Gay Poll...

[Yawn]

opened up either an art gallery or a museum, and only let women in for the first few months. So that's discrimination as well? And she should have legal action taken against her?

yes thats discrimination and yes legal action could be taken against her

as for ur crazy old man example that is a v diff example to not letting in a gay couple for no other reason than them being gay. it clearly isnt discrimination whereas the gay couple is discrimination. and again the law boils down to the fact of whether it is a business or not, not ur own property. pls refer back 2 my quotes in my other post

[lawrawrrr]

There may be discrimination against those people, but surely by imposing any sort of law is doing the exact same thing? Oh wait, it is, but they shove "positive" infront of "discrimination" to try and distinguish it when it is equally as bad.



No all I was stating is that morals and law overlap which, to me, is problematic.

Law does, for the most part, oppresses the minority as they're forced to conform to the majorities wishes. Though there are some exceptions like minority rights (which are problematic in their own way).

Yes it goes beyond discrimination as it is harming the individuals. I don't really see how you can compare slavery to gay people not being able to attain marriage, especially when there is civil partnership which is virtually identical.

I like how you have to try and attack me personally to get your point across when a simple google search would suffice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

I don't think you even understand the argument anymore. The point is equality should be something shared by everyone but when there is law which goes beyond the protection of citizens, then it is an unneccesary infringement of any individual's liberty.


I know it's not how it works, it's what I'm arguing against.

I can't even like form a response to this because of the lack of logic and common sense... it's like you're literally trying to say that minority groups don't deserve representation and stuff. Also civil partnership might be VIRTUALLY identical but it's not the same and that's why people are 'kicking off' about it.

The argument's kind of changed now, but I'm losing the will to argue (not because I'm "losing" as you'll inevitably think but because I'm fed up of arguing on the internet with children who think they know it all), but the 'point' you make is utter crap. It literally doesn't even make sense. Equality should be shared by everyone, and if it is then there is literally no infringement on anyone's liberty. Protection, physical protection has nothing to do with anything really.

You can't wrap yourself up in a privileged cotton wool ball and pretend that nothing is going to change (this is not aimed at you personally) because of a few outdated ideas you might have when a progressive society is changing it's mass, even majority beliefs, and if a group is being disadvantaged by anyone else then why should we not impose laws (why HAVE we imposed laws) to try and stop that?

Also you think that business owners should be able to turn away whoever they want for any throwaway reason? Bloody hell. That's literally the only response I can even muster. Try being disadvantaged in some way and maybe you'll understand...

First of all, I don't know where you got that graph from, but that data is either not for the UK, or inaccurate

EDIT: I see where you got your data from, a survey that's 4 years old that surveyed 3,000 people. I think I would rather trust the 2011 census that surveyed nearly everyone in the country...

Literally, 5 minute google search, seemed up to date. My mistake. There's still a huge amount of Atheists in this country and even you can't deny that.

• In the 2011 Census, Christianity was the largest religion, with 33.2 million people (59.3 per cent of the population).....
• 14.1 million people, around a quarter of the population in England and Wales, reported they have no religion in 2011.
• Between 2001 and 2011 there has been a decrease in people who identify as Christian (from 71.7 per cent to 59.3 per cent) and an increase in those reporting no religion (from 14.8 per cent to 25.1 per cent).

Now whilst I see that there are a majority amount of Christians, how many of those are completely orthodox and oppose gay rights? Not that many. There's a graph for that somewhere but I'm far too lazy to go and look for that at the moment for the sake of an internet argument where you're just going to shoot me down and tell me I'm wrong without even considering anything I say. You can also see by the census that Christianity is a RAPIDLY declining majority in the country.

I'm not taking into account the other religions at the moment because I think this is more of the focus we're going for.

And you're all busy talking about equality, well what about equality for all the Christians? They're no longer free to practice their religion inside their own property. Is that fair?

Do you even read what I write? Their own property. Private property. They can do what they want. Like public indecency rules, be as naked as you want inside but keep it to yourself: if you're owning a business you're literally not allowed to discriminate without a completely objective and reasonable reason.

Also, I remember reading an article on BBC News, and I cannot find it for the life of me (hopefully someone else can), but some woman (in London I think) opened up either an art gallery or a museum, and only let women in for the first few months. So that's discrimination as well? And she should have legal action taken against her?

Nope. If you can objectively reason why only one sex should come in then fair enough.

Like, if someone set up a Christian retreat and only let straight couples stay there then that'd probably be a completely fine and objective reason to refuse gay couples to stay.

You said yourself that people should decide who comes onto their property, and even if it is a 'commerical business', it is still their property at the end of the day, and their rights should extend to that as well. Like I said, if you owned a B&B, would you let some crazy old man with writing all over his arms chanting satanic things in for the night? Probably not Clearly the law thinks otherwise, but clearly a few others think the law is wrong

JFC how many times do I have to say their PERSONAL property. Maybe if I write it in big letters... Personal and commercial are two legally defined spaces of property. End of story. And whether their rights do or do not the literal law says that they don't have the same rights to refuse people entry onto a commercial property.

If he was being loud overnight then he would be warned and eventually ejected for disturbing other guests. If all he did was chant then it seems like he might have an issue with mental problems and I still don't think it's fair to discriminate because of that. Once again it's not like you write down every aspect of your personality when you book a hotel is it?

Also, a 'few others' think a lot of laws are wrong. Doesn't mean that it should be changed......... if you want to go down that path then why not take away women's votes because some groups think that women are less equal than men? Where would you draw the line!?

It's not up to me, you, or even a small (or large for that matter) group of individuals to change the law. Especially to REVERT it to being less equal. One day, hopefully within our lifetime, any human being will have the same rights wherever they go, and if a business owner won't respect that then maybe they shouldn't be running a service to other human beings (unless the want to target it to specific groups or people, objectively.)

Also, how have you never heard people selling things from home? I've heard of many people that do it... Have you never heard of farms, either?

On the internet maybe, but that doesn't mean people would come onto their property. Same with farms really, you don't get that many people come onto a farm to personally pick their vegetables, their meats, for example. If the farm has a farm shop then it's commercial property. If it's like a cherry-picking farm or something (which I have heard of and been too!!) then that too, is a commercial property, the second you're providing goods on that piece of property for the sake of money.

Now if we take an example of a hairdresser, dog groomer, massage therapist, music teacher (examples I can think of which would let people into their own home to provide a service) then I do kind of respect their rights to not let people they don't necessarily agree with onto said property. But that is genuinely a personal service and not really a commercial property.

And for the record, I'm for gay rights, and I'm probably the least religious person in the world, but it isn't about gay rights and religious rights, it's more about your own rights on your own property.

YAY LETS EMPOWER THE PRIVILEGED EVEN MORE AND LET THE MINORITY GROUPS SUFFER WOOOOO

Also, please stop using tongue emoticons to belittle and patronise me.

[Kardan]

I can't even like form a response to this because of the lack of logic and common sense... it's like you're literally trying to say that minority groups don't deserve representation and stuff. Also civil partnership might be VIRTUALLY identical but it's not the same and that's why people are 'kicking off' about it.

The argument's kind of changed now, but I'm losing the will to argue (not because I'm "losing" as you'll inevitably think but because I'm fed up of arguing on the internet with children who think they know it all), but the 'point' you make is utter crap. It literally doesn't even make sense. Equality should be shared by everyone, and if it is then there is literally no infringement on anyone's liberty. Protection, physical protection has nothing to do with anything really.

You can't wrap yourself up in a privileged cotton wool ball and pretend that nothing is going to change (this is not aimed at you personally) because of a few outdated ideas you might have when a progressive society is changing it's mass, even majority beliefs, and if a group is being disadvantaged by anyone else then why should we not impose laws (why HAVE we imposed laws) to try and stop that?

Also you think that business owners should be able to turn away whoever they want for any throwaway reason? Bloody hell. That's literally the only response I can even muster. Try being disadvantaged in some way and maybe you'll understand...





Literally, 5 minute google search, seemed up to date. My mistake. There's still a huge amount of Atheists in this country and even you can't deny that.

• In the 2011 Census, Christianity was the largest religion, with 33.2 million people (59.3 per cent of the population).....
• 14.1 million people, around a quarter of the population in England and Wales, reported they have no religion in 2011.
• Between 2001 and 2011 there has been a decrease in people who identify as Christian (from 71.7 per cent to 59.3 per cent) and an increase in those reporting no religion (from 14.8 per cent to 25.1 per cent).

Now whilst I see that there are a majority amount of Christians, how many of those are completely orthodox and oppose gay rights? Not that many. There's a graph for that somewhere but I'm far too lazy to go and look for that at the moment for the sake of an internet argument where you're just going to shoot me down and tell me I'm wrong without even considering anything I say. You can also see by the census that Christianity is a RAPIDLY declining majority in the country.

I'm not taking into account the other religions at the moment because I think this is more of the focus we're going for.



Do you even read what I write? Their own property. Private property. They can do what they want. Like public indecency rules, be as naked as you want inside but keep it to yourself: if you're owning a business you're literally not allowed to discriminate without a completely objective and reasonable reason.




Nope. If you can objectively reason why only one sex should come in then fair enough.

Like, if someone set up a Christian retreat and only let straight couples stay there then that'd probably be a completely fine and objective reason to refuse gay couples to stay.



JFC how many times do I have to say their PERSONAL property. Maybe if I write it in big letters... Personal and commercial are two legally defined spaces of property. End of story. And whether their rights do or do not the literal law says that they don't have the same rights to refuse people entry onto a commercial property.

If he was being loud overnight then he would be warned and eventually ejected for disturbing other guests. If all he did was chant then it seems like he might have an issue with mental problems and I still don't think it's fair to discriminate because of that. Once again it's not like you write down every aspect of your personality when you book a hotel is it?

Also, a 'few others' think a lot of laws are wrong. Doesn't mean that it should be changed......... if you want to go down that path then why not take away women's votes because some groups think that women are less equal than men? Where would you draw the line!?

It's not up to me, you, or even a small (or large for that matter) group of individuals to change the law. Especially to REVERT it to being less equal. One day, hopefully within our lifetime, any human being will have the same rights wherever they go, and if a business owner won't respect that then maybe they shouldn't be running a service to other human beings (unless the want to target it to specific groups or people, objectively.)




On the internet maybe, but that doesn't mean people would come onto their property. Same with farms really, you don't get that many people come onto a farm to personally pick their vegetables, their meats, for example. If the farm has a farm shop then it's commercial property. If it's like a cherry-picking farm or something (which I have heard of and been too!!) then that too, is a commercial property, the second you're providing goods on that piece of property for the sake of money.

Now if we take an example of a hairdresser, dog groomer, massage therapist, music teacher (examples I can think of which would let people into their own home to provide a service) then I do kind of respect their rights to not let people they don't necessarily agree with onto said property. But that is genuinely a personal service and not really a commercial property.



YAY LETS EMPOWER THE PRIVILEGED EVEN MORE AND LET THE MINORITY GROUPS SUFFER WOOOOO

Also, please stop using tongue emoticons to belittle and patronise me.

First of all, I wouldn't say the 25% of non-religious people are atheist. Surely agnostics would describe themselves as non-religious on the census? And yes, Christianity is declining, but that doesn't detract from the fact that it's the majority religion in the country. (It's also worth noting that it's not just Christianity that's against homosexuality, and also worth noting people can be religious and not opposed to homosexuality).

From what I remember, men were not allowed into the gallery/museum because they only wanted women to see what was inside... Anyway, apparently the only difference between our arguments, is that you are saying that the Christians B&B need to identify themselves as Christian, and then it's okay to refuse homosexuals. If that was the case, I would be happy with that, although I'm sure that would probably still break some laws.

And I know many people that sell things from their own home. For example I know someone that makes baby accessories, like bibs, wooden name sign thingies etc. And people come round her house to view them and purchase them... I thought many people knew someone who did things like that, but perhaps not...

And, there's no need to try and get argumentative in a debate, if you look through the history of all my posts ever, I always use 's, I'm sure people like @-:Undertaker:-; have noticed me using them frequently, I use them to try and make it more light hearted, but it seems you like to be deadly serious about your debates, so I apologise if you're offended.

Show Hide

[lawrawrrr]

First of all, I wouldn't say the 25% of non-religious people are atheist. Surely agnostics would describe themselves as non-religious on the census? And yes, Christianity is declining, but that doesn't detract from the fact that it's the majority religion in the country. (It's also worth noting that it's not just Christianity that's against homosexuality, and also worth noting people can be religious and not opposed to homosexuality).

From what I remember, men were not allowed into the gallery/museum because they only wanted women to see what was inside... Anyway, apparently the only difference between our arguments, is that you are saying that the Christians B&B need to identify themselves as Christian, and then it's okay to refuse homosexuals. If that was the case, I would be happy with that, although I'm sure that would probably still break some laws.

And I know many people that sell things from their own home. For example I know someone that makes baby accessories, like bibs, wooden name sign thingies etc. And people come round her house to view them and purchase them... I thought many people knew someone who did things like that, but perhaps not...

And, there's no need to try and get argumentative in a debate, if you look through the history of all my posts ever, I always use 's, I'm sure people like @-:Undertaker:-; have noticed me using them frequently, I use them to try and make it more light hearted, but it seems you like to be deadly serious about your debates, so I apologise if you're offended.

Show Hide

It's definitely more important to say that religion doesn't really play a part in who believes in gay rights or not. I know plenty of Christians who actively campaign for gay rights, and even a number of Christian LGBT+ people. It's quite a generalisation to just narrow it down to that, because also some atheists/agnostics might oppose gay rights!!

Arts (in any form) often form quite a political note. Women are, have been, oppressed and by only letting women in it's more of a political point than an outright discrimination. I found this, is this what you were talking about? Even the artist says "it's just issues that men will never come across purely because of the difference between men and women"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-fife-19390354

It's worth saying men were let in eventually. (just like women were given the vote eventually, just saying. Political.)

I'm not saying they should be able to identify as just Christian to be able to refuse homosexuals, but if they advertise their business as a business which is aimed at a particular clientele then I suppose it'd be... dodgy but ok. Because as we just agreed on, Christian ≠ anti gay rights.

No, never heard of anything like that, that's the sort of thing I see on markets or something, not literally from your own from room :s it's hardly a main source of income though is it, and not really applicable because yeah if you're letting people into your private home for a nick nack or two then I suppose you don't have to let anyone in you don't want to. But if you're running a large supermarket, a hotel, a restaurant, something like that, a main, large source of income then to let anyone in buy a select group of people is discriminatory and against commercial law. Someone selling engraved wood from their front room is not really legally defined as a commercial business, as I understand it.

Doesn't seem lighthearted, just seems patronising. I apologise if I offended you by insinuating that or jumping to conclusions but in my debating experience when you're having a serious debate about serious issues it's kinda trivialising (about the issue and the fellow debater) to use emoticons and stuff.

[dbgtz]

I can't even like form a response to this because of the lack of logic and common sense... it's like you're literally trying to say that minority groups don't deserve representation and stuff. Also civil partnership might be VIRTUALLY identical but it's not the same and that's why people are 'kicking off' about it.

The only difference is the name. I don't even understand why gays would want to be "married" when these institutions openly oppose the idea of homosexuals. I would also like to state minority rights is not related to representation which I think is what you're directing the "minority groups don't deserve representation" part at.

The argument's kind of changed now, but I'm losing the will to argue (not because I'm "losing" as you'll inevitably think but because I'm fed up of arguing on the internet with children who think they know it all), but the 'point' you make is utter crap. It literally doesn't even make sense. Equality should be shared by everyone, and if it is then there is literally no infringement on anyone's liberty. Protection, physical protection has nothing to do with anything really.

OK I'll put it clearly then as my view hasn't changed. All these "equality" laws do is infringe on others liberty. Saying that if there is equality, there is no infringement on liberty is completely wrong. For example, if there has to be a certain percentage of men and women employed this could result in those less qualified getting a job because of their sex and not because of their merit because the employer is forced to meet these quotas.

You can't wrap yourself up in a privileged cotton wool ball and pretend that nothing is going to change (this is not aimed at you personally) because of a few outdated ideas you might have when a progressive society is changing it's mass, even majority beliefs, and if a group is being disadvantaged by anyone else then why should we not impose laws (why HAVE we imposed laws) to try and stop that?

My ideas aren't exactly outdated. I'm not saying no to gay marriage and I'm not advocating racism and sexism. I'm just saying people should act how they want to act (to a certain degree) and not having anybody else telling them what to do. We have to have laws because people thinks it's the role of the state when all it does it give it more power which is rarely a good thing.

Also you think that business owners should be able to turn away whoever they want for any throwaway reason? Bloody hell. That's literally the only response I can even muster. Try being disadvantaged in some way and maybe you'll understand...

Sorry but you hardly seem disadvantaged so I don't really get why you keep jabbing at me? Just because my view isn't identical to you, I'm somehow privileged and which somehow makes me stupid without you actually knowing anything about me? Perhaps you should stop trying to insult me and actually counter my arguments.

[lawrawrrr]

The only difference is the name. I don't even understand why gays would want to be "married" when these institutions openly oppose the idea of homosexuals. I would also like to state minority rights is not related to representation which I think is what you're directing the "minority groups don't deserve representation" part at.

Whilst they are essentially very similar and pretty much have the same legal rights there are a few differences... pension, travel restrictions, don't even get me STARTED on gender and the vows and things.

And there is socially less importance attached to a civil partnership: many gay couples who have entered into a civil partnership refer to themselves as "married" but they actually are not. Why does society still see marriage as more important, and why are gay people not allowed to have the same rights and importance?

OK I'll put it clearly then as my view hasn't changed. All these "equality" laws do is infringe on others liberty. Saying that if there is equality, there is no infringement on liberty is completely wrong. For example, if there has to be a certain percentage of men and women employed this could result in those less qualified getting a job because of their sex and not because of their merit because the employer is forced to meet these quotas.

Gender balance is a bit of a grey area for me, I'm not quite decided on it yet. But the thing I'm struggling to see is that if LGBT+ people were to have the same rights as straight people, how would that infringe on anyone's liberty? It might oppose their morality or their thoughts but not literally their liberty (any more than it already does, such as commercial law which I've already covered). To compare it to gender balance at work is a bit far-fetched because people who oppose gay marriage won't be NOT allowed to get married if gay couples can, so they're not physically disadvantaged in any way.

My ideas aren't exactly outdated. I'm not saying no to gay marriage and I'm not advocating racism and sexism. I'm just saying people should act how they want to act (to a certain degree) and not having anybody else telling them what to do. We have to have laws because people thinks it's the role of the state when all it does it give it more power which is rarely a good thing.

You might say all that but your arguments are pretty much the opposite. By basically saying that anyone has a right to treat minority groups as badly as they want that's pretty much condoning racism, sexism, every other ism just for the sake of it.

When it comes to personal property then people should have a right to do whatever they want! But if you're running a commercial service then I don't see why people should be allowed to be discriminatory.

And really, the oppressed minority groups are not going to get any form of equality and respect without a few laws being put in place really are they. Although maybe not everyone might not agree, there is no single rule which NOONE opposes, and seeing as I don't see a case in which anyone's disadvantaged by any gay equality rule I don't see the problem in lobbying and eventually implementing one? Soon?

Sorry but you hardly seem disadvantaged so I don't really get why you keep jabbing at me? Just because my view isn't identical to you, I'm somehow privileged and which somehow makes me stupid without you actually knowing anything about me? Perhaps you should stop trying to insult me and actually counter my arguments.

SERIOUSLY?

No, not because you are opposed to me, but because you are naive as to privilege. If we ignore the materialistic ideas of privilege so many people seem to have (like constructed classes, like material gain etc), then you are actually quite privileged compared to me.

"Check your privilege" is an actual term which is used to remind people that actually they are quite privileged. In the society we live in, me, as a bisexual woman is less privileged than you, a straight white male (I believe). Then again, I am less privileged than an member of an ethnic minority group.

No I may not be at too much of an obvious advantage compared to you but at the end of the day I am slightly less privileged because I was unfortunate enough to be born a woman and like other women (sometimes). It's not too difficult to understand but it's more difficult to explain.

oh I just want to say this is not a rant about how oppressed I am and how lucky and advantaged you are, AT ALL, seriously, I actually like the challenge of competing against those more advantaged for a role they may not believe I would be suited for and campaigning for rights that I believe people like me, and especially those less privileged than me should have.

[!x!dude!x!2]

for, if you think its wrong YOURE WRONG.

people have a right to there own opinion you cant say some one is wrong if they think something else

[Aiden]

people have a right to there own opinion you cant say some one is wrong if they think something else

People's opinions can be wrong.

[DefntlyNotDevin]

Gay Rights FTW~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Me and My boyfriend are VERY happy together

[lawrawrrr]

People's opinions can be wrong.

Facts can be wrong.

An opinion cannot be objectively 'wrong'. Only when the opinion is constructed with purported 'facts' can it kind of be classed as 'wrong'.

A belief, on the other hand, can. Such as when people believed that the world is flat (which people seem to always use as an argument for this) that was not an OPINION that was a belief about a fact