Dally wrote:This was written by someone on the Express' comments board in relation to a judge whose judgement was strongly at odds with Theresa May's wish to deport foreign criminals. Could apply to so many of the threads on here and the muddled thinking in modern Britain:
Perhaps this judge could learn something of the law of England from one of his predecessors .In an address Lord Denning gave to The Lawyers' Christian Fellowship in November 1954 he asked; "Why do people obey the law?" And gave the following answer: "The people of England do not obey the law because they are commanded to do so; nor because they are afraid of sanctions or being punished. They obey the law because they know it is the thing they ought to do ..... For this reason it is most important that the law should be just. People will respect rules which are intrinsically right and just, and will expect their neighbours to obey them, as well as obeying them themselves: but they will not feel the same about rules which are unrighteous or unjust. If people are to feel a sense of obligation to the law, then the law must correspond, as near as may be, to justice."
But then again - perhaps the past really is another country?
I don't disagree with what Denning said on that occasion. Indeed, as it harms no-one, I believe it is "intrinsically right and just" that same-sex couples who love each other should be allowed to marry just like different-sex couples can. I believe that to deny them that right is unjust.
Given that it is not compulsory and no-one is telling you that it is something you must do, I honestly don't know what your problem is with gayness unless it's something to do with how they achieve sexual fulfilment. Would you insert a clause into heterosexual marriage ceremonies saying they mustn't indulge in oral, manual or anal sex? Because, if not, I would suggest you're being hypocritical.
Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.
El Barbudo wrote:The receptionist seems to have gone on and on with "Wouldn't you prefer singles?" where a simple "I'm terribly sorry, it's our fault, but we've overbooked the doubles, would you be OK with singles and a couple of free drinks at the bar?" would have avoided all the fuss. If it had been me, I'd have demanded an upgrade.
Hasn't it struck you that in our much praised "multi-cultural" society and in London in particular there's more than a fair chance that the hotel receptionist was born outside the UK or maybe born here into a non-native culture. Isn't it then reasonably likely that the receptionist may not have even considered their homoexuality as a possiblity? Could it be that the receptionist repeated as he / she was worried their command of English was not up to scrtach and dod not want to cause embarrassment? Could it even be that the two had think Manchester accents and the receptionist was struggling to understand them (especially if they'd had a few), bearing in mind native Londoners struggle to understand Northerns. I am afraid there are just too manty reasonable explanations of a possible innocent mistake for this that it begs the question of why everyone jumps rabidly on the "homophobic bigot" bandwagon? If the reception kills themselves due the press coverage (as the nurse who took the KM prank call did) what will you think then?
El Barbudo wrote:I don't disagree with what Denning said on that occasion. Indeed, as it harms no-one, I believe it is "intrinsically right and just" that same-sex couples who love each other should be allowed to marry just like different-sex couples can. I believe that to deny them that right is unjust.
Given that it is not compulsory and no-one is telling you that it is something you must do, I honestly don't know what your problem is with gayness unless it's something to do with how they achieve sexual fulfilment. Would you insert a clause into heterosexual marriage ceremonies saying they mustn't indulge in oral, manual or anal sex? Because, if not, I would suggest you're being hypocritical.
By the justifications for fairness and non-discrimination on here perhaps your proposed clause should say all the things you list are OK provided that the marriage participants also indulge in vaginal intercourse?
Joined: May 10 2002 Posts: 47951 Location: Die Metropole
It has been drawn to my attention that Dally is trying harder than ever to whip up a storm with his trolling efforts, by using some 'dubious' language about one of his pet groups to hate.
To an extent, I've let this go because, as a member of the LGBT community, I have no interest in appearing to censor.
Now I'm not going to edit out the posts in question: let them stand as an indicator of those attitudes.
But from now on, let's not be using derogatory terms, eh?
And while we're at it, we've been doing really rather well of late in being a lot of veritable luvvies on here, and not snapping each other's heads off as much (and yes, I know: I'm as guilty of doing that as anyone).
So in the interests of equality, let's all try to be a little calmer when exploring issues like this. In the interests of clarity, calling someone a 'bigot' or a 'homophobe' is not, of itself, abuse.
But perhaps we could use this thread to explore a little what those things mean and how best and most productively to tackle them?
Just a thought.
"You are working for Satan." Kirkstaller
"Dare to know!" Immanuel Kant
"Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive" Elbert Hubbard
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." Oscar Wilde
Mintball wrote:It has been drawn to my attention that Dally is trying harder than ever to whip up a storm with his trolling efforts, by using some 'dubious' language about one of his pet groups to hate.
To an extent, I've let this go because, as a member of the LGBT community, I have no interest in appearing to censor.
Now I'm not going to edit out the posts in question: let them stand as an indicator of those attitudes.
But from now on, let's not be using derogatory terms, eh?
And while we're at it, we've been doing really rather well of late in being a lot of veritable luvvies on here, and not snapping each other's heads off as much (and yes, I know: I'm as guilty of doing that as anyone).
So in the interests of equality, let's all try to be a little calmer when exploring issues like this. In the interests of clarity, calling someone a 'bigot' or a 'homophobe' is not, of itself, abuse.
But perhaps we could use this thread to explore a little what those things mean and how best and most productively to tackle them?
Just a thought.
I'm sort of with you but I must stress that I very rarely use personally directed abuse (certainly relative to others on many threads). I used one apparently derogatory term in a generic sense, a term which is well understood and was said tongue in cheek (as it were!).
Dally wrote:Hasn't it struck you that in our much praised "multi-cultural" society and in London in particular there's more than a fair chance that the hotel receptionist was born outside the UK or maybe born here into a non-native culture. Isn't it then reasonably likely that the receptionist may not have even considered their homoexuality as a possiblity? Could it be that the receptionist repeated as he / she was worried their command of English was not up to scrtach and dod not want to cause embarrassment? Could it even be that the two had think Manchester accents and the receptionist was struggling to understand them (especially if they'd had a few), bearing in mind native Londoners struggle to understand Northerns. I am afraid there are just too manty reasonable explanations of a possible innocent mistake for this that it begs the question of why everyone jumps rabidly on the "homophobic bigot" bandwagon? If the reception kills themselves due the press coverage (as the nurse who took the KM prank call did) what will you think then?
Yeah, all those things are possible ... but were not mentioned. Extrapolate all you like.
I've told you what I think and TBH I think it was incompetence rather than homophobic.
Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.
Dally wrote:By the justifications for fairness and non-discrimination on here perhaps your proposed clause should say all the things you list are OK provided that the marriage participants also indulge in vaginal intercourse?
I have not proposed any clause, I was guessing that was a clause you'd approve of .... and it sounds like I wasn't far off the mark.
Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 139 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
