Nice people thread part 5 - nicely does it

LydiaJ

chewmylegoff wrote: »

If the church said it didn't want to marry black people, would you support its right to so refuse? I just wonder where we draw the line and why? It seems illogical to me that (I) they are allowed to discriminate but I am not and (II) it is only acceptable for them to discriminate on certain bases, and not others.

I think will young made a good point about all this on question time when he said it shows a lazy underlying homophobia - people prepared to accept the church's discrimination against gays because deep down they think it's still socially acceptable. The fact that there are passages in the bible about it is irrelevant. There are passages in the bible about punishing "an eye for an eye" - it doesn't mean the church can put your eyes out if you blind someone.

Ultimately my view is that there should be one law for everyone and I don't think you should be able to use religion as a get out clause. Otherwise the logical extension is that I should be able to just set up my own religion and ignore the law.

The confusion here is because society in general regards being gay as part of someone's identity, and assumes that practically everybody will be sexually active with either the opposite or the same sex or both, according to their orientation. Gay people therefore feel hurt and angry at what they perceive as the traditional religions being against them as people, and against the essence of their identity.

Traditional religions of all kinds (Christian, Jewish, Muslim etc etc) don't start from that standpoint at all. They generally begin from the idea that sex is only for marriage, and that marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman. They generally feel that what they are against is the action of sex outside of heterosexual marriage, not the people, and certainly not the core of anybody's identity. Which gender you feel attracted to simply isn't an identity-defining feature in most traditional religious teaching. Identity is defined spiritually. Most teach that those whose orientation is gay are just one of several categories of people who ought to be celibate, even if it's difficult.

It's tragic that the church spends so much of its limited airtime going on about what it's against. IMO it should concentrate all its energies on telling people what it is for. Even a cursory reading of the gospels (although they don't make any mention of Jesus meeting any gay people) makes it very clear that while Jesus didn't regard sexual promiscuity as a morally acceptable way to live, he was nevertheless extremely popular among people whose lifestyles were sexually all over the place. From which we can conclude that lecturing people about their sexual behaviour was not his thing. He had far more to say about forgiveness, gratitude, love and generosity, and most of all about how much he wanted people to know that God loves them.

On the other hand, I do think that religious organisations should be allowed to discriminate in ways that secular organisations are not. Islam is inherently sexist. Mormonism (if you get down to the core of it) is not only sexist but racist too. I don't think that Muslim or Mormon or Christian businesses should be allowed to discriminate against members of the public to whom they are merely selling a service - in a B&B, for example. I do think that they should be allowed to discriminate however they want to when it comes to participating in the practice of the faith.

And getting married in a place of worship is participating, not just purchasing religious goods and services - just look at the words of the marriage service of any of these religions and it'll be obvious that a wedding in a church/mosque/synagogue/temple is embedded in worship and faith, not just legal and cultural.

I expect to be treated as an equal by my muslim colleague at work, and I am, but if I visited his mosque, I would defend his right to insist I covered my head while I was in there because I'm female. I understand that some branches of Mormonism have edited out many of the racist passages in the Book of Mormon, but if there are other branches that won't allow black people or women to be part of their priesthood, then I agree with lir - within their temple they should be allowed to do that, however distasteful it is to the rest of us. So yes, I think they should be allowed to say they will only do heterosexual weddings, if that's what they believe is right.

ETA This took me so long to type that I hadn't refreshed the thread since before the calls to drop the subject. I'm more than happy to drop it. I'd been sort of hoping it would die down myself, for the last few days, but since it didn't I thought I'd better say something.

lostinrates

PasturesNew wrote: »

I'm a bog standard, white, English, heterosexual female, without religion. So you can put me down for "none" under hate crime.

For the crime of being single..... you couldn't begin to believe what single older spinsters have to put up with. I could do a big list here, but won't.

Thats good, not to have experienced haye crime. But take you listed as you have listed you self, and plonk you in a different environment and you might experience different. Being heterosexual and white and areligious is no protection (removed joke others might find offensive)

LydiaJ

PasturesNew wrote: »

I like lemons - just not a slice in a drink.

I'd happily eat lemon chicken, lemon cake, squirt lemon over battered fishy things ... and 101 other uses for lemon. Just not a slice of lemon in a drink.

Edit: Just realised LydiaJ said coke ... thought that said CAKE!!!

I entirely agree.
Lemon in other things - great
Lemon in cake - my second favourite (after chocolate)
Slice of lemon in drink - prefer not

vivatifosi wrote: »

Mushrooms bad.

I also think brussel sprouts are bad. Where is everyone else on the sproutometer?

Sprouts - good
Also parsnips - good

Furthermore:
Hate crime - no
Patronising comments from men - only a few
Discriminatory comments for being a Christian - very few
Discriminatory comments for having been educated at an independent school - some
Being left out of stuff because couples prefer to socialise with other couples - some
Racist comments (I'm white) - none

chewmylegoff

lostinrates wrote: »

Thats good, not to have experienced haye crime. But take you listed as you have listed you self, and plonk you in a different environment and you might experience different. Being heterosexual and white and areligious is no protection (removed joke others might find offensive)

When i was 17 i took a fairly severe beating from 6-8 yoofs who probably ranged upto about 4 years older than me because I went to the wrong school (in their opinion). Luckily nothing got broken but I was eating through a straw for a couple of weeks and it was a long time before I would go anywhere on my own. I would classify this as a hate crime even if the law doesn't. (interestingly the law didn't care at all [the female copper said there was nothing wrong with me despite me being white as a sheet, clearly in shock, unable to respond to her questions, and dripping blood], although I was severely reprimanded by school for being off the premises without permission).

Other than that, being white, middle class and average means I have escaped most discrimination, but some people have been known to ridicule my beautiful grey hair.

PasturesNew

LydiaJ wrote: »

.... Even a cursory reading of the gospels (although they don't make any mention of Jesus meeting any gay people) makes it very clear that while Jesus didn't regard sexual promiscuity as a morally acceptable way to live, he was nevertheless extremely popular among people whose lifestyles were sexually all over the place. From which we can conclude that lecturing people about their sexual behaviour was not his thing. He had far more to say about forgiveness, gratitude, love and generosity, and most of all about how much he wanted people to know that God loves them.

Jesus did a spot of gay blessing.

http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Centurion.html

And that was just from googling: Bible Jesus gay and clicking the first likely looking link.

PasturesNew

lostinrates wrote: »

Thats good, not to have experienced haye crime. But take you listed as you have listed you self, and plonk you in a different environment and you might experience different. Being heterosexual and white and areligious is no protection (removed joke others might find offensive)

Lara Logan worked that one out

PasturesNew

LydiaJ wrote: »

Being left out of stuff because couples prefer to socialise with other couples - some

Put me down as "all"

Have you had trouble with the neighbours? I found if I lived next door or near to a couple (of any age from 19 to 59), the woman wouldn't want to befiriend me and if there were any form of bland verbal communication in passing between me and the fella, her indoors would instantly appear and get him inside the house.

LydiaJ

PasturesNew wrote: »

Put me down as "all"

Have you had trouble with the neighbours? I found if I lived next door or near to a couple (of any age from 19 to 59), the woman wouldn't want to befiriend me and if there were any form of bland verbal communication in passing between me and the fella, her indoors would instantly appear and get him inside the house.

Nope, haven't had that happen to me in this street or at the previous house. In all the other places I've lived, I was there as part of a couple, so it didn't apply.

misskool

vivatifosi wrote: »

Mushrooms bad.

I also think brussel sprouts are bad. Where is everyone else on the sproutometer?

Yes.

sliced and sauteed with bacon

'just' cooked and dribbled with butter and salt.

i could eat sprouts.

a lot

misskool

LydiaJ wrote: »

I
Furthermore:
Hate crime - no
Patronising comments from men - only a few
Discriminatory comments for being a Christian - very few
Discriminatory comments for having been educated at an independent school - some
Being left out of stuff because couples prefer to socialise with other couples - some
Racist comments (I'm white) - none

1- no
2- depends on the situation but mostly not
3- a lot (look at where I work :rotfl:)
4- na
5- na
6- none (but I'm not white)