View Full Version : Highland Council - it's the 21st century!
The Civil Partnership Act 2004 comes into force in December this year, finally allowing same-sex couples to have their relationships legally acknowledged. Such a right, which has always been taken for granted by straight couples, has taken a long time to arrive. Some other countries, such as the Netherlands, Canada and Spain allow gay marriage, so the concession of a 'civil partnership' is only a step in the right direction.
I was appalled to read, in an article in the Herald (http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/44226.html), that Highland Council has recommended that its registrars do not conduct actual ceremonies for same-sex couples (minutes here (http://www.highland.gov.uk/minutes/headquarters/resources/minutes/res_min_031203.htm)), but merely register the partnership (in much the same way as you would register a birth or death). Why do Highland councillors think that a man and a woman should be allowed a ceremony to celebrate the legal recognition of their relationship, but that same-sex couples should not?
The restriction may be legally permissable under the Act, but is nothing short of blatant and revolting discrimination. Does Highland Council not have an Equality Policy? Or does this little blip not count?
I am embarrassed and ashamed that the Highlands have been shown to be living in a different century to the rest of the country.
I note also that this is not the only evidence of discrimination exhibited by Highland Council. There's a vacancy (http://www.highland.gov.uk/jobs/hous.htm) for a Clerical Assistant in Thurso, but only people under the age of 25 need apply. Why? Again, it's currently legally permissable, but someone at Highland Council really ought to note that in October 2006 age discrimination will be outlawed.
Welcome to the 21st century folks! Highland Council - do catch up!
exiledtoedinburgh
05-Aug-05, 10:50
It reminds me of the story a while back about the man who kicked out a male couple staying at his B&B. I thought people were trying to stop depopulation in the Highlands? Maybe they should try being a bit more open minded then more folk would want to move there and younger people might consider staying instead of drifting away to college, uni or other jobs in the south and never coming back.
Before you ask, I'm straight, but I have quite a few gay and bisexual friends here in Edinburgh and their sexuality doesn't bother me one bit.
It's shameful really, isn't it? (the Council's policy, not same-sex relationships!)
What we really need is for one of the councillors on the committee to come forwards and explain just how they reached this backwards-looking decision... I see that a Mr W N Fernie was in attendance at the meeting in December. I wonder if he might shed some light on the matter! [disgust]
Give it time. Laws can change overnight but attitudes take longer. This is radical but much needed legislation.
Any finger pointing should be pointed at the culprit for such archaic attitudes towards fellow human beings. Religious morality. [mad]
I am fraid to say that this is an example of local legislators reflecting the will of the people. That is homegrown democracy in progress... :roll:
Get over it...
Get over it...
Of course you're right, Rheghead; when councillors sit down to write discrimination IN to legislation they should do so without having to worry about people questioning their infinite wisdom or, heaven forbid, actually having the affront to disagree with them! I mean, what would things be coming to if the common folk actually had the audacity to pay attention to what politicians were up to between elections? :roll:
An intersting view of democracy:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4724807.stm
Bill,
I don't really like bumping threads... but I was just wondering if you'd anything to say on this matter?
I agree totally with the council. What people do behind closed doors is their business but I find this kind of promotion of unnatural behaviour to be wholly abhorrent.
I am fraid to say that this is an example of local legislators reflecting the will of the people. That is homegrown democracy in progress... .
Hmmm I always thought Democracy was the will of the people?
I agree totally with the council. What people do behind closed doors is their business but I find this kind of promotion of unnatural behaviour to be wholly abhorrent.
Uh-huh... and it's 'unnatural' how, exactly? [disgust]
I once heard a saying which went "the only "queer" people arte those who dont love anybody"
If two people love each other and are committed to each other then they should have thir partnership recognised in law. This isnt about what they do in the bedroom or we would all have to answer some questionnaires about our personal preferences to make sure we didnt like anything unnatural or abhorrent before the law recognised our committment to our partner.
I was appalled to read, in an article in the Herald (http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/44226.html), that Highland Council has recommended that its registrars do not conduct actual ceremonies for same-sex couples (minutes here (http://www.highland.gov.uk/minutes/headquarters/resources/minutes/res_min_031203.htm)), but merely register the partnership (in much the same way as you would register a birth or death).
It actually say in the minutes that "staff would not be required to participate" in ceremonies. Is that the same thing as you are saying?
I am embarrassed and ashamed that the Highlands have been shown to be living in a different century to the rest of the country.
Thats a bit unfair and showing Highland in a pretty poor light, however if you read all of the Herald story, a very different picture emerges. Lots of councils have many registrars opposed to taking part in these registrations, Shetland has only 2 willing out of 23 for example and 4 or 5 other councils have yet to make a decision on ceremonies. This hardly shows Highland to be living in a different century. It appears that the truth within all councils in Scotland is that it is optional for all any registrar to partcipate in a civil registration (and/or ceremony) and that they are not required to.
I'd prefer if your commentary was based on the facts in your source material.
For me personally, power to same sex couples - extend the partnership to marriage I say - I enjoy a good wedding as much as the next man or woman.
By the way, do registrars offer ceremonies for births and deaths? I don't think its required for staff to participate in one but you could always ask.
PS. In Thurso the registrar is in the same building as the library - I returned a book recently that I "borrowed" in 1976. They almost put on a ceremony for me that day.
It actually say in the minutes that "staff would not be required to participate" in ceremonies. Is that the same thing as you are saying?
It actually says in the minutes that "staff should be involved only in the formal registration of the partnership" (my emphasis). That quote starts just 25 words before your quote. Are you reading the minutes selectively?
Highland Council is recommending that no same-sex partnership ceremonies be conducted within Highland Region. This is not about giving registrars a choice. It's about making a judgement about same-sex relationships and then authorising discrimination against same-sex couples.
The minutes also state that the registration of same-sex relationships should only take place in the Registrar's office. This is just to ensure that the couple don't arrange their own celebration in the same venue as the registration - heaven forbid that a registrar should find him/herself at a gay wedding. There are no such council-enforced venue restrictions for weddings between a man and a woman.
Thats a bit unfair and showing Highland in a pretty poor light
It is this decision that shows Highland in a pretty poor light, not my post about it.
Lots of councils have many registrars opposed to taking part in these registrations
Then that indicates that there are individual registrars who are willing to work discriminatively. It's very different to council-endorsed discrimination.
Shetland has only 2 willing out of 23 for example
And you're kind of missing the point. In Shetland, same-sex couples will be able to have a ceremony to celebrate their legal partnership. In Highland Region, councillors are ensuring that same-sex ceremonies cannot be held anywhere in the region.
and 4 or 5 other councils have yet to make a decision on ceremonies
And if they make decisions in line with Highland Council, I'll be just as scathing.
That said, we're talking about my home region, I'm posting on the board for my home county, and I'm ashamed of the message Highland Region is giving the whole world.
This hardly shows Highland to be living in a different century. It appears that the truth within all councils in Scotland is that it is optional for all any registrar to partcipate in a civil registration (and/or ceremony) and that they are not required to.
As I said, discriminatory decisions by individual registrars, while greatly unpleasant, are vastly different from council-endorsed and council-enforced discrimination.
I'd prefer if your commentary was based on the facts in your source material.
As it was. My focus was on the decision taken by Highland Council. I wasn't aware I was obliged to provide a review of the entire Herald article - I provided the link so that everyone could read it.
For me personally, power to same sex couples - extend the partnership to marriage I say - I enjoy a good wedding as much as the next man or woman.
I entirely agree.
By the way, do registrars offer ceremonies for births and deaths? I don't think its required for staff to participate in one but you could always ask.
Relevance?
Ceremonies are held for opposite-sex partners, and will not be for same-sex partners. I can't understand why anyone would think that acceptable.
cullbucket
11-Aug-05, 18:28
I thought most folk of that persuasion liked to hang out in the cities where there were more folk of a similar mindset that they can hang out with / pull / whatever. Wouldn't be much choicel in a wee highland town I would haave thought. Wonder how many same sex weddings were carried out in the Highlands reecently - unfortunately there is still predjudice in these small communities which could make life unpleasant....
Besides - I am the only gay in the village......how dare they.....
Wouldn't it be more fun to get married in San Francisco dressed in a pink tutu or chaps rather than Alness registrars or wherever.....
I would have thought that the main issue to the same sexers (is that the PC term) would be on whether the law recognised the marriage (which is only fair) with respect to inheritance, pensions etc.... was that ever sorted out?????
Drutt,
Does the ceremony have to be performed by the registrar? Why not have a ceremony down the pub or anywhere with your nearest and dearest and then pop off down the registrars with the witnesses to tick the boxes.
If its about love, commitment and sharing, get some one who is on board with the whole thing to host the ceremony, a friend or loved one perhaps? Why would a same sex couple want to have their ceremony held by a registrar who may or may not feel 100% about hosting it.
I think you are getting hung up on the detail of what a ceremony comprises. The future is for same sex couples to create - I see opportunity - you see obstacles and the dull drab Highland Council raining on the (gay) parade.
The devil is in the detail - you can take my post apart line by line and thats fine. But the real issue is changing the mindset of people and being creative about what a same sex ceremony is - I sense a business opportunity here. Hereboys Tutu Festival of Togetherness - (thanks cullbucket).
PS. I'm available for weddings, christenings, bar mitzvahs and civil partnership ceremonies- crazy cheap prices.
PPS. Hopefully other people have read both the links now to see who was right - its not about who is right, its about the reading for themselves. ;)
I thought most folk of that persuasion liked to hang out in the cities where there were more folk of a similar mindset that they can hang out with / pull / whatever. Wouldn't be much choicel in a wee highland town I would haave thought. Wonder how many same sex weddings were carried out in the Highlands reecently - unfortunately there is still predjudice in these small communities which could make life unpleasant....
The legal recognition of same-sex relationships comes into force in December this year, so no, there have been no same-sex 'weddings' in the UK yet, nor will there be any ceremonies in the Highlands if the council has its way.
Besides - I am the only gay in the village......how dare they.....
Wouldn't it be more fun to get married in San Francisco dressed in a pink tutu or chaps rather than Alness registrars or wherever.....
Indeed. We're not just talking about the actual ceremonies though. We're talking about the message this gives the world. It may not have been widely publicised in the general press, but you can bet it's been widely publicised in gay press. The decision has shown up the entire region, and will discourage non-heterosexuals from visiting. People who depend on tourism for their income should say goodbye to the pink pound. I'm sure non-heterosexual tourists will feel more inclined to stay in more metropolitan areas and stay away from the Highlands.
I would have thought that the main issue to the same sexers (is that the PC term) would be on whether the law recognised the marriage (which is only fair) with respect to inheritance, pensions etc.... was that ever sorted out?????
That is the Act that is coming into force this December. It won't be regarded as a marriage, but same-sex partnerships can be recognised for legal purposes (e.g. for pensions).
With regard to 'same sexers', I think that gay, lesbian or homosexual would still be the standard terms. With regard to their relationships, you could say same-sex relationships, gay relationships, lesbian relationships - I just used the former to be more concise. No big PC issue here, just calling it as it is.
Does the ceremony have to be performed by the registrar? Why not have a ceremony down the pub or anywhere with your nearest and dearest and then pop off down the registrars with the witnesses to tick the boxes.
The point is that opposite-sex couples have the opportunity to have an official ceremony to celebrate their union. They can then dash off and have a party with friends and family.
Same-sex couples are being denied that option. They will not be permitted to do more than sign paperwork in front of the registrar, and that signing of paperwork must be done in the registrar's office. It's blatantly judgemental and discriminatory.
If its about love, commitment and sharing, get some one who is on board with the whole thing to host the ceremony, a friend or loved one perhaps? Why would a same sex couple want to have their ceremony held by a registrar who may or may not feel 100% about hosting it.
The registrar is doing a job. They should do the job regardless of a couple's gender, sexuality, race or religion (assuming they've decided to have a civil ceremony). It's not the registrar's job to make a judgement on which partnerships they regard as moral.
I think you are getting hung up on the detail of what a ceremony comprises. The future is for same sex couples to create - I see opportunity - you see obstacles and the dull drab Highland Council raining on the (gay) parade.
I'm hung up on it because opportunities afforded to opposite-sex couples are being denied to straight-sex couples. The former have all the opportunities in the world, the latter do not. How can that be acceptable?
Drutt,
OK - what would a same sex civil partnership ceremony look like? Where does the ceremony stop and the party start?
Would it have vows exchanged, a wee song etc?
Help me understand what the distinction is between the registration, the ceremony and the celebration afterwards.
Thanks.
OK - what would a same sex civil partnership ceremony look like? Where does the ceremony stop and the party start?
Would it have vows exchanged, a wee song etc?
Help me understand what the distinction is between the registration, the ceremony and the celebration afterwards.
I can't decide if you're asking a genuine question or being deliberately obtuse.
When was the last time you went to a wedding and the couple walked in, signed a piece of paper, and walked out? Therein lies the difference.
Drutt,
Its a serious question - I have never been to a civil do.
All the hitchings I have been to are church affairs, so I have seen vows from the bible, hyms from the bible, readings from the bible, the minister having a wee rant about holy union etc what god joined let know man part etc... a bit of cello sometimes or someone reading a poem.
So saying as the bible is not into same sex unions as a rule I was wondering what a civil ceremony for opposite sex and same sex unions would look like.
At church ceremonies they do walk through the back sign the register and then take photies and such.
I can be obtuse but on this occasion I was looking for some enlightenment.
Thanks.
A civil wedding is really very similar to a church wedding, except that any religious content is prohibited.
This is from confetti.co.uk -
All those attending the ceremony should arrive in the building no later than about five minutes beforehand. In some register offices and most civil venues, it is possible for the bride to make an entrance on someone's arm without seeing the groom beforehand. Before the ceremony begins, the registrar will see the bride and groom to check that the information stated on the Authority is correct and to ask for their natural father's names and occupations. Any fees due will also need to be paid at this stage. Once the guests are all seated the ceremony begins.
The Superintendent Registrar explains the legal basis of marriage in this country. You are both asked to make declarations that you are legally free to marry one another and, provided there is no legal impediment to your marriage, you exchange marriage vows. This can be accompanied with the exchange of rings if you so wish. You are now legally married to each other. The bride and groom are then asked to check the register carefully before signing. The two witnesses, who may be friends or relatives, will then be asked to sign. The bride and groom will then be usually invited to lead their wedding party out.
Civil ceremonies can, and often do, walking down the aisle, having your family and friends there to see you marry, readings, poetry, music during the signing of the register, the taking of photos, and the bagpipes being played. All that is prohibited is religious content. It is a full ceremony celebrating the partnership.
In comparison, Highland councillors have decided that same-sex couples will be permitted only to walk in, pay for the registration, check the papers, sign the papers, walk out. No walking down the aisle, no filling the room with friends and family, no readings, no poetry, no music, no photos.
Yes, they can go away afterwards and have a party. But to deny them a ceremony to celebrate their partnership is, in my eyes, cruel, judgemental and wrong.
Thanks for this,
So for a civil union of a same sex couple which one would be the bride and walk down the aisle?
OK you got me - that time it wasn't a serious question. ;)
Have a great evening.
Bill Fernie
11-Aug-05, 19:48
This thread has made some fairly blatant assumptions from the start and gotten it pretty well wrong - albeit perhaps from believing what you read in the newspapers who do from time to time make mistakes or have a somewhat off beam view of some matters. In this case I wold say they made a mistake - although I can understand why from reading the minutes out of context and not looking at what was going on ie a consultation of the Scottish Executive. It should also be remembered that the Resources committee is only a proportion of the Highland Councillors who sit on the full council.
Looking at the minutes which you must note are December 2003 and a response to a consultation document from the Scottish Executive. The bulk of the document was agreed with. A couple of points were made for the Scottish Executive to consider. Nothing in that is Highland Council policy. Councillors were not asked to make rules for the new legislation merely comment on the proposals and at that stage councillors might often wish to reflect what is some of their constituents views as they understand them. Consultation documents are open to anyone to send comments in and councils do so on many different topics.
The topic will be coming to the council shortly and I understand is listed for the next Resources committee meeting to be held next week. At that stage you might see some thing that looks like a Highland Council policy on the matter but you may also find it is referred on for further discussion. I cannot say as the papers have not yet been issued for the meeting.
There also seems to be a strange lumping together of "Highland Councillors" as if they all have the same views. Step into almost any council meeting anywhere in the country and you wiill find that is far from the truth. Councillors reflect as wide a range of opinions and views as you would get from any group and hopefully this reflects the general public views on most matters in order to get a decent debate and a hearing for all sides. A huge number of consultations come before councilors to agree or not proposals from the Scottish Executive and many other bodies such as Scottish Water and a wide range of government agencies and departments. Why has this particular one has been picked out given that the Herald article is wrong and no decision has been taken (the author has implied something from the minutes reporting a response to the consultation paper in December 2003)?
I wait to see the papers that will be put in front of us next week (agendas appear on the Highland Council web site)
On the matter of Civil Ceremonies - my own view is that if ceremonies are available to one section of the community that registers a legal partnership then they should be available if desired to all sections of the community who are now legally entitled to register from the time the new law on Civil Partnerships comes into force in December 2005. If registrars have an objection to officiating then procedures will require to be put in place to ensure that the law can be complied with to the satisfaction of all concerned if the council decides that should offer that service. The topic has jumped the gun in making assumptions about Highland council policy when none yet exists but it will be cleared up before December.
Still interesting to see the views on the subject though even though it has not been one appearing in my mail or from people who come to see me on many other matters.
Hey Drutt,
We are both wrong - at least we can agree on that...
The purpose of normal sex is to reproduce and procreate the species (OK its fun as well). A same sex relationship cannot reproduce and is obviously not normal. The old term 'queer' provided a very apt description unlike the hijacked term 'gay'. I do not think we should normalise something which is not. I did not agree with the 'pricey parly' repealing section 28 for the same reasons.
As I said before - what you do in private is entirely your own business.
This thread has made some fairly blatant assumptions from the start and gotten it pretty well wrong
That I can see, the only assumption that has been made which might be considered wrong is that the minutes of this meeting reflect any policy. As you point out, this was a consultation process rather than an actual setting of policy – and for making that error I apologise.
However…
I can understand why from reading the minutes out of context and not looking at what was going on ie a consultation of the Scottish Executive.
I'm afraid that I'm still a little confused. Whether the minutes reflect set-in-stone legislation or they reflect only the councillors' desire to 'consult' on a document presented by the Scottish Executive, the decision to write "staff should be involved only in the formal registration of the partnership, that is the signing of the registration document in front of two witnesses, and not required to participate in any ceremony" still reflects the will – at least the will of the majority – of those councillors present at the meeting.
Councillors were not asked to make rules for the new legislation merely comment on the proposals and at that stage councillors might often wish to reflect what is some of their constituents views as they understand them.
And surely if councillors truly believe that discrimination against homosexuals is something that they were elected to promote that only confirms Drutt's feelings that the minutes of this meeting are a shameful reflection on the Highlands.
There also seems to be a strange lumping together of "Highland Councillors" as if they all have the same views. Step into almost any council meeting anywhere in the country and you wiill find that is far from the truth. Councillors reflect as wide a range of opinions and views as you would get from any group and hopefully this reflects the general public views on most matters in order to get a decent debate and a hearing for all sides.
All this is undoubtedly true; however, surely you aren't suggesting that the Highland Council is the only council in Britain which operates by the will of the minority of those members present at a meeting?
If registrars have an objection to officiating then procedures will require to be put in place to ensure that the law can be complied with to the satisfaction of all concerned if the council decides that should offer that service.
This seems very reasonable on first glance… but it isn't really, is it? I mean, if a registrar objects to marrying mixed-race couples, are they given the option of refusing that couple anything more than writing their names on a piece of paper? If a divorcee wishes to remarry, are they restricted to only holding their wedding in the registrar's office itself? These are, are they not, both weddings which some people might find objectionable – but I doubt if registrars are given the option of acting upon those objections.
The purpose of normal sex is to reproduce and procreate the species (OK its fun as well). A same sex relationship cannot reproduce and is obviously not normal.
Two things:
1) Many things aren't normal.
Most people aren't members of internet message-boards, which makes you and I outside the norm. Most people don't live by the sea, which again makes you 'not normal'. Most people in the world aren't Christians, which makes Christianity 'not normal'.
Just because an activity is not enjoyed by the 'majority' doesn't mean that it is abhorrent or wrong.
2) If the purpose of 'normal' sex is to reproduce and procreate the species, I assume that you are all for the abolition of all contraception… after all, by your definition 'safe sex' is not normal. I also assume that you would extend your contempt for same-sex relationships to encompass relationships where one or both are infertile (and therefore cannot have 'normal' sex as they cannot reproduce), relationships after the menopause (not 'normal' as they cannot reproduce) and relationships where children are not desired (no reproduction = not normal)?
Oh, and I wanted to know why you thought gay sex was 'unnatural', not whether you think it is 'normal'.
cullbucket
11-Aug-05, 22:24
Of course the council must comply with the law but to be honest I don't think we will be seeing too many Mr and Mr or Ms and Ms names on the bans outside the library in Thurso.
Most gay folk in Caithness wouldn't choose to advertise their sexuality - except for Ralph, he used to entertain me with stories about how he pulled Faeroese Fishermen and had his wicked way.....
I got married last year, it was my anniversary 2 days ago. I got married at Thurso registrar office with a little ceremony. It would have been my wish to just turn up and sign the book like what is afforded to same sex couples. In my opinion, the less pomp and circumstance the better. I didn't even go for the gown treatment for my degree, rather, I opted to receive my cert through the post. I had a choice about that though, I didn't have a choice with the wedding, well at least my wife didn't let me know that I had a choice to just sign the registrar... :roll:
I guess it comes down to choice, my right to choose was denied as are same sex couples' right to choose.
cullbucket
11-Aug-05, 22:31
I guess it comes down to choice, my right to choose was denied as are same sex couples' right to choose.
Why not take your wife to the European Court of Human Rights?
I guess it comes down to choice, my right to choose was denied as are same sex couples' right to choose.
Why not take your wife to the European Court of Human Rights?
Interesting point Cullbucket LOL. Though I think it would be a disproportionate response, except I can see a case of discrimination against heterosexual couples who would want a non ceremonial registration of their marriage...
I didn't have a choice with the wedding, well at least my wife didn't let me know that I had a choice to just sign the registrar... :roll:
I guess you knew you married miss "right" - you just didn't know her first name was "always". ;)
cullbucket
11-Aug-05, 22:53
Yeah, what would be next?
Demands that the ceremony should be gayer?
Too boring?
Don't think there's anything to stop non ceremonial services for heterosexuals tho...
I was best man / witness for a mate of mine who only got married because he was going to Abu Dhabi to work and unless he got married, his partner of 12 yrs and mother of 2 kids could not come too!!
He didnt want a ceremony and I don't think there was, (Depends how you define a ceremony.....)
Anyway, shame on you - dont you know you have to bow to a womans every wish on her wedding day!!!
Anyway, shame on you - dont you know you have to bow to a womans every wish on her wedding day!!!
I would like to make the point that the registrar did a great job and I enjoyed the whole day.
A ceremony is only that though, a ceremony, what is really really important is how the couple feel for eachother, the rest is just window dressing(well at least for the bloke anyway). I know of many straight couples who go for the second mortgaged big shabbang occasion in church only to divorce a little later.
cullbucket,
At last, a legitimate reason for marriage - emigration/immigration prurposes along with tax dodges are about the only things worth getting married for. Get divorced when you retire though - bigger pensions that way ;)
I get sick of the ministry dining out for free every Saturday on our dime... and have you seen the quality of some folks wedding photos? Most of them look like a police line up.
Then again though, where there are weddings there are bridesmaids... so its not all bad news...
I know someone who got married for the same reason as you mentioned - but he got coerced into the whole shooting match - favours and everything, cost him about 30 grand. What a farce... whats wrong with a pint of Tennents lager and a packet of Walkers Salt and Vinegar crisps all round? The cost of the hitching more than outweighed any cash benefit from working overseas - what was the point in that?
I agree totally with the council. What people do behind closed doors is their business but I find this kind of promotion of unnatural behaviour to be wholly abhorrent.
As usual the symptoms and not the causes are being addressed by this thread. For me its more important to discover why Kenny may think this because I suspect he doesnt really know either and his failure to answer jjcs question may confirm this. Its not normal is not good a good enough answer. Flying in jet airliners was not normal 50 years ago. If Kenny is using the analogy of the animal kingdom to defend his case, surely no woman would be safe walking down the street. Dogs chasing a she dog in heat would confirm this.
Kenny is openly displaying his prejudices which the council members concerned cannot do. But, as the topic of this thread has shown, these prejudices still float to the surface in their decisions.
We all have them (prejudices) to a greater or lesser extent. Even homosexuals are likely to have an unconscious dislike of their own lifestyles because of societies hidden workings which contaminate us as we grow up .
This is a hot potato for the human race. Prejudices are normally fears we have of something or someone different from ourselves.The only way it will change will be when Kenny discovers what his real fear of homosexuality is.
Gleeber, the human race has an ingrained (call it instinctive/genetic) waryness of outsiders. (see newscientist report) (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg18725114.200) This can explain prejudices on many levels of what is considered outside the normal in human difference whether it be in terms of colour of skin, sexual activity, national identity, religion,sexual difference, regional identity(wick/thurso), disability, age, etc etc.
But as with pavlov's dogs, we can condition ourselves to overcome these fears by social interaction and familiarity. We all know that ignorance is a breeding ground for prejudice.
I fully realise though that it is important to have an identity of who or what we are. I think the secret is to realise that if something is different doesn't mean it is better or worse.
AS a postscript to the above, I have also learnt that if someone pokes fun or makes a joke at our differences, it doesn't mean the fun poker thinks he is superior, so what is the answer? A need for a sense of humour and less pc rubbish?
Ok, it has to be said, and I know it won't be popular with the politically correct brigade, but..........am I the only one to find homosexuality ABSOLUTELY ABHORENT ?
It ain't natural, it is of no benefit to the species, and well......yuk !
loogard, leaving aside 'political correctness' I find your view (to quote you) 'absolutely abhorent'. How can a loving interaction between two people be wrong or immoral? Just because it's something you don't want to do yourself you proclaim that it is wrong?
It is not a perversion to be homosexual. It is perverse to take the moral highground against others for no particular reason. Incidentally, it is very natural and only becomes 'yuk' in the narrow minds of those that have been educated in a repressed society.
Rheaghead. I'm not sure if what you are calling ingrained is either instinctive or genetic. I believe (I think :confused ) that the brain and the stuff it thinks (the mind) are two seperate entities.
When I went to school, and I'm sure it still happens today, kids used to chant the following rhyme. "sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me" Along with the person who coined the phrase, "hard work never killed anyone" That is nonsense.
Thank goodness for the political correct brigade and although some of the stuff they come up with seems ridiculous to me at times, I am sure there is a valid and well researched reason behind it.
I see political correctness as part of an evolutionary process in interpersonal human relationships. It is an evolved form of challenge against superstitiousness and religous morality. Its also progress.
Loogards outburst against homosexuals fuels the argument that homophobes like him (and Kenny) repress some deep homosexual feelings in themselves that they refuse to acknowledge. The resentment they show against homosexuality is in actual fact repressed anger against their own homosexuality. :eek:
Lets be less than PC for a moment and as Rheaghead wants more humourous, Am I saying that Loogard and Kenny are closet shirt lifters?
Well no, but unless they can come up with a better one than Its not natural I will rest my case. ;)
I think some people confuse the people who are homosexual with various sexual acts when they say they don't like homosexuals .... Who knows what the majority of heterosexuals get up to behind closed doors - some of that would probably make some of the people on this forum upset but I suppose those folks would not consider themselves to be heterophobic would they?
What I wanted to say was has anyone heard the term metrosexual? - apparently its people who wear unisex clothes who at first glance you cannot tell what their sex or sexuality may be - and they live in a metro area.
I went to buy a pair of trainers when I was in New York and I saw this nice blue pair - when I asked the guy for my size he said they only do them up to a womans 8. They looked like a guys shoes to me.
Should I be worried?
PS. I for one have a friend who is a lesbian and she tells me tales which all heterosexual men should pay attention to to spice up their relationships.... her tips work wonders with bridesmaids.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.