I personally think it has all gone too far. I am massively anti bullying and unfair treatment, but we seem to be reaching levels where you won't even be able to fart when you are walking along the road in case it upsets someone.
How do you see it? :59:
Call it politeness and respect and it's hard to argue against.
You of course give a humerous example that is OTT and therefore not relevant to a discussion on PC.
Why is that Tony, is it not PC ? The point is that it has gone beyond politeness and respect and has turned into a very threatening situation whereby you are constantly having to worry about everything you say and that surely is not right is it.
It is a shame that things that appeared innocent at the time are now racist. Like golliwogs and Childrens Stories about a Tar Baby etc. It is also odd that we are allowed to insult some people in our society and not others. Fat,ugly,deformed people still come n for abuse in the press and in the street and it seems fair game. Black, gay etc however are well protected.
But political correctness when meaning politeness and consideration is fine. When it means that people are criticised for once watching the Black and White Minstral Show or laughing at A Round The Horne sketch. I think we are pushing it too far.
Quote from: Blingo on May 28, 2012, 09:04:37 AM
Why is that Tony, is it not PC ? The point is that it has gone beyond politeness and respect and has turned into a very threatening situation whereby you are constantly having to worry about everything you say and that surely is not right is it.
That rather depends on what you might want to say.
Quote from: TonyGilroy on May 28, 2012, 08:56:59 AM
Call it politeness and respect and it's hard to argue against.
You of course give a humerous example that is OTT and therefore not relevant to a discussion on PC.
How about not being allowed to put Christmas lights up in case a Muslim is offended? That's relevant to PC and not OTT.
And most of the time Muslim groups say they should be displayed but white PC pansies decide they shouldn't. Pathetic!!
Quote from: leonffc on May 28, 2012, 09:16:04 AM
Quote from: TonyGilroy on May 28, 2012, 08:56:59 AM
Call it politeness and respect and it's hard to argue against.
You of course give a humerous example that is OTT and therefore not relevant to a discussion on PC.
How about not being allowed to put Christmas lights up in case a Muslim is offended? That's relevant to PC and not OTT.
And most of the time Muslim groups say they should be displayed but white PC pansies decide they shouldn't. Pathetic!!
The main 'problem' with Political Correctness is that unsubstantiated rumours about things such as cancelling christmas or calling it winterval get spread and people bang on about it, usually encouraged by rage papers such as the Daily Mail who simply lie to fit their agenda. Funnily enough, a bit like the EU.
Love how you use the phrase 'PC pansies' as well, just goes to reinforce your position on it all, as well as helping to promote the idea that being PC is 'gay' or 'effeminate'.
My advice - get upset about something that is worthwhile rather than society's attempt to become more inclusive.
I'm with Blingo let's see a return to the days where its ok to be openly racist,sexist and homophobic.
That's not what i'm saying dsmd, but where should the line be drawn?
Tony, typical answer from a solicitor. lol. ;p
I think it just depends on what generation you're from. What is acceptable tends to differ from one generation to the next.
...whatever my points of view on this or any non Fulham related discussion are, as moderators we have to maintain the standard that is accepted (although not necessarily agreed with) by the majority of this site. Hopefully responses will not dive into a political point scoring morass, in the meantime 084.gif
It is not meant to Ed, asa it does i'll close it, if you haven't beaten me to it lol. ;p
Ah, Political Correctness, how the lawyers must love it.
As a young, second-generation Irish Catholic, growing up in London in the 60's and 70's, what with the IRA doing their best to make anyone with an Irish-Catholic connection hated by all over here, I had a lot of nonsense hurled in my general direction. I have to say that most of the time the (usually) ignorant Englishman hurling the insults, derogatory remarks and plainly inaccurate slurs in my direction was usually simply displaying his own ignorance, something I was often able to helpfully point out to him, without ever getting punched for it.
Now, I accept that I am lucky enough to be relatively clever and articulate, and can keep calm enough to argue my case, and those without those abilities probably do need protecting from life's bullies (which is what racists, homophobics and the like are), so do see the need for PC rules to be in place.
However, I would also argue it goes both ways.
For example- currently there is a move to make same-sex marriages legal. We in the Catholic church, along with a number of other churches and faiths, have a huge problem with this. We see marriage as the basis of a successul and loving family relationship (in an ideal world, admittedly) which is the best place for a child to be raised in. Same sex marriages, by definition, will not lead to any children being born, however loving and caring they are, so we fail to see why they should exist. Civil partnerships are available for all couples, regardless of sexual orientation.
From research carried out, it appears that most homosexuals fail to see the need for marriage either and would not want to get married in a church which does not agree with their lifestyle choices.
Yet, this is being urged on us by a small group of fantical "equal rights" people. They are already threatening to close, or have already closed, Catholic adoption agencies for refusing to allow same-sex couples to adopt children in their care (since such relationships are contrary to Catholic teaching), this despite the fact that Catholic agencies are far more successful than any other group at getting children successfully adopted. So, in the name of PC, children suffer. Good one, eh?
I have no problem with homosexual/gay/lesbian couples having equal rights, I just think that we should have equal rights too, and those rights should include the right to disapprove of other people's lifestyle choices. After all, they clearly, and with legal backing, are disapproving of ours and starting to impinge on our rights in a very intrusive manner.
Quote from: Rupert on May 28, 2012, 11:32:22 AM
"I have no problem with homosexual/gay/lesbian couples having equal rights, I just think that we should have equal rights too, and those rights should include the right to disapprove of other people's lifestyle choices. After all, they clearly, and with legal backing, are disapproving of ours and starting to impinge on our rights in a very intrusive manner.
But you're defining "marriage" in terms which suit you and thereby denying marriage to those outside your criteria.
I think actually that this is a very different topic to political correctness.
My thing is tolerance. Others can live life how they wish but I demand that they allow me (and everyone else) the same choice.
Quote from: Rupert on May 28, 2012, 11:32:22 AM
Ah, Political Correctness, how the lawyers must love it.
As a young, second-generation Irish Catholic, growing up in London in the 60's and 70's, what with the IRA doing their best to make anyone with an Irish-Catholic connection hated by all over here, I had a lot of nonsense hurled in my general direction. I have to say that most of the time the (usually) ignorant Englishman hurling the insults, derogatory remarks and plainly inaccurate slurs in my direction was usually simply displaying his own ignorance, something I was often able to helpfully point out to him, without ever getting punched for it.
Now, I accept that I am lucky enough to be relatively clever and articulate, and can keep calm enough to argue my case, and those without those abilities probably do need protecting from life's bullies (which is what racists, homophobics and the like are), so do see the need for PC rules to be in place.
However, I would also argue it goes both ways.
For example- currently there is a move to make same-sex marriages legal. We in the Catholic church, along with a number of other churches and faiths, have a huge problem with this. We see marriage as the basis of a successul and loving family relationship (in an ideal world, admittedly) which is the best place for a child to be raised in. Same sex marriages, by definition, will not lead to any children being born, however loving and caring they are, so we fail to see why they should exist. Civil partnerships are available for all couples, regardless of sexual orientation.
From research carried out, it appears that most homosexuals fail to see the need for marriage either and would not want to get married in a church which does not agree with their lifestyle choices.
Yet, this is being urged on us by a small group of fantical "equal rights" people. They are already threatening to close, or have already closed, Catholic adoption agencies for refusing to allow same-sex couples to adopt children in their care (since such relationships are contrary to Catholic teaching), this despite the fact that Catholic agencies are far more successful than any other group at getting children successfully adopted. So, in the name of PC, children suffer. Good one, eh?
I have no problem with homosexual/gay/lesbian couples having equal rights, I just think that we should have equal rights too, and those rights should include the right to disapprove of other people's lifestyle choices. After all, they clearly, and with legal backing, are disapproving of ours and starting to impinge on our rights in a very intrusive manner.
So it is your right to discriminate against others (refusing gay people the ability to adopt or marry)?
Quote from: AlFayedsChequebook on May 28, 2012, 11:46:42 AM
So it is your right to discriminate against others (refusing gay people the ability to adopt or marry)?
I am not discriminating against anyone, you, in fact are discriminating against me and about five million others in the UK!
Gay people may "marry" in a registrar's office (heterosexual couples may "marry" as in this manner well, this is not under threat from this proposed legislation, it is marriage in Church that is under consideration) or adopt a child. They are legally entitled to, this is enshrined in British law and nobody, to the best of my knowledge, on "our" side of the arguement is seeking to remove these equal rights from them. If anyone is, I do not agree with them.
There are plenty of government agencies who are able to arrange adoption of children who need adopting, the fact that they seem to be pretty inefficient about this is not our problem, surely? We, Catholics, give financial support to Catholic adoption agencies through the weekly collection, surely it is our right to see that the Catholic children in the care of Catholic agencies are placed with the sort of family structure that we Catholics are familiar with? Or, do we not have that right? Must we be forced to deny our beliefs? Surely that is as bad as forcing Gay people to deny their beliefs? We do not do that, they have a choice, why can't we have an equal choice?
Quote from: AlFayedsChequebook on May 28, 2012, 11:46:42 AM
Quote from: Rupert on May 28, 2012, 11:32:22 AM
Ah, Political Correctness, how the lawyers must love it.
As a young, second-generation Irish Catholic, growing up in London in the 60's and 70's, what with the IRA doing their best to make anyone with an Irish-Catholic connection hated by all over here, I had a lot of nonsense hurled in my general direction. I have to say that most of the time the (usually) ignorant Englishman hurling the insults, derogatory remarks and plainly inaccurate slurs in my direction was usually simply displaying his own ignorance, something I was often able to helpfully point out to him, without ever getting punched for it.
Now, I accept that I am lucky enough to be relatively clever and articulate, and can keep calm enough to argue my case, and those without those abilities probably do need protecting from life's bullies (which is what racists, homophobics and the like are), so do see the need for PC rules to be in place.
However, I would also argue it goes both ways.
For example- currently there is a move to make same-sex marriages legal. We in the Catholic church, along with a number of other churches and faiths, have a huge problem with this. We see marriage as the basis of a successul and loving family relationship (in an ideal world, admittedly) which is the best place for a child to be raised in. Same sex marriages, by definition, will not lead to any children being born, however loving and caring they are, so we fail to see why they should exist. Civil partnerships are available for all couples, regardless of sexual orientation.
From research carried out, it appears that most homosexuals fail to see the need for marriage either and would not want to get married in a church which does not agree with their lifestyle choices.
Yet, this is being urged on us by a small group of fantical "equal rights" people. They are already threatening to close, or have already closed, Catholic adoption agencies for refusing to allow same-sex couples to adopt children in their care (since such relationships are contrary to Catholic teaching), this despite the fact that Catholic agencies are far more successful than any other group at getting children successfully adopted. So, in the name of PC, children suffer. Good one, eh?
I have no problem with homosexual/gay/lesbian couples having equal rights, I just think that we should have equal rights too, and those rights should include the right to disapprove of other people's lifestyle choices. After all, they clearly, and with legal backing, are disapproving of ours and starting to impinge on our rights in a very intrusive manner.
So it is your right to discriminate against others (refusing gay people the ability to adopt or marry)?
No....but is he not allowed to express his opinion?
Quote from: TonyGilroy on May 28, 2012, 11:42:26 AM
Quote from: Rupert on May 28, 2012, 11:32:22 AM
"I have no problem with homosexual/gay/lesbian couples having equal rights, I just think that we should have equal rights too, and those rights should include the right to disapprove of other people's lifestyle choices. After all, they clearly, and with legal backing, are disapproving of ours and starting to impinge on our rights in a very intrusive manner.
But you're defining "marriage" in terms which suit you and thereby denying marriage to those outside your criteria.
I think actually that this is a very different topic to political correctness.
My thing is tolerance. Others can live life how they wish but I demand that they allow me (and everyone else) the same choice.
And THAT is exactly my point. There are certain people, factions, elements of society that insist that we have to accept what THEY want or they go for example to the Race Relations Board. Now, I am not racist, believe it or not, but where does the White man go to report someone? Would he be listened to? Does the Englishman's opinion even count in his country anymore? There is just too much of a one sided argument with these people and it is not fair either.
Quote from: Blingo on May 28, 2012, 12:51:28 PM
Now, I am not racist, believe it or not, but where does the White man go to report someone? Would he be listened to? Does the Englishman's opinion even count in his country anymore? There is just too much of a one sided argument with these people and it is not fair either.
"I'm not a racist but..."
I agree - it isn't fair.
White people are in a privileged position in our society. Data shows this.
I think we'd all agree that discrimination is wrong so I don't understand any argument in favour of the right to discriminate.
Most objections to PC though come down to that when properly picked apart.
Quote from: ImperialWhite on May 28, 2012, 12:57:06 PM
Quote from: Blingo on May 28, 2012, 12:51:28 PM
Now, I am not racist, believe it or not, but where does the White man go to report someone? Would he be listened to? Does the Englishman's opinion even count in his country anymore? There is just too much of a one sided argument with these people and it is not fair either.
"I'm not a racist but..."
I agree - it isn't fair.
White people are in a privileged position in our society. Data shows this.
How do you work that out IW?
Surely, the object of being PC is to encourage respect and few can argue with that aim. The trouble, there are quite a few, no, alot of people who believe that if it is in the newspaper then it is true and of course it isnt but unfortunately, PC and being PC gets a bad press.
Spending lots of time with my sister when she has been in hospital this year we often hear the nurses say ' Now you will feel a little scratch'. Clearly injecting a blimmin great needle into one is not scratching. However 'you will feel a little p****' is no longer pc.
However the public do like to sue everybody now. I am told not to help move a gurney with my sister on it in case I hurt myself and sue etc etc. So with political correctness comes the blame culture.We all know we should not attack each other over politics or appearance or sexual orientation. But somehow we all do it. What bothers people is causing offence where none was ment. Something else that has become popular recently.
Quote from: Blingo on May 28, 2012, 01:03:46 PM
Quote from: ImperialWhite on May 28, 2012, 12:57:06 PM
Quote from: Blingo on May 28, 2012, 12:51:28 PM
Now, I am not racist, believe it or not, but where does the White man go to report someone? Would he be listened to? Does the Englishman's opinion even count in his country anymore? There is just too much of a one sided argument with these people and it is not fair either.
"I'm not a racist but..."
I agree - it isn't fair.
White people are in a privileged position in our society. Data shows this.
How do you work that out IW?
Because scientific study shows this report after report in all segments of society. Of course, the Daily Mail thinks it is bogus science. The best statistical analysis is asking 100 Daily Mail readers a completely biased question. In Belgium we have an extreme right wing party which discriminates against Muslims as they do not fit the image of a "Fleming". I am a Fleming myself and I tend to believe that as long as everyone accept some basic values (and speak the language in response to the state), they are as Fleming as I am. There is nothing PC about that: it is my deep held conviction.
The term political correctness is in itself problematic, as it implies wrong and right. I disagree with that. For me the line is drawn when someone - after you made a remark of some kind - says he or she is (rightly) hurt by it, whether you think this person is overreacting or not is besides the point. You have been disrespectful towards his or her feelings. It also applies only in cases where the issue is something a person cannot help (race, gender, disability, skin colour, intelligence,...), when it is not a choice. If jokes are concerned, isn't it more fun to tell a joke everyone can laugh with (even the butt of the joke) rather than have a joke at the expense of someone?
I agree however that in some cases PC has become a dreadful norm, where you cannot - what the French call - "parler-vrai" (speak-truth). It is essentially in the eye of the beholder.
did u read the joke?
I think they're all very different things.
I hate the blame culture - sometimes things go wrong despite everybody doing their best. Sh1t happens.
Health and safety has gone too far in, I think, everyones opinion, but when you get down to the detail usually there is some point behind each regulation.
You might feel a little p**** ,I'm sure, would simply be regarded as a joke whether intended as such or not. I can't believe that it's prohibited in some nursing manual.
Treating people equally and with respect though (PC as I understand it) is just good manners.
Quote from: Blingo on May 28, 2012, 01:49:46 PM
did u read the joke?
The initial joke or did you write another borderline one? You can PM me. :)
The original one. It might not be PC for me to PM you lol. ;p
Quote from: Rupert on May 28, 2012, 12:44:37 PM
Quote from: AlFayedsChequebook on May 28, 2012, 11:46:42 AM
So it is your right to discriminate against others (refusing gay people the ability to adopt or marry)?
I am not discriminating against anyone, you, in fact are discriminating against me and about five million others in the UK!
Gay people may "marry" in a registrar's office (heterosexual couples may "marry" as in this manner well, this is not under threat from this proposed legislation, it is marriage in Church that is under consideration) or adopt a child. They are legally entitled to, this is enshrined in British law and nobody, to the best of my knowledge, on "our" side of the arguement is seeking to remove these equal rights from them. If anyone is, I do not agree with them.
There are plenty of government agencies who are able to arrange adoption of children who need adopting, the fact that they seem to be pretty inefficient about this is not our problem, surely? We, Catholics, give financial support to Catholic adoption agencies through the weekly collection, surely it is our right to see that the Catholic children in the care of Catholic agencies are placed with the sort of family structure that we Catholics are familiar with? Or, do we not have that right? Must we be forced to deny our beliefs? Surely that is as bad as forcing Gay people to deny their beliefs? We do not do that, they have a choice, why can't we have an equal choice?
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?
Quote from: Blingo on May 28, 2012, 01:53:06 PM
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.
Quote from: sipwell on May 28, 2012, 01:56:40 PM
Quote from: Blingo on May 28, 2012, 01:53:06 PM
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.
.. and just to throw a hand grenade into the mix, doesn't Positive Discrimination go hand-in-hand with Political Correctness?
yee-haw!
Quote from: Logicalman on May 28, 2012, 02:06:51 PM
.. and just to throw a hand grenade into the mix, doesn't Positive Discrimination go hand-in-hand with Political Correctness?
yee-haw!
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.
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.
Quote from: Logicalman on May 28, 2012, 02:06:51 PM
.. and just to throw a hand grenade into the mix, doesn't Positive Discrimination go hand-in-hand with Political Correctness?
yee-haw!
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.
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
Quote from: TonyGilroy on May 28, 2012, 02:12:56 PM
FWIW I'm against positive discrimination. I'd always give a job to the best candidate.
Alan Sugar didn't ;p
Quote from: finnster01 on May 28, 2012, 02:14:00 PM
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
Quote from: AlFayedsChequebook on May 28, 2012, 01:53:21 PM
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?
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?
Quote from: Rupert on May 28, 2012, 02:35:09 PM
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 :clap_hands:
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.
Quote from: TonyGilroy on May 28, 2012, 02:46:31 PM
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
Quote from: TonyGilroy on May 28, 2012, 02:12:56 PM
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).
How can you be a Catholic if you are gay? It is something that is forbidden in Catholicism.
Quote from: sipwell on May 28, 2012, 02:55:50 PM
Quote from: TonyGilroy on May 28, 2012, 02:12:56 PM
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.
I'm close to locking this thread. This thread was started to discuss political correctness and some of you have started debating beliefs. This is exactly why we don't allow religion or politics or racism.
Bring the discussion back up to its highest level or I will lock it. Thank you 065.gif
Quote from: RidgeRider on May 28, 2012, 02:58:35 PM
I'm close to locking this thread. This thread was started to discuss political correctness and some of you have started debating beliefs. This is exactly why we don't allow religion or politics or racism.
Bring the discussion back up to its highest level or I will lock it. Thank you 065.gif
Highest discussion about how stupid Political Correctness is and how anyone who thinks it is good is an idiot leftie pansy?
riiiiiiiiiiight....
...politics and religion and sexual orientation, all in one thread.
Roll on the football season when our collective passion encompasses all our other views and everything becomes black & white. (or is that white shirts with white shorts and a black stripe - or is that another grey (or gray) area, and let's not complicate it with white or red socks, I mean tradition shows we could wear red and white shirts a la Arsenal, or light blue and pale blue halved shirts, but should tradition never change, on that basis maybe we should move from Craven Cottage as we have from 7 other grounds - etc.,)
Anyway all views are accepted as long as we are allowed to ignore what we don't agree with or accept that we were wrong all the time...
084.gif
Quote from: Blingo on May 28, 2012, 02:58:24 PM
Quote from: sipwell on May 28, 2012, 02:55:50 PM
Quote from: TonyGilroy on May 28, 2012, 02:12:56 PM
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.
Modesty does not suit me. Nor does a lack of irony! :)
PC :035:
See you at the Eelbrook then LB lol.
Quote from: sipwell on May 28, 2012, 03:04:37 PM
Quote from: Blingo on May 28, 2012, 02:58:24 PM
Quote from: sipwell on May 28, 2012, 02:55:50 PM
Quote from: TonyGilroy on May 28, 2012, 02:12:56 PM
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.
Modesty does not suit me. Nor does a lack of irony! :)
LOL.;p
So Blingo, is this not PC the other way around?
BELGRADE, Serbia (AP)
Midfielder Adem Ljajic has been suspended from the Serbian national team for failing to sing the national anthem before a friendly against Spain, Serbia's football association said Monday.
It said in a statement that Serbia's new coach, Sinisa Mihajlovic, ''sent Ljajic home'' because he did not comply with his set of rules that stipulate players have to sing the anthem before all international matches.
Ljajic, who is a Muslim unlike most of the players who are Christian Orthodox, did not sing the anthem ''because of his personal reasons,'' the statement said.
''The coach had a meeting with Ljajic,'' the statement said. ''After getting the information that because of his personal reasons he did not sing the anthem, Sinisa Mihajlovic told the player to return home.''
Serbia lost 2-0 to Spain in St. Gallen, Switzerland, on Saturday. Serbia, which did not qualify for the European Championship, is to play France in another friendly match later this week.
The association said that when the 20-year-old Ljajic changes his ''personal stand,'' he will be allowed back into the squad.
Earlier this month Ljajic was slapped by his former Fiorentina coach Delio Rossi as he returned to the bench after being substituted in a Serie A game. Ljajic had stuck his thumb up ironically.
http://msn.foxsports.com/foxsoccer/soccer/story/Ljajic-suspended-from-Serbian-national-team-08623565 (http://msn.foxsports.com/foxsoccer/soccer/story/Ljajic-suspended-from-Serbian-national-team-08623565)
Quote from: AlFayedsChequebook on May 28, 2012, 03:00:27 PM
Quote from: RidgeRider on May 28, 2012, 02:58:35 PM
I'm close to locking this thread. This thread was started to discuss political correctness and some of you have started debating beliefs. This is exactly why we don't allow religion or politics or racism.
Bring the discussion back up to its highest level or I will lock it. Thank you 065.gif
Highest discussion about how stupid Political Correctness is and how anyone who thinks it is good is an idiot leftie pansy?
riiiiiiiiiiight....
Your response is exactly why we don't usually allow these topics to spring up because posters can't be trusted to stay on topic and it degrades to "lefty/righty". No matter what perspective you come into the discussion, neither perspective owns the moral high ground on "open mindedness". It's a myth.
Topic closed.
