It is also unreasonable to think that being homosexual is inherently wrong, but it seems OK for several religions to believe that.
Are you Homophobic?
- Thread starter easyrider
- Start date
- Status
It is also unreasonable to think that being homosexual is inherently wrong, but it seems OK for several religions to believe that.
I'm not going to put the effort in to researching and itemising it because I don't think it will make any difference to you, but I think we'd both be somewhat unsurprised if I didn't uncover a voting record for the Lords Spiritual that isn't exactly positive towards homosexuality.
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=The_Bishop__of_Manchester&mpc=Lords&house=lords
The Public Whip suggests that Bishop has voted "strongly against" equal rights for homosexuals. I don't see why a member of your Church should have the right to vote to deny my equal rights as a homosexual over and above anybody else.
Guess you'd be wrong then.
By supporting the idea that my sexual orientation is a sin and supporting a church that utilises its advantaged political position to try and discriminate against me. Do you not think it's reasonable for me to be opposed to them because of that?
Last edited:
Woah, I didn't bump into Zefan and his partners that much!
They wake me up at 7 am on a Sunday morning with their ghastly bell banging, for god sake if you are going to bash large bells with metal at least make it worthwhile if someone wakes up.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 12,234
- Location
- UK
As are appointed homosexual peers, as are appointed Jewish Peers, as are appointed female peers, appointed Asian peers, appointed whatever/whoever peers.
They represent a significant portion of society (in fact under current reforms only 12 Lords Spiritual will be appointed by 2025).
Are you saying that that significant portion doesn't deserve or warrant representation in the creation of legislation that will affect them directly, even though that representation is currently 3% and will soon be less than 1% of the House?
It is not a straw man, it is a relevant and specific example of other appointees based on something other than the individuals accomplishments and based instead on their ability to represent a portion of society currently under represented in parliament.
Are you saying it is ok to discriminate (positively) based on someone's gender rather than ability, but not their religion. (even though a Bishops ability is not really in question, otherwise he would not be a Bishop)
However much you may not like it we are not a secular country, we do not have the disestablishment of the Church from State, and as such they have the inherent right to sit on the legislature.
The Lords Spiritual are also appointed because of their notable work in a related field. They do not become Bishops otherwise.
It is perfectly comparable, as the representation of the Church which plays a significant part in a large part of the UK population is represented in parliament.
Are you suggesting that just because they have a specific religious belief that they should not be allowed to represent their peergroup?
Peers are part of there legislature because of a myriad of reasons, many because of their inheritance or because of their former/current positions in government/business/public life.
Bishops do not rise to become Bishops without significant merit in doing so.
As the House of Lords moves to a more life-appointed system the hereditary peers and the Lords Spiritual are being reduced, as well as other groups being given life peerages based solely on their beliefs such as members of the Jewish Faith and Church of Scotland. Hopefully this will eventually mean a truly representative second house where every person is represented in some way and not based on what the most vocal minority decide.
So you think that homosexuals should not be represented in parliament?
Last edited:
really?
Study shows link between homosexuality and pedophilia
A new study by Dr. Timothy J. Dailey and the Washington D.C.-based Family Research Council recently confirmed what police and psychiatrists have known for decades: a definitive link exists between male homosexuality and pedophilia.
The report entitled Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse, shows that while homosexual men make up less than three per cent of the adult male population, they commit a disproportionate number (one third or more) of child sexual molestations. Dailey's report is being sent to parents, youth groups, school administrators, Catholic bishops, and religious organizations.
http://www.theinterim.com/2002/sept/02study.html
What I see is that you attempted to link religion to an unrelated illegal and abhorrent practice when there is no connection whatsoever.
The only partner I had there was a very lovely young lady, had pictures up here before the first GF pictures thread went missing
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 372
- Location
- Cork, Ireland
Not got a problem with someone being homosexual. I just don't agree that gay couples should have the right to "have" kids.
For one thing it's not natural, and for another I'm sure it can't be good psychologically for the child.
For one thing it's not natural, and for another I'm sure it can't be good psychologically for the child.
I have a look through that and it seems that the Bishop in question simply did not vote on the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, so I fail to see how he discriminated against you.
Here is a list of his voting record, and with the exception of amendments to the Sodomy(Scotland) bill, Communications Bill and Criminal Justice Bill he has either voting in favour or abstained.
It seems that the Bishop of Manchester hasn't discriminated against you after all.
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php...hester&mpc=Lords&house=lords&display=allvotes
Anyway this is derailing the thread somewhat tbh. I accept that you feel discriminated against by having a dozen Bishops not vote on Homosexual Equality Acts in the House of Lords, I feel that they should be allowed to represent the portion of society that they represent, so we should endeavour to agree to disagree on this as we will not convince each other of the opposite position. Frankly I don't care enough of the Lords Spirituals position in Parliament to warrant such a heated disagreement with you.
Last edited:
The only partner I had there was a very lovely young lady, had pictures up here before the first GF pictures thread went missing
Of course you did
- Status