NFR: Political Correctness.

[Blingo]

The original one. It might not be PC for me to PM you lol. ;p

You seem to have a very weird opinion of me. You are aware that lefties are on the whole a lot more open and a lot less restrained by norms and values than right wing people, I hope? That is why a lot of people have difficulties with lefties. They are far less easily pinned down. I have a number of core values which are non-negotiable (equality as in respect for other people is one of them) but far less than the right wing or centre-right people. 

Don't flatter yourself hahahah. I like you Sippy, you're quite bright.;p I also have core values which I do not deviate from, I think most people have. Politics is not something I care much about because whichever way they go they tend to screw the country up. As for pinning you down, I can assure you that in serious mode I will match most people. Don't underestimate a successful old man my friend.

[Logicalman]

.. and just to throw a hand grenade into the mix, doesn't Positive Discrimination go hand-in-hand with Political Correctness?

 

[AlFayedsChequebook]

.. and just to throw a hand grenade into the mix, doesn't Positive Discrimination go hand-in-hand with Political Correctness?

 

Not really, that is what the right want to equate it to so that people are up in arms.

Positive discrimination is still hotly debated amongst all.

[TonyGilroy]

FWIW I'm against positive discrimination. I'd always give a job to the best candidate.

What matters is that our education system provides equal opportunity for all and for all sorts of reasons that remains a remote aspiration.

[sipwell]

.. and just to throw a hand grenade into the mix, doesn't Positive Discrimination go hand-in-hand with Political Correctness?

 

I don't see why it should. If you're for democracy, you should be for balanced representation. We help people in hospitals, why not help an ailing society then as well.

[finnster01]

I am sure it will not be a shock to many of you that I am firmly in Blingo's corner on this. There is no question that PC has gone too far. In fact, I will argue that it has actually been like that for the longest.

For example our very own former Goalkeeper , ‘Big Fat’ Jim Stannard that Tony Pulis brought to Gillingham. Gillingham fans had begun to fondly offer celery to their goalkeeper because of his rather large frame. The club, however, decided that celery could result in health and safety issues inside the ground. As a result, fans were subjected to celery searches with the ultimate sanction for possession of celery allegedly being a life ban.’ Offering celery for fun to suggest maybe he should give the buffet table a bit of a rest is not racial abuse, gay slagging nor religious abuse and I find it hard to explain how a stick of celery is a health and safety issue. To get a life ban for bringing a stick of celery to a match is very much over the top in most people's opinion (although granted that getting a lifetime ban from Gillingham is possibly a blessing in disguise)

In fact Jim Stannard himself thought it was all good banter and fun

[Blingo]

FWIW I'm against positive discrimination. I'd always give a job to the best candidate.

Alan Sugar didn't ;p

[Blingo]

I am sure it will not be a shock to many of you that I am firmly in Blingo's corner on this. There is no question that PC has gone too far. In fact, I will argue that it has actually been like that for the longest.

For example our very own former Goalkeeper , ‘Big Fat’ Jim Stannard that Tony Pulis brought to Gillingham. Gillingham fans had begun to fondly offer celery to their goalkeeper because of his rather large frame. The club, however, decided that celery could result in health and safety issues inside the ground. As a result, fans were subjected to celery searches with the ultimate sanction for possession of celery allegedly being a life ban.’ Offering celery for fun to suggest maybe he should give the buffet table a bit of a rest is not racial abuse, gay slagging nor religious abuse and I find it hard to explain how a stick of celery is a health and safety issue. To get a life ban for bringing a stick of celery to a match is very much over the top in most people's opinion (although granted that getting a lifetime ban from Gillingham is possibly a blessing in disguise)

In fact Jim Stannard himself thought it was all good banter and fun

EAT THE EVIDENCE LOL

[Rupert]

But being gay is not a 'belief' is it?

As for the church not trying to take away gay people's rights - luckily they can't but it has not stopped them trying to prevent positive changes being made. Look right now at the CofE's response the the government wanting to allow Gay marriage as opposed to only Civil partnerships - Sentamu was writing in the Guardian the other day about how awful it was.

The question of catholic adoption is a difficult one - if the agencies in question receive no public funding then I guess they are within their rights to only allow catholic adoption? The problem is that you inhenrently believe that being Gay is wrong - which I think is absolutely disgusting because you are discriminating against people based on belief in a book written two thousand years ago.

What I dont understand is why Christianity has an issue with Gay people. The Bible has lots of things that have since been dropped (eating of shellfish, slavery, child marriage to name but a few) so why can you not accept that being gay is perfectly fine?

A number of interesting points, let's ty to go through them for you-

Being gay is not a belief, true, and frankly I neither know, nor care, exactly what sexual orientation people are (okay, I assume married people are hetero, but that aside, it is none of my business), however, there are groups who approach "gay rights" with religious fervour. The marriage in Church thing is a perfect example of this.
Tell me, if the attitude of the mainstream religions (Catholicism, Anglicans, Islam) is so abhorrent to those who are gay, why the hell do they want to get married in our places of worship? The truth is, the average couple, under those circumstances, would not want to be maaried in a group which rejected their lifestyle. And who can blame them? Not me.
Catholic churches will not marry you if neither of you is Catholic, one of you will need to convert to the church first, and one of the tenets of our faith is that homosexuality is not natural.
Of course you are free to reject that opinion, just as we are free to reject yours. And, yes, of course a number of Catholics are homosexual, some are priests. How they deal with this conflict is between them and God (in the case of priests, they are supposed to be celebate so their orientation is irrelevant, again in a perfect world).
Nor will a Catholic priest marry you if you refuse to being up your children as Catholics.
So, should we stop discriminating against non-Catholics too? Or does the state not already provide for those we won't marry?
Marriage in church is not some sort of birthright, it is a religious ceremony, carried out by ministers of your faith, and if you reject the beliefs of the religious body then why would they want to marry you?

Your point about anything we pay for (adoption agencies) being ours to decide- er, no. Not in British law. Anti-discrimination legislation applies across the board.

As for the book "written two thousand years ago", some parts are closer to three and a half thousand years, and that is the point, really. It has withstood the test of time. Many things justified by the Bible, in the past, actually are never justifed in scripture, it has been used to justify them by using certain passages and ignoring others. You are free to reject the life it advocates, we are free to point to the way we see society degenerating nowadays with this "anything goes" attitude and ask, are we really so wrong to hold on to what we think is right.

It is not so much that the Church, nowadays, has much issue with those who are gay, but a small minority of those who are gay seem to want to force their beliefs down the Church's throat in the name of equal rights.

You'll notice, I hope, that I have not described your beliefs in this topic as "disgusting"?
Maybe I have more respect for freedom of speech and belief than you?

[TonyGilroy]

I may be wrong but I didn't think that proponents of gay marriage were insisting on it being in Church.

I'd agree that Church weddings should be for believers in that faith but what if they're gay?

[AlFayedsChequebook]

You'll notice, I hope, that I have not described your beliefs in this topic as "disgusting"?
Maybe I have more respect for freedom of speech and belief than you?

Thanks for attempting to paint me as a bigot there who doesn't respect other people's rights  

Anyway, at the moment, as far as I am aware, there is not a movement to force Catholic Church's to marry gay people. The focus of the discussion atm is the right for gay people to use the term 'marriage' to describe the union of two gay individuals. The church is completely against this, along with a number of Christian MPs who think it is there right to vote on conscience rather than the will of their constituents. Paint it how you like, but if you go to Church and ask the priest if he thinks that two gay people should be able to have a marriage in a civil ceremony he will object. The fact is, that you honestly believe anyone who is not a Catholic is going to burn in hell for the rest of eternity - a bit unreasonable wouldn't you say?

As for the adoption thing - it is difficult. Children should be protected from indoctrination, so allowing the Catholic church to house children is a bit iffy. And that is not to mention the child abuse scandals covered up by the all loving church, presumably representing God's will.

Not sure what you mean about the Bible standing the test of time - large tracts are ignored now and more and more people are seeing the bible for what it is - a man made construct designed to control large sections of the population. Religion in the UK is at its lowest ebb, surely showing the bible has not much to offer the modern person?

You are entitled to your beliefs, and I am not trying to prevent you from believing in Catholicism, but that is where it ends. You are not entitled to enforce your beliefs on others, and I am entitled to challenge your beliefs fully, in the same way you are challenging mine. There is no agenda, just the church having to give up influence it previously and unfairly held over the general population.

[AlFayedsChequebook]

I may be wrong but I didn't think that proponents of gay marriage were insisting on it being in Church.

I'd agree that Church weddings should be for believers in that faith but what if they're gay?

This is what I thought too - the gay marriage debate was about the use of the word marriage, not forcing churches to marry gay people

[sipwell]

FWIW I'm against positive discrimination. I'd always give a job to the best candidate.

What matters is that our education system provides equal opportunity for all and for all sorts of reasons that remains a remote aspiration.

Research (in psychology, sociology, economics, ...)  shows, time and again, that if you check for gender and race the end results of the people selected for a job is completely different. Less white males will get the job since they are under-qualified in comparison to the white girl or the muslim boy There is still the prejudice that "young white men" will be better and better qualified. The reality is a lot different. There is all kind of prejudice about women (want a job to get paid-leave whilst pregnant) and muslims (incapable of hard work) and the anti-discrimination law tries to rectify that. I support that, even though it is detrimental for my own chances (being a young white - and dare I say extremely attractive - male).

[Blingo]

How can you be a Catholic if you are gay? It is something that is forbidden in Catholicism.  

[Blingo]

FWIW I'm against positive discrimination. I'd always give a job to the best candidate.

What matters is that our education system provides equal opportunity for all and for all sorts of reasons that remains a remote aspiration.

Research (in psychology, sociology, economics, ...)  shows, time and again, that if you check for gender and race the end results of the people selected for a job is completely different. Less white males will get the job since they are under-qualified in comparison to the white girl or the muslim boy There is still the prejudice that "young white men" will be better and better qualified. The reality is a lot different. There is all kind of prejudice about women (want a job to get paid-leave whilst pregnant) and muslims (incapable of hard work) and the anti-discrimination law tries to rectify that. I support that, even though it is detrimental for my own chances (being a young white - and dare I say extremely attractive - male).

And extremely modest of course lol lol lol.