Are you Homophobic?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Castiel said:
hahahaha.

The Lords Spiritual account for around 3% of the House of Lords which is somewhat less than the proportion of the Population which they represent. The secular part of society is represented amply by the Lords Temporal.

Maybe we should also ban Homosexual lobbyists and reformers from the HofL as well or anyone who represents another group that we do not feel represents us as individuals.

Hey, I'm white, black people do not represent me so they should not be members of the House of Lords....

Grow up, the impact on peoples lives from the Lords Spiritual is negligible and somewhat less than anti discrimination laws and Human Rights laws whcih affectg all of us on a daily basis, both positively and negatively.
Click to expand...

On quickly reading a bit more on the Lords Spiritual issues, my thoughts are similar to yours. I am convinced they (Lords Spiritual) have a negligible effect on a homosexuals life.

My point stands thought that the house of Lord should be for those who have achieved something or displayed excellent wisdom, not because of the affiliations or genes.
 
Castiel said:
The Lords Spiritual account for around 3% of the House of Lords which is somewhat less than the proportion of the Population which they represent.
Click to expand...
Why should a section of the population get automatic religious representation in parliament?
Castiel said:
Hey, I'm white, black people do not represent me so they should not be members of the House of Lords....
Click to expand...
How many black people in the House of Lords are there because they are black?
Castiel said:
Grow up, the impact on peoples lives from the Lords Spiritual is negligible and somewhat less than anti discrimination laws and Human Rights laws whcih affectg all of us on a daily basis, both positively and negatively.
Click to expand...
The impact may be negligeable but I do not appreciate it at all. The fact that CoE religious leaders have political power/influence because of their position as CoE religious leaders is not to my taste.
4MIT said:
On quickly reading a bit more on the Lords Spiritual issues, my thoughts are similar to yours. I am convinced they (Lords Spiritual) have a negligible effect on a homosexuals life.

My point stands thought that the house of Lord should be for those who have achieved something or displayed excellent wisdom, not because of the affiliations or genes.
Click to expand...
I just find it rather bizarre that a group of people who, because of their religious beliefs and seniority within their church of belief, have automatic rights to sit in the legislature.
 
Last edited:
4MIT said:
How they got into the house of lords is not the issue. How exactly are they directly effecting your life?
Click to expand...
It's completely the issue. Milly Dowler's voicemail being hacked doesn't directly affect my life but it's not unreasonable for me to think it is wrong.
 
Couldn't give a ****

I'd say I'm far more wary of religious people these days, seems like I bump in to the nutters nearly every day.
 
Not homophobic, but...

Robbo said:
How can I word this so it doesn't sound too dodgy.

I find homosexuality a bit strange, I'm not really for or against it, it doesn't concern me what other people do.

What does concern me are irritating, camp homosexual men who like to prance around and make sure everyone knows they are gay. I know that is a stereotype but I do tend to run into a few of them now and again and it really does annoy me. That is more to do with the person being an irritating ****** than their sexuality though I suppose.

I do find two men snogging in the street very distasteful though, I think OTT public displays of affection are a no go for any kind people, some people just take it too far.

I also think homosexuality should be played down by the media and not up though, I would hate for young people to think it's something 'trendy' when it really isn't. If you're gay, that's fine, but it doesn't need encouraging!
Click to expand...


TBH I'm with Robbo on this.

Being gay is alright, I'm not gonna stone you or try and make you change your ways (and hopefully you'll reciprocate that)... just don't shove it down my throat. What a man does in his bedroom is his business, not mine.
Yes it's 'unnatural' (square peg round hole springs to mind) and the human race would go extinct if we all were gay (though somesay the planet is overpopulated), but hey - what you get upto in your bedroom is your business. Just keep it in your bedroom.


That said I do find being chatted up by gays a bit odd.
 
People can do whatever they want, the only ones I have issue with are the ones who purposefully go on about it to provoke a reaction. Ie the super camp ones who make sure you know they are gay and don't shut up about it, they give gays a bad name.
 
PMKeates said:
It's completely the issue. Milly Dowler's voicemail being hacked doesn't directly affect my life but it's not unreasonable for me to think it is wrong.
Click to expand...

It is the point (of the question I asked originally). As I said before the issue in hand is not the Lord selection process.

What control/effect do the Lord Spiritual have over your life?
 
PMKeates said:
Why should a section of the population get automatic religious representation in parliament?
Click to expand...

Why should Women get automatic representation in Parliament because of their Gender? (women only short-lists anyone)

They are appointed like any other Peer in the house of Lords, be they Temporal or otherwise. They represent a significant portion of our society.


PMKeates said:
How many black people in the House of Lords are there because they are black?
Click to expand...

Not heard of positive action I see?

Peers are appointed for numerous reasons and the fact they they represent specific sections of our society is one of them. All peers are appointed, that includes Spiritual or Temporal or Law. You are simply stating that you are offended by their religious beleifs having an impact on your life in some way however small. How is that different from Homosexual political lobbys having an impact on public life simply because of their sexual preference?


PMKeates said:
The impact may be negligible but I do not appreciate it at all. The fact that CoE religious leaders have political power/influence because of their position as CoE religious leaders is not to my taste.
Click to expand...

What specifically do you not appreciate?

What have the Lords Spiritual been solely responsible for that has affected your personal life in such a way that you feel the need to deny a large section of society their representation?

I find it ironic that you would deny the rights of one group to representation based on their religion, while advocating the rights of another based on their sexual preference.
 
Last edited:
PMKeates said:
It's completely the issue. Milly Dowler's voicemail being hacked doesn't directly affect my life but it's not unreasonable for me to think it is wrong.
Click to expand...

It is unreasonable to think that being religious is inherently wrong however. As far as I recall, hacking into someone's private accounts is illegal, however being religious is not.

Trying to say that appointing religious lords is somehow on a par with invading a murdered child's privacy is frankly quite abhorrent in itself.
 
4MIT said:
What control/effect do the Lord Spiritual have over your life?
Click to expand...
They are party to the creation of legislation.
Castiel said:
Why should Women get automatic representation in Parliament because of their Gender? (women only short-lists anyone)
Click to expand...
Straw man. I've not suggested it.
Castiel said:
They are appointed like any other Peer in the house of Lords, be they Temporal or otherwise. They represent a significant portion of our society.
Click to expand...
They are there because of their position within the church.
Castiel said:
Not heard of positive action I see?
Click to expand...
I've heard of it. What positive action support is the CoE in need of so much that it needs automatic representation in the legislature? How many other groups have such a position? Aside from that, there are no members of the House of Lords who are they because they are black. They may be there because they have done notable work in a relevant field, but for someone to be there because they are a specific religious leader of a specific religion is not comparable.
Castiel said:
What specifically do you not appreciate?

What have the Lords Spiritual been solely responsible for that has affected your personal life in such a way that you feel the need to deny a large section of society their representation?

I find it ironic that you would deny the rights of one group to representation based on their religion, while advocating the rights of another based on their sexual preference.
Click to expand...
I don't appreciate members of the church being given the right to be part of the legislative process based on their position within the church. If there was some merit involved it would be fine, but it would have to be merit in competition with everybody else.

I am not advocating mandatory parliamentary representation based on sexual preference. Why are you making up things up? I do not think that people should be in the House of Lords because of their sexuality and I do not think they should be there because of their position in a particular church.
Castiel said:
It is unreasonable to think that being religious is inherently wrong however. As far as I recall, hacking into someone's private accounts is illegal, however being religious is not.

Trying to say that appointing religious lords is somehow on a par with invading a murdered child's privacy is frankly quite abhorrent in itself.
Click to expand...
I was making the point that because it doesn't directly affect me it doesn't automatically mean it's OK. Quite how you've failed to see that I don't know.
 
Last edited:
billysielu said:
What's wrong with judging ppl ffs - bunch of fence-sitters
Click to expand...

Thanks, but I'd rather not have people like you making decisions for me. Besides, how am I, for example, sitting on the fence? I've come down solidly on the opinion that people can go about their own business, I'm not undecided in the least.

Edit: And yes, you're homophobic. You can couch it in any terms you like, but you're regressive, prejudiced and narrow-minded.
 
PMKeates said:
They are party to the creation of legislation.
Click to expand...

Roughly a 3% say in which legislation that effects your life as a gay individual?

From my brief reading it would appear the Lord Spiritual have zero effect on your life.

Back to my original question, how do Christians negatively control your day to day life?
 
Last edited:
Well I don't care as long as they aren't the stereotypical really annoying gays, then they just come under the same class as other annoying people. Not because they're gay, just because the ones that fit the stereotype are annoying.

My friends gay and it has no effect on me so he can do what he wants :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom