Lord Carey in epic homophobic Godwin outburst

[Ozzie Osmond]

Breadvan72 said:

He thinks it's an insult to suggest that someone is gay. I don't, so the jibe falls flat.

You have missed the point completely. It's about different minorities and the extent to which the community as a whole ought to, or ought not to, bend over backwards to accomodate them.

IMO minorities come in two substantially different forms,

1. Groups who are a "minority" here but who represent a substantial majority somewhere else with a distinct history and culture. For instance, Africans, Asians, Jews and Muslims.

2. Groups who arise spontaneously in society without any particular origin and are a minority everywhere you look. For instance, homosexuals and the disabled.

Many of the communities in category 1. have their own traditions regarding food, clothing or social arrangements which can be identified and respected. For instance Kosher food or Sharia law. In neither case do they try to take over the mainstream by demanding "equality" in the sense of demanding availability of kosher food in every restaurant or a Sharia judge in every court.

The communities in group 2. are by their nature accomodated within society at large to the extent considered appropriate and they have no special culture of their own. However, society does not say "we must all behave as if we are disabled in the interests of equality". A distinction is recognised and accepted between the minority and the majority. IMO homosexual "marriage" would be inappropriate because it represents a minority with no culture of their own seeking to distort the traditional ground of the majority group. If homosexuals aren't happy with civil partnerships then IMO they should invent something of their own, not gate-crash the "marriage" party.

To my mind homosexuals are no more capable of marriage than the disabled of joining the Royal Ballet.

[stackmonkey]

TallbutBuxomly said:

To be fair I don't blame OO since much worse insults are and have hurled by others on here.

That's the point though. He used being gay as an insult having spent much of the thread trying to claim that neither he nor his views were homophobic.
You, by saying that 'you can't blame him', have done pretty much the same thing.

[anonymous-user]

OO, your first contribution to this thrad was as follows:-

Ozzie Osmond said:

They want us to think they are normal, that's why.

Perhaps a new class of "real marriage of one man and one woman" is needed.

You appear to see gay people as not "normal", even though being homosexual is a natural condition. Your attempt to distinguish between discrimination against people because of their ethnic origin and because of their sexuality fails to explain why in one case discrimination is wrong but in another is acceptable. It's nothing to do with culture; it's to do with making choices on the basis of some fixed attribute that person has.

You say that gay people are not capable of marriage, but why? Marriage is a social construct, which previously our society has not made available to gay people. Our society is now more tolerant, so offers the construct to all. Why should it not do so? I can see only two reasons: (1) religion, and (2) tradition, but neither is a good reason.

Physical ability stops a wheelchair user from dancing in Swan Lake. There is no such impediment to a gay person marrying.

[Ozzie Osmond]

stackmonkey said:

He used being gay as an insult....

Will you kindly draw my attention to where that was. I think people must be reading-in something that was not there.

[Ozzie Osmond]

Breadvan72 said:

You appear to see gay people as not "normal"

That is what I wrote and you are picking at nothing more than the dictionary definition of the word. Substitute "typical" and my meaning may be more precise for you.

[anonymous-user]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Breadvan72 said:

A Kosher deli does not have to sell sell pork, but will not refuse to sell its products to Gentiles.

Yeah, but a lot of ordinary schools in UK are making ALL the pupils eat Halal meat.

I guess you'd probably like to see a few teenage boys in the corridors whey they photograph the F1 drivers walk through after a race victory. No what the hell, make them all teenage boys. And pretty ones too.

If that is not saying "you queer, you like pretty boys", then what is it saying? Note also the conflation of homosexuality with an interest in sex with teenagers. Ineffective as an insult, but pretty unpleasant thinking.

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 13th October 16:49

[TallbutBuxomly]

stackmonkey said:

TallbutBuxomly said:

To be fair I don't blame OO since much worse insults are and have hurled by others on here.

That's the point though. He used being gay as an insult having spent much of the thread trying to claim that neither he nor his views were homophobic.
You, by saying that 'you can't blame him', have done pretty much the same thing.

Sadly you miss the point. I was not endorsing his comments merely pointing out that I cannot blame him for throwing insults since everyone else on the pro camp seemed to think it acceptable.


Which leads to the "reading into things" remarks I have made previously. At no point did I agree with him calling anyone gay. I merely endorsed his throwing insults at those insulting him. In the same way that when I used my peas analogy.

I did not mean peas as in homosexuals I genuinely meant it as peas however forum members decided to read into it that I meant homosexuals as it played to their opinion that I have a problem with people being gay.

People need to stop inferring meanings by peoples statements an using them to throw insults using words that imo they don't really understand the meaning or depth behind.

[anonymous-user]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Breadvan72 said:

You appear to see gay people as not "normal"

That is what I wrote and you are picking at nothing more than the dictionary definition of the word. Substitute "typical" and my meaning may be more precise for you.

You wrote "they want us to see them as normal". That carries the inference that gay people are in some way deviant. It is interesting that, above, you group homosexuality with disability. Your thinking seems pretty apparent.

[Terminator X]

At the risk of getting a beating on here I'm against it. If you have a group of people for something and a group of people against it surely you have to tread the path of least resistance which is to stay as you are/were. To force it through by changing the Law simply tramples on the wishes of a very large group of the UK population which can't be fair at all.

I'm neither gay nor religious btw.

TX.

[anonymous-user]

A substantial number of people in this country are racist. Does that means that we mustn't do anything that might upset them?

[Justayellowbadge]

Terminator X said:

At the risk of getting a beating on here I'm against it. If you have a group of people for something and a group of people against it surely you have to tread the path of least resistance which is to stay as you are/were. To force it through by changing the Law simply tramples on the wishes of a very large group of the UK population which can't be fair at all.

I'm neither gay nor religious btw.

TX.

Well, we'd still have slavery. The feudal system. The absolute power of the papist church. The Romans, if ypu want to go back far enough.

To be honest, path of least resistance is invairably bks.

[stackmonkey]

Ozzie Osmond said:

The communities in group 2. are by their nature accomodated within society at large to the extent considered appropriate and they have no special culture of their own. However, society does not say "we must all behave as if we are disabled in the interests of equality". IMO homosexual "marriage" would be inappropriate because it represents a minority with no culture of their own seeking to distort the traditional ground of the majority group.

1) There is a gay culture though, and a disabled one too.
2) Society does not expect anyone to behave as though they are homosexual 'in the interests of equality', either. It could be amusing,but it is not sought for.
3) gay people are not seeking to 'distort' marriage either. We simply want the equality of it.
4) We are capable of it; it happens perfectly well in numerous other countries. To say we are not capable of it is facile at best and an insult. Remember that the ONLY difference between a gay and a straight person is the gender of the person they love.

[Bill]

Homophobe and bigot are descriptive nouns btw, not insults.

[TallbutBuxomly]

stackmonkey said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

The communities in group 2. are by their nature accomodated within society at large to the extent considered appropriate and they have no special culture of their own. However, society does not say "we must all behave as if we are disabled in the interests of equality". IMO homosexual "marriage" would be inappropriate because it represents a minority with no culture of their own seeking to distort the traditional ground of the majority group.

1) There is a gay culture though, and a disabled one too.
2) Society does not expect anyone to behave as though they are homosexual 'in the interests of equality', either. It could be amusing,but it is not sought for.
3) gay people are not seeking to 'distort' marriage either. We simply want the equality of it.
4) We are capable of it; it happens perfectly well in numerous other countries. To say we are not capable of it is facile at best and an insult. Remember that the ONLY difference between a gay and a straight person is the gender of the person they love.

I would ask again if someone could explain how not allowing the word marriage to encompass same sex couples is not equal.

I am an IT engineer and I get paid x. There are other IT engineers who are in the same company and position as me with the same skill set and work ethic as me and have the job title IT engineer just like myself but get paid less than me. Personally I think that is not equal or fair and the law should be changed so that either I have to be paid the same amount as them or them as me.

[TallbutBuxomly]

To me this seems more like an lgbt community victim complex than anything else. To me the primary issue is where they should be allowed to have a civil ceremony as at the moment as I understand it is very restrictive and unfair.

[Ozzie Osmond]

Breadvan72 said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

Breadvan72 said:

A Kosher deli does not have to sell sell pork, but will not refuse to sell its products to Gentiles.

Yeah, but a lot of ordinary schools in UK are making ALL the pupils eat Halal meat.

I guess you'd probably like to see a few teenage boys in the corridors whey they photograph the F1 drivers walk through after a race victory. No what the hell, make them all teenage boys. And pretty ones too.

If that is not saying "you queer, you like pretty boys", then what is it saying? Note also the conflation of homosexuality with an interest in sex with teenagers. Ineffective as an insult, but pretty unpleasant thinking.

What on earth are you talking about? The issues appear to be in your head, not my words.

The point I was making is at F1 races they generally have a line of pretty girls,

• not fat ones
• not ugly ones
• not skinny ones
• not disabled ones

So if the world is to offer "equality" why not have

• a line of boys?
• a line of girls and boys? (all pretty)
• a line of girls and boys including the fat, ugly and disabled?
• a line of girls at one race and a line of boys at the next?

Its equality you want so the answer is clear. Only pretty girls allowed now so only pretty boys allowed to replace them. No need to trouble the the mingers and disabled.

[anonymous-user]

Your attempt to cover your tracks is not very convincing.

[JuniorD]

Me and a few mates were once refused entry to a nightclub, do I have grounds to sue someone?

[Justayellowbadge]

JuniorD said:

Me and a few mates were once refused entry to a nightclub, do I have grounds to sue someone?

You ain't coming in in trainers. Not 2 left ones, anyway.

[anonymous-user]

Three of my colleagues, two straight, one gay, went to a Soho club. The bouncer waved the two straight ones in, but stopped the gay one and said "you do realise that this is a gay club, Sir?"

Anyway, CSBs apart, a trader can of course refuse to deal with someone on grounds other than those protected by law. A pub can throw out a drunk, but can't throw someone out or bar them on the ground of being black, gay, etc.