Who I serve is entirely up to me, and for whatever reason I wish.
If you disagree, then you claim authority over my business, and it's no longer my business. If you really believe in freedom -- if you really believe in private property rights -- you cannot support a bill that effectively claims ownership of private businesses; further, that asserts that there are no individual private property rights, and that the will of the collective can usurp the will of the individual whenever they want. Either you believe that there are inviolable rights and such include the right to private property, or you believe we can make laws that tell business owners with whom they must do business.
There's the fence: pick your side.
#27
I don't think anybody's sitting on any fence here.It's pretty clear.I believe that people can own their own businesses, but they cannot do whatever they like, just as you can't put a great big Neon sign up in front of shop without getting planning permission, or can't decide not to pay taxes, or decide that you won't charge VAT. The reason is that the indvidual is responsible for a proportion of the world we all live in and the considerations of other people have to be taken into account. This law came about because too many people continued to discriminate against people on the grounds of sexual orientation. You clearly feel that discrimination is OK - you feel that you have the right to do it. Unfortunately, for you and fortunately for the rest of us, the regulations were agreed by the Lords, so frankly, your fence was bulldozed and, as of April this year, if you continue to exercise what you believe is your 'right', you will be acting illegally and will find yourself prosecuted one day. I hope that day doesn't come and that you simply don't discriminate against people on the grounds of their race, religion, colour, sexual orientation, gender etc. I guess the choice is yours.
I felt Lord Eames gave a reasonable and balanced account of the issues;-
Lord Eames said in Hansard: ...Over a wide range of subjects, not least this present one, current procedures place some of us in an impossible situation, where we agree with large sections of legislation鈥攚here we agree with the spirit of it and recognise that it has to do with human dignity and equality鈥攂ut cannot do otherwise than challenge other parts of it. The process to which I am referring denies us the opportunity to do that. To support such proposals in total denies our rights to question or amend.
I shall illustrate this dilemma, which I and others feel tonight, with reference to some current legislation that has, or will, come before this House. The main churches in Northern Ireland鈥攖he Church of Ireland and the Roman Catholic, Presbyterian and Methodist churches鈥攔eceived the consultation documentation on 29 July and a response was demanded by 25 September. Noble Lords will recognise that this was a major holiday period, when anything akin to a full response was impossible.
IF the views of the main churches were of interest to the Government and were GENUINELY sought on such an important and sensitive issue as this, which has to do with dignity, equality and justice, how were we expected to respond with integrity?
Consequently, we find ourselves this evening supporting much, but unable to press our concerns on parts that are unclear and a source of DEEP ANXIETY TO MANY CHRISTIANS in Northern Ireland.
...The churches play a vital role in charities, adoption procedures, education and now equality issues. I believe that we do not have to defend the role that we have played or the voice that we have given to the population on these issues. These issues have an impact on the life of the voluntary sector and the wider community, and much of the legislation on those other areas is to be welcomed; equally, however, much of it is CONTROVERSIAL and deserves much closer scrutiny than is possible under our present procedures.
It gives me, after my years of public service, no pleasure to make those points. But I appeal to the Government to recognise the dilemmas that the current procedure presents to many of us, including myself...
ENDS
SOME OF THESE THEMES HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY OTHERS AS FOLLOWS;-
As a Christian you are not against the Sexual Orientation Regulations per se. Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual people are made in the image of God and should not be refused goods or services on grounds of their sexuality.
However a problem of conflicting rights emerges in some cases eg, a person of faith feels they are being asked to endorse a relationship between two gay people because the good or service is being supplied to a same sex couple AS a same sex couple etc.
So that is the difference between a gay person buying a house and getting a job etc, no problem. But asking a Muslim teacher to teach that civil partnerships are equal to marriage as part of the curriculum or asking a Christian restaurant owner to host a gay CP reception obviously conflicts with their freedom of conscience and religion under European Human rights law.
There are a limited number of contexts in which the provision of a good or a service would result in the violation of a faith conscience if it had the effect of endorsing, promoting or facilitating sexual activity between people in gay relationships. Government must provide proper exemptions covering these scenarios for people on the basis of faith if the Regulations are not going to become a vehicle by which the state undermines religious liberties in Great Britain.
In defining these exemptions the government should be aware that the Christian life is far bigger than church services and involves welfare service provision, retreat centres and Christian integrity in the work place.
It is thus essential that the government widens the exemption for religious freedom such that no religious person or body should be forced to provide goods and services in a way that has the effect of promoting or facilitating active same sex sexual relationships.
Whilst the impact of such an amendment would be hugely important for religious freedom, it would have limited consequences for lesbian, gay and bisexual people because: a) it would only concern a small proportion of goods and services provided by Christians and constitute a miniscule proportion of GB goods and services and b) there are always alternative providers.
The Northern Ireland SORs make no effective individual conscience exemptions beyond the confines of church and religious organisations.
And they make no provision for government to fund, via contract, faith based bodies that cannot make a good or service available to lesbian, gay or bisexual people in those narrow contexts where the provision of the good or service would have the effect of endorsing, promoting or facilitating same sex sexual relationships.
The SORs have a surprise harassment provision which, in the judgement of leading lawyers, including James Dingemans QC, has the affect of making the limited religious exemptions that the Regulations apparently make null and void.
It is not simply about equality. There are also real issues of civil and religious liberties and human rights legislation that cannot be ignored either.
To force a person of faith to operate contrary to their conscience is effectively imposing your values upon another person against their will. The protests from Jews Muslims and Christians outside the Lords demonstrate this is not a moot point. And Ruth Kelly arguing this point in the cabinet as a Roman Catholic confirms it.
This is not meant to close debate and say the SORs should not go through. Far from it. It is to open debate and ask how can it be done in a way that respects freedom of conscience and religion as per European Human Rights and civil liberties?
Any thoughts?
PB
In comment #28, John Hume says: "I hope that day doesn't come and that you simply don't discriminate against people on the grounds of their race, religion, colour, sexual orientation, gender etc. I guess the choice is yours."
The legislation you defend ensures that the choice is NOT mine!
I don't own a business, actually. But those who do have certain rights which, as you admit, the unelected House of Lords has "bulldozed" over, in its great wisdom. I don't live within the jurisdiction of the House of Lords, which is a great relief. I don't discriminate against people on the grounds of their race, religion, colour, sexual orientation or gender. I happen to live by that principle voluntarily, without the coercion of law, as you advocate in this thread.
Perhaps you think that everyone should be taxed at 98% of their earnings so that we may all be paid back by the government according to need? If so, you prove my point about your inability to understand rights. If not, why not?
Maybe it would be a good idea to require businesses to meet with government representatives once a week to ensure that their business plan is an undertaking in the public good and not for something like, say, profit? If so, you prove my point. If not, why not?
You say: "You clearly feel that discrimination is OK - you feel that you have the right to do it."
Saying that a business owner has the right to discriminate is very different from saying that discrimination is OK. In your great arrogance you have assumed the capacity of equating the moral standards of equality and the right to make one's own choices. I believe that discrimination on the basis of prejudice is categorically wrong, morally speaking. But I will fight for the right of every business owner and every individual to make that call for themselves. I'm not arrogant enough to assume the position of enforcing that code upon others, as you are.
I guess the principal difference between you and I is that I actually trust my fellow human being to make choices for themselves and do the right thing. Your position regards them as inherently stupid, basically immoral and fundamentally evil.
That must be difficult to live with.
#25
Sorry for delay, been away.
To refuse to publish material for a black person simply because they are black is racism. To refuse to publish material for a homosexual person simply because they are homosexual is homophobia. To refuse to print material promoting gay sex, which you believe to be immoral can not be considered homophobic by any right-thinking person.
A printer can refuse to print material for the Brook clinic, which promotes underage (an even pre-teen) sex without fear of prosecution. Under this legislation he will not be able to refuse to print material promoting gay sex. How is that equality?
Because to refuse to print stuff for a christian group is religious discrimination.
Can we drop the printing thing - it's boring.
You dont want this law because you hate what these people do in their lives that is your starting point.
Gee
Is it a criminal offence to refuse to print material for a Christian group? If it is I strongly oppose it. I do not think a Muslim publisher should be forced to print Christian material or vice versa.
Should we extend it so that a Labour supporter (who is a publisher) is forced to publish the Conservative manefesto, an animal rights publisher be forced to publish material for the local hunt....
I thought I was clear I do not have a "thing" about gay people. Biblical teachinng is quite clear, the only appropriate place for sexual expression is within a marriage setting. I do not have howls of protest from co-habiting individuals telling me I hate them. Why is that?
It is clear from your previous posts that the intolerance, phobia and inflammatory language is yours!
#30
I understand your position more now. If you read your previous entries, you have only ever said indicated that discrimination is OK: "who I serve, and for whatever reason I wish is up to me". You have explained that you morally think any discrimination is wrong but are debating where to draw the line between law and indidvidual free will. I understand that concern for us all. Unfortunately, black people, gay people, bisexual people, transgendered people, people of certain faiths etc. continue to face that discrimination on a daily basis in this country. Maybe you don't belong to any minority group in the UK and maybe you don't know what that feels like day in and day out? The point is that it is going on, not on a small scale but on a large scale in some areas. How do you ever stop it? If each individual makes their choice and that is to, say, not provide a gay person with a particular service, how long before that gay person is completely without the service they need and left with feelings of extreme isolation. If it is still happening, then it has to be legislated to prevent it happening. You say you have faith in your fellow human being to behave in a way which is fair. Unfortunately this isn't going on and people are still being discriminated against which means that not all people are necsessarily behaving in the way you believe they will. Look at the huge difference Race Relations Act has made. It hasn't done enough, but imagine what it would be like withouth it? That made it illegal to behave towards a certain part of the community in a certain way, just as this regulation does. I don't see the difference. The Age Discrimination Act which has just gone through, does likewise. All of these things affect private business owners and public service providers alike. Do they restrict freedom of thought, freedom to debate, freedom to disagree? No. Absolutely not. Naturally everyone can continue to do that. What is, however, curtailed, is acting out all of those thoughts and feelings by individuals because, as you put it so well, "discrimination on the basis of prejudice is categorically wrong". I think it's really interesting that this debate is happpening here with regards to this issue, but a similar debate didn't take place when the Disability Discrimination Act came in to force. It requires businesses not to discriminate on the grounds of disability and to make reasonable adjustments. I didn't hear the same hue and cry over that law. Why? Because it was a good law, which didn't go quite far enough, but prevented disabled people from being treated unfavourably in hotels, restaurants etc. I can't help but think that this debate has come about because of a deep-seated religious fear of gay people. I am not suggesting that of you; I have no idea of your leanings one way or another. Incidentally, I do have my own business and am more than prepared to comply with this law. I have no idea what your other comments mean regarding business plans and 98% taxation, they seem rather irrelevant other than to try and illustrate that I am being extreme, which I'm not.I'm supporting a moral stance becoming common practice across the country. I find nothing about that either arrogant or difficult to live with.
GW
LET'S START BOOK BURNING???
I dont think you are understanding that there is another side to this apart from the obvious and genuine equality aspects, which do need to be discussed and addressed.
The sacred texts of Islan Judiasm and Christianty condemn homosexual activity and have done consistently for 6000 years.
That is why there were so many adherents of those faiths protesting outside the Lords.
But let's take this a step further, this is not therefore primarily about so called discriminatory people, it is about discriminatory religions.
And to be more precise it is about discriminatory sacred books.
If this legislation is carried out from I can see it will effecively ban the Koran and bible from public use where it discusses these issues.
So, does this mean we are enforcing a law which is effectively imposing book burning?
It is the traditional religious texts that discriminate against homosexuality, not the individuals who believe in them?
Are we really going to ban these books or are we going to make sure they are revised by law to delete these passgaes?
And if so which passages are next, depending on the whim of the Government and the next powerful lobby group?
And what precedents does this set for freedom of religion, speech, thought and conscience???
Do these issues matter at all to you in the broadest sense?
Do we burn the religious books or not?
What is the solution to this?
PB
#35
What are you talking about - burning books? It's such an extreme reaction! This is about equality. You have the right to protection against discrimination in your religion. I support that. I don't care what any book says about homosexuality - you can no longer discriminate. That doesn't mean you can't have a debate and put forward your point of view but the law recognises that some people choose to live their lives in way you don't like and therefore make it illegal for you to discriminate because, in some cases, some people can't be moderate about it. I don't necessarily agree with any religious teachings nor with the way in which people of faith live their lives, but I don't propose that you aren't protected under law should you find yourself discriminated against. I don't propose that you're not allowed to do what you need to do to maintain your faith. Read what you want, debate what you want, say what you want. It makes no difference to how I will live my life. Where I draw the line is discrimination.I will not recieve less favourable treatment, information, services or goods because you do not agree with a particular lifestyle. It simply won't be tolerated. Thankfully the law backs that now.
John Hume- Thanks for your thoughtful reply. We disagree over whether or not such legislation is welcome; but at least we now see each other's point. I agree with you that homophobia is responsible for the vast majority of the opposition to this legislation. They are opposing it on grounds that, in themselves, are prejudiced! No wonder they don't want the legislation. I, on the other hand, oppose it from other principles which I believe should have produced an entirely different and IMO much more important debate.
In the same way that lower taxes are better for businesses than higher taxes, lower general interference from government is better than higher general interference from government. I make this argument on a pragmatic level (ie. the results of more powerful government are detrimental in general) and, more importantly, on a moral level (ie. a more powerful government violates individual rights and therefore should be opposed in principle).
In any case, it's a losing battle for me, since at any time someone can win popular disapproval of my position by simply asking, "Do you really want a society in which people are allowed to discriminate against others?" With that, the debate is closed for most people, since it takes a great deal more effort to think doctrinally about rights and freedom and the proper role of government, as great philosophers did, and as Thomas Jefferson did; than simply to appeal to the emotions of the masses to get the law to say: 'It's illegal to be a bigot.'
Hi John Hume
In post 29 i show that James Dingemans and other legal experts say that the surprise harrassment clause in the SORs negates any supposed exemptions for what happens in church.
So what happens if I have a discussion about the muslim/jewish/Christian holy books say about homosexuality with someone who disagrees with me?
In my experience, and I think this blog bears this out, most people now response to these points in a VERY reactionary way.
The obvious point is that anyone entering into a discussion now is a sitting duck for litigation on grounds of harrassment, according to Dingemans QC and others.
I will certainly be corrected but to me this is but one short step away from burning the holy books of these three religions, because quoting the passages in them on homosexuality is effectively now an offence of harrassment.
That is not to say I would scrap the SORs, on the contrary, there is a huge democractic appetite to address the discrimination in question.
The question is, should this go so far as to gag three holy books or risk the believer being sued for harrassment and how can this be overcome in a win win sitution?
Your thoughts welcome...
PB
This printing illustration is brain dead stupid.
NO-ONE will be required to publish material "promoting gay sex". What exactly would a leaflet promoting gay sex look like?
The law will however require printers not to turn away business from a person because of that person's sexual orientation. Say a person comes to a printer and asks for his civil partnership invitations to be printed. The printer refuses because he says homosexuality is against his principles. That is now against the law. It SHOULD be against the law.
Will the Human Rights Act trump the SORs in favour of freedom of religion and speech? Looks very possible...
CASE1
In late December a Christian couple won damages from Police in Lancashire and Wyre Borough Council after they both joined forces to intimidate the couple in their own home for expressing their view that homosexuality was wrong. The couple sued on grounds that their civil liberties were infringed and the two authorities would not apologise.
CASE2
Now we hear that the University of Exeter students guild reinstated the Christian Union after it was suspended for excluding homosexuals from membership. The CU threatened to sue under the Human Rights Act for infringement of freedom of speech and religion....
/blogs/ni/2007/01/exeter_evangelical_christian_u.html
CASE3
In July the conviction of a Swedish Pastor -who was jailed for criticising homosexuality- was overturned as it was expected he would win an appeal under - youve guessed it - the Human Rights Act.
So we have already seen attempts to censor freedom on speech and religion in relation to homosexuality beaten under the Human Rights Act, in cases 1 and 3.
In Case 2 the Exeter Students Guild backed down before the legal action actually began by the Christian Union...
Perhaps the Exeter Students Guild realised there was no way it could win...
I wonder will the SORs ultimately flounder on the same legislation, ie Human Rights Act?
PB
fyi
PB
Human Rights Act 1998
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion. 13. - (1) If a court's determination of any question arising under this Act might affect the exercise by a religious organisation (itself or its members collectively) of the Convention right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, it must have particular regard to the importance of that right.
(2) In this section "court" includes a tribunal.
PB, glad to see someone is actually reading the Human Rights Act! I'm a lawyer and a passionate defender of the Act, against its detractors (who are often right-wing Christians, I fear). I'm not sure what point you seek to make in relation to section 13. Are you suggesting that the entire Sexual Orientation Regulations are inconsistent with (13)? If that's your point, we'll disagree on that. I suspect the government's lawyers - who also oversaw the imcorporation of the HRA - were careful in how they drafted the new regulations to ensure that consistency.
Here's a list of some FAMOUS HOMOSEXUALS. Should I add King David (prob bisexual?) and his friend Jonathan?
Pedro Aldomovar, filmmaker
Alexander the Great, conqueror
Hans Christian Andersen, writer
Marshall Applewhite, cult guru
Joan Armatrading, singer
Sir Robert Baden-Powell, founder of the Boy Scouts
Joan Baez, singer
Sandra Bernhard, actor
Mr. Blackwell, asshole fashion critic
Dirk Bogarde, actor
William G Bonin, serial killer
Chastity Bono, daughter of Sonny Bono and Cher
David Bowie, musician [bisexual]
Marlon Brando, actor [heteroflexible]
Susie Bright, sexpert
John Brunner, science fiction author
William S. Burroughs, writer
Julius Caesar, caesar
Truman Capote, writer
Marilyn Chambers, actor
Traci Chapman, singer
Mary Cheney, daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney
Margaret Cho, comic [heteroflexible]
Montgomery Clift, actor
Kurt Cobain, singer [bisexual]
James Coco, actor
Roy Cohn, Joseph McCarthy's henchman, Mob attorney
Colette, writer [bisexual]
Hart Crane, poet [bisexual]
James Dean, actor [bisexual]
Ellen DeGeneres, actor
Emily Dickinson, poet
Divine, actor
Matt Drudge, columnist
Andrea Dworkin, feminist idiot
Brian Epstein, managed The Beatles
Sergei Esenin, poet [bisexual]
Melissa Etheridge, singer
Rupert Everett, actor
Harvey Fierstein, actor
Malcolm Forbes, businessman [bisexual]
Pim Fortuyn, assassinated Dutch candidate
Jodi Foster, actor
Barney Frank, congressman from Massachusetts
David Geffen, Geffen Records [bisexual?]
Jean Genet, felonious playwright
Boy George, singer
Sir John Gielgud, actor
Allen Ginsberg, poet
Cary Grant, actor [bisexual]
Merv Griffin, television mogul
Hadrian, Roman Emperor
Rob Halford, singer, Judas Priest
Keith Haring, artist
Nina Hartley, actor [bisexual]
Todd Haynes, filmmaker
Anne Heche, actor [bisexual]
David Hockney, artist
J. Edgar Hoover, longtime head of the FBI.
Rock Hudson, actor
Javed Iqbal, hunter of street urchins
Elton John, musician
Jasper Johns, artist
Jim Jones, cult guru [bisexual]
Billie Jean King, tennis player
k.d. lang, singer
Charles Laughton, actor
Ralph Lauren, fashion designer
Ursula LeGuin, author
Leonardo da Vinci, genius
Liberace, pianist
Greg Louganis, Olympic diver
Paul Lynde, Hollywood Square
Charles Manson, bisexual, sodomized a boy by force
Robert Mapplethorpe, photographer
W. Somerset Maugham, writer [bisexual]
Armistead Maupin, writer
Joseph McCarthy, Senator and persecutor
Sir Ian McKellen, actor
Freddie Mercury, singer, Queen.
George Michael, singer
Michaelangelo, Renaissance man
Harvey Milk, gay rights activist and martyr
Morrissey, singer
Martina Navratilova, tennis player
Sir Isaac Newton, scientist and celibate homo
Sinead O'Connor, singer
Rosie O'Donnell, talk show host
Joe Orton, playwright
Camille Paglia, author
Gilles de Rais, nobleman
Charles Nelson Riley, actor
Rimbaud, poet
Cesar Romero, actor
Eleanor Roosevelt, first lady of Franklin D. Roosevelt [bisexual]
RuPaul, drag queen
Sappho, poet
Dick Sargent, second Darrin on Bewitched
Dan Savage, advice columnist
Matthew Shepard, martyr
Siegfried and Roy, magicians
Richard Simmons, fitness guru
Socrates, philosopher [bisexual]
Annie Sprinkle, sexpert
Gertrude Stein, author
Jeff Stryker, actor
Andrew Sullivan, conservative gay columnist, barebacker
P毛tr Ilich Tchaikovsky, composer
Scott Thompson, comic
Billy Tipton, jazz musician, lifelong male impersonator
Andrew Tobias, writer
Alice B. Toklas, cookbook author
Lily Tomlin, actor
Pete Townshend, The Who [bisexual]
Alan Turing, genius
Gus Van Sant, filmmaker
Versace, fashion designer
Gore Vidal, writer
Bruce Vilanch, joke writer
Andy Warhol, artist [bisexual]
John Waters, filmmaker
Oscar Wilde, writer
Tennessee Williams, playwright
James- Name me three cases which have used the HRA to significantly better the lives of ordinary individuals in the UK?
hi james, welcome
i would be convinced if you demonstrated your point ref the 3 cases listed...in post 40
if you are qualified that is the most useful thing you can do here..
cheers
pb
welcome James
why did the three cases I listed in post 40 fall down ref discrimination against gays if it was not for fear of the Human Rights Act?
Is thee an alternative reading of the legal process here?
PB
Gay Christian Believer, James Hillman
Have you got any evidence to suggest David was bisexual?
As I read it there is not a shred. He was very close to Jonathan but there is no suggestion at all of sexual contact in the bible. BTW, I was asking you before your views on marriage and monogamy? Do you believe the bible teaches sex is only for within marriage?
BTW way James, I dont know if you were driving at this, but just for the record my politics are left of centre. And in post 29, Lord Eames puts the genuine concerns in a very reasonable and balanced manner and he is hardly right wing, just for the record.
PB
PB - I'm glad that the Human Rights Act exists and see nothing wrong with legislation which is availble to protect personal rights of expression etc. We could argue the indidivual cases on here forever, but really it doesn't make any difference. There are some moderate voices on here, where individuals are trying their best to grapple with this new regulation and to find ways in which they can reconcile this with their own beliefs. This is a healthy debate. You fundamentally believe being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered is wrong. You are entitled to your opinion but why are you trying so hard to prove your point? You believe it is wrong, but there is large bank of evidence, namely millions of LGBT people, hetrosexual people who support LGBT people, law-makers who believe likewise and many people of faith who have absolutely no issue with this. I support you to have your opinion. I wholeheartedly disagree with it, but it's fair that you have your opinion. Please stop trying to prove that being LGBT is in any way wrong. It's irrelevant to me and probably to most people. Cases will go through which will win out in favour or gay people and cases will go through which will win out in favour of someone's right of expression. Of that, I have no doubt. I find it sad. I thought religions were about teaching peace and tolerance. Once again, I am proved right that there are people of faith who have no interest in that. I really hope that one day you don't experience the term 'christian' becoming a term of playground abuse, of being called derogratory names on the street because of your religion, having trades men and women refuse to paint your house (because they know your're a christian), being turned away from hotels because people guess that they know your religion. But maybe if you do experience some of this, you will understand that being discriminated against for something you believe in or because of something that you are, is cumulatively descructive and hurtful. It impacts your daily life and without legislation to protect (legislation which you already have for protection against discrimination on the grounds of faith), will send a message to the world that it is OK. I'm finished with this debate now. I know that you will only counteract everything I have said, rather than actually listen to the fact the discrimination REALLY HURTS. Other people in this debate have shared views and understood each other, if not agreed. You sadden me. You will live your life according to something you are told rather than something you can witness having a detrimental impact on people around you and rather than making a stance on something which escalates in violence against gay people every day. If that's what your person religion is about, I think you should be ashamed of yourself and take a long hard look at the fundamental premise of your belief system.
Was King David Gay?
There's a growing body of research into this question. Here's an excellent starting point online:
Here's a SUMMARY:
However, it was only in the 1990s that a full stream of new research began to appear, analyzing the text and story of Jonathan and David in greater depth and wider scope. Walter Brueggemann, professor of OT at Columbia Theological Seminary (Decatur, GA), in First and Second Samuel (1990), wrote that the attention given to David鈥檚 unusual beauty (1 Sam 16:12) may be noted here 鈥渋n anticipation of the enormous attraction David is to have in the coming narratives for both men and women. Or perhaps his appearance is noted because those who valued the story most wanted to hear of his loveliness.鈥14 Gary Comstock, in Gay Theology without Apology (1993), draws from Joseph Cady鈥檚 insights in an essay on Walt Whitman where he states that 鈥済ay writers writing in a time that is hostile to gay people had to invent protective strategies that allow them to express themselves while sufficiently guarding themselves against social exposure and punishment.鈥 Comstock notes that in the time of Jonathan and David, such expressions of friendship and comradeship as we read in the story may have been 鈥渁ppropriate terms鈥 that were 鈥渃onventional to covenant making鈥 in that period; yet at the same time they served as a vehicle for the expression of same-sex love. Also, the 鈥渟haring of attention between Saul and Jonathan [in David鈥檚 elegy] provides a good cover鈥 for David鈥檚 special feelings for Jonathan.15
Danna Fewell (Perkins School of Theology, Dallas) and David Gunn (Texas Christian University, Fort Worth), in their book In Gender, Power and Promise (1993), note that, until recently, most writing on the Jonathan and David story has come 鈥渙ut of a strongly homophobic tradition鈥 and they suggest, 鈥淥n the contrary, far from stretching probability, a homosexual reading 鈥 finds many anchor points in the text.鈥 Passages that especially call for a new analysis include Jonathan鈥檚 covenant of love made with David (1 Sam 18:1-4), Saul鈥檚 sexual insult hurled at Jonathan (20:30-31), and David鈥檚 lament for his lost beloved (2 Sam 1:26).16 Francisco Garcia-Treto (1993), in an article on poetic inclusions in 1-2 Samuel, notes that in the elegy 鈥淒avid 鈥 opens his heart to expose to the reader a stunning, sudden glimpse into the intimate feelings of his soul. It is fascinating, and oddly embarrassing at the same time, to hear him cast all reserve or restrain aside and wail for the loss of Jonathan.鈥17 David Halpern (professor of literature at MIT) noted (1990), 鈥淎s in the Gilgamesh epic, so in the Books of Samuel the relationship between friends is constructed as both fraternal [like between brothers] and conjugal [like between husband and wife].鈥18
David Jobling in 1 Samuel (1998) notes that there is more mention of the love these two men had for each other and of them spending time in each other鈥檚 company than is ever noted between David and either Michal or Abigail, his first two wives who are also described in 1 Samuel. 鈥淚f these features, along with sex, constitute 鈥榯he love of women鈥 as David has experienced it, then Jonathan鈥檚 love does indeed 鈥榩ass the love of women.鈥 鈥 Nothing in the text rules out, and much encourages the view that David and Jonathan had a consummated gay relationship. The text does not force this conclusion on us; there are obvious cultural reasons why it would not. But it is at least as valid as any other.鈥19 Jonathan Kirsch writes in King David: The Real Life of the Man Who Ruled Israel (2000): 鈥淒avid, whose very name means 鈥榖eloved,鈥 attracts both men and women, inspiring sometimes a pristine love and more often a frankly carnal one.鈥 He adds, 鈥淭he nature of the love between David and Jonathan is one of the most tantalizing mysteries of the biblical life story of David.鈥 What does 鈥渢he soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David鈥 mean? A more worldly reading suggests that the covenant was not a love pact but a 鈥減olitical arrangement.鈥 But 鈥渟omething more heartfelt and more carnal may have characterized the love of David and Jonathan, even if the Bible dares not speak its name. 鈥 Much effort has been expended in explaining away David鈥檚 declaration of love for Jonathan, a declaration that suggests an undeniable homoerotic subtext.鈥20
#49 (#43)
I am sorry but there is no evidence of a sexual relationship between David and Jonathan. You can be sure that if there was, the author of 2 Samuel would be very willing to describe it. He does not shy away from describing sexual relationships outside of marriage at any other time. Check out the description of David鈥檚 adultery 2 Sam 11 and the incest by David鈥檚 son 2 Samuel 13. Other Old Testament authors are equally frank 鈥 Judges (describing events immediately before Samuel) devotes 3 chapters to the rape of a concubine and the subsequent ramifications. You are clutching at straws.
If the rest of you list of 鈥渇amous homosexuals鈥 is as accurate there may need to be a major revision!
John Hume
I believe you have quite a wrong impression of my concerns about the SOR.
They have been fairly summed up by Lord Eames, an extract if which is in post 29.
PB
PB #50
I do not think I have. I read your comments in #29 the first time you posted them, and have read them again. You wish to have exemptions for the people of faith to be able to discriminate against gay people because they may not believe it is morally right. I will bet my last pound that you made no such noise when people of faith were afforded the same legal protection against prejudice? A question I continue to ask you and one which you continue to ignore. I don't imagine for one minute that you thought of assessing the delicate balance between the right to protect and the right to freedom of choice at the point that people of faith received these protections? Nobody did...and why? Because this debate is homophobia cloaked as as freedom of action issue. Some people are genuinely bringing their human right concerns as John Wright did, others like yourself are coming at it from religious point of view. Your previous entries illustrate your strong belief that you think homosexuality is wrong. I just don't think you are brave enough to stand up and say it out loud. Masking it is worse that the biggots on the street - at least they are honest. You are supporting a belief system which says something is wrong - you think you have the right to say that a way of living is wrong and that people of faith shouldn't be confronted with it or be made to not discriminate. Maybe I don't want to be confronted with a church every 5 streets, or have Christmas pushed upon me...but I live with it and I promote any person of faith's right to live how they want to...so long as they do not act towards another member of society in a way which is unfair, hurtful and illegal. I'm glad we do have lawmakers who are objective and if your presentation of faith is anything to go by...I'm glad the church's influence over such matters is waning.
John Hume
Can you find me one place where I described homosexuality as sin where I did not put my own sin on an equal footing with it?
Yes homosexual sexual sin is wrong and heterosexual sin is wrong.
It appears you would nearly deny me the very right to express my views here, if you could. Would you?
time and again I have acknowledged the humanity, dignity worth and feelings on gay people and no matter how many times I do, there is always someone who seems to insist that I am calling them devils.
I have also consistently called for thoughts about a win-win siutation.
John, why cant you see any of these words in front of you??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
I have said I respect gay people's right to equality legislation and that I respect the democratic process that is bringing it this far.
But the people slinging mud at me have not demonstrated or acknowledge the genuine fears of many people of faith, I notice. Are these the new pariahs to replace homosexuals in society???
John, I could take you more seriously for a second if you could articulate how it might feel for a genuine person of faith to feel concerned at the prospect of the SORs.
Are you really dismissing the concerns of everyone who disagrees with you eg Lord Eames?
Have you any understanding at all of how important free speech is in society? I am not talking about the right to use abusive language to gay people, but the right to discuss these matters in a calm and rational manner.
It seems under the SORs I could potentially be sued for harrassment if I engaged in this with the wrong person.
And I have certainly not been the one using inflammatory language.
Will I have the right to sue someone who calls me a bigot, fanatic, hatemonger, etc etc?
PB
PB
I have never said you shouldn't say whatever you want. Ever. Quite the contrary. Read back. Look at what I've written. I have defended your right to say whatever you want BUT you cannot act in whatever way you want, just as I cannot. People of faith cannot simply say "I don't believe in their way of life, therefore they deserve less favourable service". In the same way that you wouldn't expect people of faith to not provide services for black people, refugees, etc. Just as you wouldn't expect to see less favourable treatment because of your religion. Maybe people are criticising you because they don't like your point of view and find it out of step with a lot of the world. That's an opnion and it's valid. If you make your opinions available, you have to expect criticism. And yes, you will have the right to sue someone if their comments constitute hate crime.
This is true in America and I suspect true in the rest of the world.
I thought it was great somebody brought this to my attention. After watching the program, I was left with many questions... among them, how do people like these guys get money for this when two thirds of the World are bloody starving?
I agree with Keith at the end of the program... they are no different from the Taliban...
They just make me sick!
As a disabled, bisexual, Christian, I'm rather in the middle of this argument.
Of course, freedom of sexual orientation is important, but I don't see why people think it should take precedence over freedom of religion.
The issue for an adoption agency run by a traditional church is that they believe gay sex (not homosexual preference) is a sin, and that they would be placing a child's soul at risk. You can't argue with that view unless you legislate to say their view is wrong, and that's a breach of their human rights.
Of course, where their viewpoint all falls down is, (a) many christians do not agree with the traditional view that all homosexuals are more sinful than all heterosexuals, and (b) it fails to account for the needs of gay children.
One further point : the term "freedom" in this context seems incorrect to me. I have no more choice over my religious beliefs or my sexual preferences than I do over my skin colour.
Well well well,
errrr
just sos you know guys the "PB" above is not the same "PB" who has posted here previously, lately on issues of science and evolution.
disabiguation please.
I know Peter and DD would be scandalised if they were being fooled with a fake!
PB