Bishops call for change to Equality Bill

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

Ernie
what of those who lead happy family lives but also have a secret eg they are the happy father and husband but also a have a happy other person in their lives? Where does your watered down version of verbal eugenics approach that situation? Your morality is based on what you consider to be natural. The plague is natural, so is frostbite but we have antibiotics now and wear clothes. Would you advocate destroying medicines because it changes what is 'natural'?
I do not believe that you think that you are a Luddite. They were facing the ruin of everything they had worked for and faced poverty and starvation. You should be more realistic about how your posts read.

Hi Rachel
You might have guessed I'm just a grumpy old Luddite. I thought someone might come back with the consent bit and of course you are right animals cannot say yes but, and I have to be very careful here or I'll sound like I'm defending something that makes me cringe, most of them can say no quite forcefully.
As for voting, you bet I will be. Fingers crossed 'can't wait to see the back of this lot.

Hi Ernie

Sorry to go off topic but, unlike gay people, animals are unable to consent to intercourse. I don't think you can use zoophilia as a comparator here.

Given your views on our current Parliament, I trust you'll be voting in May!

OK David I see you've resorted to using one of those phobia/ist words that are intended to suppress conflicting views. I wonder if those sages I referred to in my previous post knew that they were being homophobic. I wonder if like me they didn't really know what it means.
Having, unfortunately, started this thread on a reactive impulse I have tried to respond to the comments posted in an honest way and even tried to support my comments with some logic or historical consensus instead of just relying on blind faith. You choose the way you want to live, fine, best of luck to you I hope you have a long and healthy life. I’ve nothing against you as a person I just disagree with you that the lifestyle you have chosen is something that should be encouraged. As for this label homophobic, if I had a brother that was a murderer I would deplore his actions but probably would still love the man would that make me homicidephobic? If I had a brother that was a thief I wouldn’t support his thieving or encourage him. I could never agree with his behaviour but I’m sure I would still love the man. Would that mean I am kleptomainiacophobic? If I had a brother who had an unhealthy desire for animals….well enough said but would that mean I am zoophiliaophobic? I do have a close relative who is in a similar relationship to you. I still love the man even though I am instinctively disgusted by his behaviour. Is that what homophobic means? You see, I thought phobia was a fear of something.
Have a great life David and don’t take anything I say to heart as I keep saying they are only my opinions, different to yours so I agree with your summation lets just agree to disagree.

Alex a new perspective is always welcome and healthy for any debate but why have you introduced race into the discussion? Politicians would call that tactic a straw man. I’ve not expressed a view on interracial families but seeing as you have asked I’ll try to give you an answer that’s in context. A black man and a white woman can make a baby and so can a white man and a black woman in fact any combination of a man and a woman can make a baby. It’s perfectly natural and why should anybody criticise a perfectly healthy normal family group of any such combination. However, and I didn’t make these rules, no combination of man and man can perform that miracle of life so why, in those circumstances, should they be considered equal. It will be interesting to see how well adjusted the first child whose mother is a petri dish and father an eye dropper and who has been brought up by dad and dad will be. Surely if we are to accept change then the proposed changes should be for the better? If you think the scenario above is an improvement on the way children have been brought up until now then you have my sympathy. I will always respect your opinion but please don’t shoot me if I don’t agree. Instead of just adopting the opposite stance in blind faith, I’d rather you at least tried to answer some of the questions I have raised.

I’m not a religious person inasmuch as I don’t fully accept any of their answers to the big questions but I do acknowledge the wisdom in the advice given in all religious teachings.

Ancient sages told us: Do not murder. Do not commit adultery. Do not steal. Do not lie. Don’t be envious of what others have. Respect your parents.
I think all would agree this is wise advice from wise men given with the best interests of man and society in mind.
However man is not perfect. There’s always been murderers, thieves, liars, fornicators etc. always has been, always will be, it goes on but few, if any, would argue that this is justification for any of these to be now acceptable practices for society in general.

Those same wise men also warned us against having sex with animals or indulging in homosexual activities, more wise advice given with the same best interests of mankind and society in mind.

So, why do some think that the wisdom of the advice in these cases is less valid now than the advice given for the earlier examples? Well for one there are no murderers in the government lobbying parliament and pushing an agenda. There may be plenty of thieves and liars there but they generally try to keep their heads down. Our ancestors knew well that neither of these activities have anything of benefit to contribute to a community or society in general and condemned them but now our more liberal attitudes have enabled advocates of these two depraved practices to “come out” and engage in a concerted effort to have society accept them as normal.
Homosexuals call themselves gay and in the UK some of their members have managed to infiltrate the government and are using their positions to promote their agenda.
In the USA there’s a rising zoophile movement whose members call themselves zoos and think they can follow the path of the gay rights movement to further their agenda. Yes it’s currently low key, like gay rights was in the fifties but they make claims like 2 to 8 percent of the population harbours “forbidden” desires towards animals and hope to gain more support??????????
I think I’ve made it clear where I draw the line but where do the more liberally minded draw it?
And for all those whose only answer to the points I have raised here is “change is coming get used to it” or “join in”. Well, the normalisation of homosexuality is not the only agenda that is being strongly pushed at the moment and it’s not the only one that if successful will result in change. If the other is successful then Mohammed will throw all of the homosexuals off the mountain. Well that’s a something else that I don’t necessarily agree with but it's another change that I might have to get used to.

Now to get back to those Bishops I think they were right to object to the bill, the reasons they gave in support of their objection and I think the decision to uphold their objection was the correct decision.

Ernie, I'm sorry to say that, whilst some of your earlier posts have had an element of reasoned argument about them, your last two have descended into outright homophobia.

In talking about homosexual people, you use the words "deviant" and "perverted". Those are pretty offensive terms. You link the spread of AIDS/HIV with homosexual people - I'm no expert but understand that the greatest spread has come about through heterosexual sex - particularly male use of prostitutes in the developing world. You describe the placing of children with adoptive same-sex parents as "state sponsored child abuse". Given the rigorous process adopters have to go through and the pains the authorities go to to try to ensure that children are placed in loving, caring families, your description seems laughable - although it's difficult to laugh wholeheartedly as such a prejudiced view.

In an earlier post you described the relationship you have with your wife as "healthy". Fantastic - I'm genuinely pleased that that is the case. But how sad that you don't see the loving, caring relationships other people have as equally healthy, just because they don't conform to your view of what is and isn't normal. A theme which emerges from your posts is sex - men having sex with each other is mentioned in one. Don't know about you but sex plays an important but actually very small part in my life with my partner (opposite sex as it happens). Our healthy life together involves going to the cinema, doing the gardening or housework, eating, watching TV, going on holiday, gym classes etc etc. Our relationship is not defined by the small amount of time we spend having sex - yet gay people's lives often seem to be defined by something they, like me, do for a very small proportion of their lives.

You have also suggested that "many people, maybe even the majority" don't accept homosexuality as normal. I don't think this suggestion is supported by facts. In 2007 a YouGov survey reported that 93% of people supported laws to protect gay people from discrimination and harassment at work; 73% said that anti-gay prejudice should be tackled; 34% had a high opinion of gay people (and only 25% had a low opinion).

You have also mentioned being "in danger of being placed at a disadvantage due to their demands". I'm not sure in what way heterosexual people might be disadvantaged by the existing or impending legislation - other than the danger that they may not be able to play out their prejudices by discriminating against gay people.

And finally - brainwashing and agendas from those in power? Sorry, a bit too X Files for me.

Martin has suggested that you're a bit behind the times and I'm pretty usure that none of the arguments some of us have put forward are going to change your mind at all. So, we'll have to respect the fact that you have a different opinion whilst disagreeing completely with almost everything you say - on this issue!

So Ernie, if a black or asian child is adopted by a white couple this is in order to brainwash the child into believing that "white is right". That seems to be what you are implying.
As for only a man and woman can make a baby, these days it can be an eye dropper and a petri dish, indeed it is now possible to use an egg without the need for semen. Times change, change with them.
As for the promotion of of homosexual relations, I missed the TV ads and the poster campaign and I would have thought a ful page advert in the Guardian would have been a must for such a promotion. There has been in y lifetime an effort to ensure that gay and lesbian couples have the same "rights" as their heterosexual peers, that's all.
It is rare in the UK for babyies, "innocent" or "guilty", to be placed with and adoption family, far more likely that it will be a young child. These children are frequently products of inhospitable homes and you have to ask the question, does it matter where they go as long as they are loved, cherished and supported?

Martin, Not all change is for the better and not everyone will agree whether it is or it isn’t. As I’ve said before I’m only expressing my opinion. I’m not a religious person and I’m not aware of anything that may have influenced the opinions I hold on this matter they’re just my natural instinctive reaction to something that just doesn’t feel quite right. No one has to agree with me and I will always respect a contrary opinion. Who knows? I might be the only Luddite left on the planet.
I didn't suggest that you were promoting homosexual relationships. I said that there are people within the current government who are promoting homosexual relationships for fairly obvious reasons. These people are trying to force a change in society to further their own agenda. Will it change whether I like it or not? Well it will if I am the last Luddite and they get their way. As for joining in if they do, please feel free but I think I’ve made it quite clear it’s not really my cup of tea.
I didn’t mention kidnapping anywhere either Martin but I think you know what I was referring to. Only a man and a woman can make a baby, it’s natural, you may not like it but that’s just how it is. Babies are innocent and under normal circumstances they would grow up with their parents. Now that would have to be a man and a woman. When this is not possible they cannot make an informed choice regarding the environment that they will grow up in so adults will make the decision for them. Surely the ideal would be to choose an environment that most closely resembles the natural one that for whatever reason has been denied to them. When an innocent baby is given up for adoption to two men living together as husband and husband it can only be with the intention of creating a person that is normalised to their lifestyle. It’s deliberate brainwashing and as such is nothing more than state sponsored child abuse. Whilst I can see how such brainwashed children will help in furthering the agenda of the group mentioned above I’m at a complete loss as to what possible benefit this can be to either the baby or society in general.
It’s undeniable that homosexual activity is a significant factor in spreading the aids/HIV virus across the world. Please tell me how promoting and encouraging greater participation in homosexual activities can possibly be a benefit to mankind.
Am I as far out of touch as Martin implies or are the rest of you gagged on this issue for fear of being labelled some form of ‘phobic.

I don't think that your stance is realistic any more Ernie. Society is changing whether you like it or not. Not really relevant to be a torch wielding villager or a witchfinder - whether you like it or not, homosexuality is present in our society - always has been and always will.
No idea where you are coming from above - what is that about 'place some unsuspecting, innocent young child.. into one of these off the wall relationships...'
What kidnap scenario are you thinking of?
Trouble is with saying 'right minded people' is that you infer that you are one, and that everyone who does not agree is by default not thinking correctly. Cobblers, unfortunately Ernie. The wall that you are banging your head off metaphorically is of your own making. You see wrongness where you want and declaim it. You cite natural as a good thing, which it can be, but being natural is not the only thing which leads to right and wrong. By inventing things we keep nature out and control it when we can. And who is promoting homosexual relationships? Not me, but neither am I saying that they are wrong.
Society changes. Try to keep up, even if you don't want to join in.

I agree Nigel there are significant elements of this bill that are nothing to do with protection from discrimination. Is it a diversity issue? Well if you are a Darwinian then, as you point out, the evolution of many species has benefitted, even survived, due to deviant forms being able to take advantage of changing environments. However I don’t think a deviation that would ultimately result in the extinction of a species is what Mr Darwin had in mind when he developed his theory.
For now, a number of representatives of some minority vested interest groups have managed to achieve positions of influence and power in this current government, we all know who they are. This bill is just the latest attempt to promote their lifestyle, tagged onto and hidden among some real diversity and discrimination issues, to force the majority to accept them as normal. Until their actions brought it to my attention I’ve never given it a lot of thought but now:
It bothers me, that against the wishes of a great many, they insist on teaching innocent young children that a homosexual relationship is an acceptable alternative lifestyle to the natural, healthy lifestyle enjoyed by their parents; the one that brought them into the world.
It bothers me that they think it is acceptable to place some unsuspecting, innocent young child without any choice into one of these off the wall relationships to grow up thinking it is normal.
It bothers me that the majority of right thinking people have been cowed into silent submission for fear of being branded with some label invented for that very purpose.
Martin you cite a couple of examples where legislation has been used to change peoples behaviour for the better such as the wearing of seat belts and to be fair I have tried to think of something that humanity might benefit from as a result of brainwashing future generations with these actions.
Well, if you’re one of those that think the global population is too great and needs to be reduced then I suppose they won’t contribute to any increase and the spread of Aids/HIV will go some way to reducing the numbers that are already here but “For the greater good”? C’mon Martin I’m all ears. What possible benefit can mankind ever get from promoting homosexual relationships?
I’m afraid no matter how much they legislate, no matter what they do to camouflage the truth by corrupting nice words like gay or how much they try to brainwash our children, men having sex with men will never be anything other than a perverted lifestyle and as such should be taken back behind closed doors and remain the preserve of consenting adults. Then I’m not bothered anymore; out of sight out of mind.

C'mon folks, just had the court judgment on discrimination & "beliefs" for the tree-hugging environmentalist who was unable to adopt what he perceived as an expedient or cmore ommercial approach that compromised his beliefs.

Sooo, unless completely potty, why would an organisation with an honestly held and truthfully told set of guiding principals and philosophy want to employ someone who, from the get-go, was not going to be able to preach the word according to the organisations "beliefs" ?

This is a diversity issue not a descrimination issue, maybe semantic but, it is the the difference between a moral stand of "right and wrong" and an ethical debate surrounding "right and right" in terms of both sides of the coin.

Not rocket science tis just a question of risk assessment and helf-an-safety like what you find on many a fair-ground ride where there is a minimum height restriction to ensure the safety of the punter regardless of how much they really really wanna take that ride.......

Calm down Ernie, there are two sides to this. Despite your not being discriminatory, there have been areas historically where society has had to be pushed into changing behaviour, with generational change introducing the normality of this behaviour and thereby changing attitude and culture. I am thinking of the the sex discrimination act, and the race relations legislation, and numerous public order criminal areas. They did indeed restrict personal choice as did the requirement to wear a seatbelt. For a greater good.
Let the church get on with it if they want to. In the long term such incestuous employment practices will cause their pool of prospective employees to diminish as fewer people share their faith year on year. Their internal practices are no longer allowed when they overspill into their day jobs as evidenced by recent cases. The only time could foresee being discriminated against is if I applied for a job in a church and got turned down as I am not religious. Never going to happen anyway - Gary Glitter would be a childminder for my daughter before that happened , so I cannot get annoyed about a situation which is potentially possible but at the same time will never happen.
As for your personal freedoms, I suggest that if you ever find yourself in a position where you are discriminated against, that the new legislation may just be able to help you. Who knows?

What about freedom of choice? In order to protect some minority groups from their perceived discrimination this legislation will remove freedom of choice from many people in many aspects of their lives. That cannot be right.
Whenever people make a decision an element of personal preference must be one of the considerations. That’s perfectly natural. Throughout history people will have had decisions go against them because they had ginger hair, they were too tall, too short, too fat or too thin or simply, for whatever reason, they did not like the person in front of them. There is a multitude of things that might have “irrationally” influenced a decision to employ someone, let a house or a room etc. That’s just how it is, it’s absolute nonsense to try and legislate against it. We might not always like it but people have the inalienable right to make these decisions.
Who are these people who think they now have the right to remove this freedom of choice, to dictate how we think, what we are comfortable with and what we think is acceptable? What's their agenda?
I’ve never felt the need to attend a job interview declaring that I am a heterosexual man. Why on Earth would I? Do homosexual people go for job interviews with I am a homosexual written across their foreheads? Do they declare it on their application forms? Why does anyone need to know that they are homosexuals? How do they know they didn’t get a job etc. because of their homosexuality?
It cannot be denied that homosexual behaviour is not accepted as normal by many people, maybe even the majority, so if these tendencies are disclosed then it’s highly likely that personal preferences will play a greater part in some decision making. Maybe homosexuals have made a rod for their own backs by “coming out”.
This all seems to me a relatively recent thing; ten, fifteen years ago I don’t think I ever thought about homosexuals, who they were or what they got up to and who cares I wasn’t bothered either way there’s lots of folk out there whose fetishes would be alien to me. Nowadays, it seems they’re never out of the news for one reason or another and because I’m in danger of being placed at a disadvantage due to their demands I find myself engaged in conversations like this.
I’m still not really bothered what some hill farmers may get up to with their sheep in the winter but that may be because they are not trying to convince me that their activities are just as normal as the healthy relationship I have with my wife or that they should be entitled to marry their ewes with the state and the churches blessing thereby qualifying for married couples benefits. Perish the thought but if they ever did and applied to adopt a kid then that’s something that would really get my goat.

Pasc - than you for getting us back on to discussion of the merits or otherwise of the legislation. However, I can't accept that if my values depart from those of the majority, they are "abnormal". But back to the legislation...Alex and Daniel put their fingers right on the button - the legislation is intended to prevent discrimination in employment on work other than that which necessarily involves adherence to a set of beliefs.

Why does the cook, cleaner, janitor, receptionist etc necessarily have to share the religious beliefs of the organisation which employs them? Surely performance is the issue? And there is no intention in the Bill to prevent the religious groups restricting the selection of priests, Imams, vicars, monks etc etc to those who share and are prepared to adhere to the beliefs and values of the organisation.

The Equality Bill may not be perfectly worded and one of the lines of argument the Bishops appear to be putting forward is that the legislation does not recognise that priests are not wholly engaged in "priestly" duties, who do other things like admin work, home visits etc. This they claim puts the churches at risk of breaching the legislation when appointing priests on the basis that they would be viewed by ETs as being people who are no more than lay members of the congregation who do a bit of "priestly" work here and there!

This strikes me as nonsensical and, in my view, is just another excuse for the organised religions to discriminate against homosexual people.

Fully agree with Alex. If there is a genuine occupational requirement for a particular orientation, religious belief, gender etc then OK . How any of the above can impact on duties other than those of the clergy is beyond me. Bottom line is that the church is a private members club that sets its own rules. If I were a Pentecostal gay woman, I wouldnt want to be a Catholic Priest anyway. Hey Nigel! Are you actually Hunter S. Thompson reborn?????

Pasc, that's already happened in Irish Church and Industrial Schools.
However, the point is this. No one is imposing anything on anyone. It only prevents discrimination in employment in non-pastoral roles. Certainly if the RC church says that priests should not be gay then that is acceptable under the bill, but why not a gay cook in a residential home or a gay cleaner in a parochial house.

Be careful what you wish for Pasc.

Some of the arguments put forward have strayed from what is in the Bill. We have groups of people who have religious beliefs and the legfislation would force on them individuals who hold counter (yes abnormal) values. If we need to define what normal is then we have lost the plot.

Why not go the full hog. Lets have pedophiles in charge of schools.

Ernie,
I never said that all men were born 'middle class'. My point is that there is a small minority of people who have protected status in our society, they are white middle class heterosexual non-disabled men. They are in a minority, but this minority rules. This is the group that is defined in our society as 'normal', these are the truly 'protected' characteristics. (remember - I don't like the term 'protected characteristic' either - it's legal jargon)
At the moment, there is vast inequality between people - people who are born with certain characteristics are much less likely to achieve than others. I think, from reading your posts, you would agree with this. To achieve equality, the people who fare well because of their (socially) protected characteristics are going to have to give way. So middle class white non-disabled straight men are going to have to put up with competing for their privileges. That's going to hurt and it is not surprising that some people in this category are complaining.
There are many people who experience multiple barriers. I know that class issues are currently completely taboo, even in equality fields. People talk about 'poverty' rather than 'class'. But class is still a strong current pulling people along. Is a working class white man more or less disadvantaged than a middle class Asian woman? I don't know the answer to that - but what I do know, having talked to many such people - being a black disabled lesbian is not a meal ticket to the best jobs, as some commentators seem to believe - quite the reverse, it is a road to entrenched discrimination on all fronts.
Your view of our history is flawed - it is not as straightforward as 'he man went hunting while wifie stayed in the cave'. There is ample evidence that our cave dwelling ancestors healed wounds in ways which don't occur in animals - many skeletons show evidence of broken bones which have been fixed and allowed to mend. A wild animal with a broken bone would die but humans found ways to mend wounds and accommodate injury from very early in our existence.
In our more recent past warfare and disease caused much illness - syphillis caused blindness (Samual Pepys had syphillis) Louis Braille became blind as an adult. The Deaf community had schools and whole communities where sign language was used before the conference in Milan in 1880, where sign language was banned across Britain. The position of cook on naval ships was reserved for men who had acquired an impairment through fighting.
You claim that people don't want to be born disabled. I was born with an impairment - it's just as much a part of me as my gender. I only became disabled when I went out into the world and experienced discrimination. You're right, I don't want to be disabled, but I wouldn't want to lose my impairments, because they are what makes me who I am.

Ernie,

I beleive that you speak with the best of intentions and on that basis I certainly do agree with you.