Dawkins Demolished

[jean]

Erm, I think they're getting married to other lesbians, rather than getting married to men, which was what the licenced prostitution line was about.

Obviously.

But we had no desire to recreate patriarchal oppressions in our relationships. Why, some of us even envied gay men their happy promiscuity (this was all pre-AIDS, of course).

[amateur51]

Obviously.

But we had no desire to recreate patriarchal oppressions in our relationships. Why, some of us even envied gay men their happy promiscuity (this was all pre-AIDS, of course).

Obviously

[Flosshilde]

They didn't succeed though, did they? Isn't that the point?

No, that isn't the point; the point is that they tried, and more importantly, they felt that they had a right to try. You still don't get it, do you?

Remembering the heyday of 1970s feminism and how we used to speak of marriage as licenced prostitution, I am quite surprised at the enthusiasm of some lesbians for getting married.

So am I, but my personal views on marriage shouldn't prevent other people being able to get married if that's what they want. I am astounded that any lesbian or gay man would want to be a practicing christian & part of an institution that wants to actvely oppress them, but I'm not going to try & make it illegal.

[scottycelt]

Don't be so silly. The GPCR ended long ago. Since 1978, despite the Party membership nominally 'remaining' atheist, China's ruling elite has gone out of its way to rebuild many Budhist and Taoist institutions, and positively promote the five officially recognised 'religions' of Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, and the two main wings of the Christian religion, Catholicism, and Protestantism. At the same time the same authorities have taken a heavy-handed approach to the 'new' 'religion' of Falun Gong.

Well, at the risk of continuing to be called 'silly' would you object terribly if we dealt with a few facts ?

Atheism is the established 'religion' in China as the following otherwise encouraging article points out. Christianity is now only tolerated under certain state conditions and controls (atheist, of course) ... admittedly that's a huge step forward from the outright persecution of the past.

Here's the most relevant section:

<Since the 1980s, when religious belief was again permitted, the official Churches have gradually created more space for themselves.
They report to the State Administration for Religious Affairs. They are forbidden to take part in any religious activity outside their places of worship and sign up to the slogan, "Love the country - love your religion."
In return the Party promotes atheism in schools but undertakes "to protect and respect religion until such time as religion itself will disappear".>

The last sentence (yes, even 'poisoning' little minds in school, eh?) needs no further comment from silly old me ... and some have the mind-boggling gall to accuse Christians of 'hypocrisy' !

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14838749

[scottycelt]

The christian churches did their damndest to stop me contracting a civil partnership by trying to stop the legislation, and they are trying to prevent me getting married (which doesn't have to be in a church, or even religious) by campaigning against proposed legislation.

What is it that you don't understand about GET OUT OF MY LIFE!

And maybe, therefore, some might practise what they constantly preach and allow Bideford Council and others to conduct business as they see fit without interference from busybody atheists with similar principles?

And there's absolutely no need to shout, Flossie, you have quite a loud enough voice as it is ...

[MrGongGong]

And maybe, therefore, some might practise what they constantly preach and allow Bideford Council and others to conduct business as they see fit without interference from busybody atheists with similar principles?

FFS , I'm sure you are wilfully missing the point ????
The point about the council is that they were making prayers part of the official meeting and therefore compulsory which IS an imposition of a particular set of beliefs on people who don't want it.
I wonder what the church would say if it was decreed by a majority vote that everyone (for example) who worked on the railway was compelled to fast during Ramadan ?

[Lateralthinking1]

I wonder what the church would say if it was decreed by a majority vote that everyone (for example) who worked on the railway was compelled to fast during Ramadan ?

If you lived in India and stood as a councillor, would you demand, if elected, that any two minute religious ceremony ahead of political debate be dropped? Would any secularist? Would they laugh out loud?

Eric Joyce, Labour, who set a record in expenses claims and was said not to have paid capital gains tax on his Croydon property, has been accused of head butting Stuart Andrew. On the basis of his accounting, Joyce doesn't appear to be much of a socialist to me, nor does he seem to be a shining example of religion. However, his university degree was in, you've guessed it, religious studies. It is said that he was upset that the bar was "full of Tories". This says something not only about the questionable depth of his maturity but the extent to which Conservatives are - actually aren't - working hard on our behalves.

Stuart Andrew, Conservative, is gay. He was brought up on a council estate and his father was unemployed. He didn't go to university. He is happy to sit in a party that has rarely been friendly either to his sexuality or to his family. Unlike Joyce, he is not an expert in judo, nor has he had a career in the less than socialist military. However, he still has some clout. He supports the replacement of Trident, business control of schools, the privatisation of the Post Office, the war in Afghanistan, the caps on pay for Civil Servants and draconian terrorism laws. He also has doubts as to whether the right to strike is a good thing.

I wouldn't vote for either of them.

The incident is reported to have happened in a Parliament bar. The drinks were probably subsidised by the taxpayer. Apparently some have alleged that Joyce tried to hit several Tory MPs. Presumably the other shirkers will soon be named.

[jean]

I am astounded that any lesbian or gay man would want to be a practicing christian...

Well, there you go. It takes all sorts.

[scottycelt]

FFS , I'm sure you are wilfully missing the point ????
The point about the council is that they were making prayers part of the official meeting and therefore compulsory which IS an imposition of a particular set of beliefs on people who don't want it.
I wonder what the church would say if it was decreed by a majority vote that everyone (for example) who worked on the railway was compelled to fast during Ramadan ?

And obliging Christian hotel owners to accept homosexual practices on their own property is not an imposition of a particular set of beliefs on people who don't want it? Would that be missing the point as well?

Be a bit more careful before you throw around words like 'hypocrisy' ...

[jean]

The point about the council is that they were making prayers part of the official meeting and therefore compulsory which IS an imposition of a particular set of beliefs on people who don't want it.

Yes - the point was that the prayers were part of the agenda of the meeting, so that any councillor who didn't attend until they were over would be marked down as late.

She wouldn't even know when the meeting proper was supposed to start.

They could have had optional prayers before the meeting, which should have satisfied everyone.

The idiot Eric Pickles has now tweaked the law so that the prayers can be reinstated. I do not think Pickles is a particularly religious man, but he sees himself as defending a culture against outsiders of all sorts.

[jean]

And obliging Christian hotel owners to accept homosexual practices on their own property is not an imposition of a particular set of beliefs on people who don't want it? Would that be missing the point as well?

Yes it would.

They want to run a business, they're subject to antidiscrimination laws like everyone else.

[Lateralthinking1]

Yes it would. They want to run a business, they're subject to antidiscrimination laws like everyone else.

In practice, that ruling will drive discrimination underground. The woman involved and those like her will in future just say "sorry, fully booked". The law doesn't punish discrimination. It punishes honest discrimination.

I think pub landlords can refuse entry to anyone without being obliged to give a reason. Up and down the land, there are probably BNP landlords turning away people of all colours and creeds in droves.

Certainly, there are many places which would turn away groups of lads just because they are groups of lads. When I was younger, I experienced that a lot. I can name a caravan site which even says it will do so on its website. These things are difficult to erase simply by law.

[MrGongGong]

Yes it would.

They want to run a business, they're subject to antidiscrimination laws like everyone else.

Indeed

Why are some people so obsessed with so called "homosexual practices" ?

[jean]

These things are difficult to erase simply by law.

Indeed - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Those No blacks, no Irish signs in the windows of houses with rooms to let in the 1950s - would they have disappeared so fast if society had just waited for the racists to come round of their own accord?

[Lateralthinking1]

Mr GG - Towards the beginning of this thread, which is called "Dawkins Demolished", I predicted that it would turn into a thread about religion versus homosexuality. Sure enough this has happened.

Seeing that it happens regularly, and understandably, always with no conclusion, my thought was that maybe points could be made that could get people finding some common ground.

I have come to the conclusion that it isn't possible. I can't think of one post in which someone has said "blimey, I hadn't seen it like that before". It is obviously always going to be that way.

Jean - A fair point.