Iris Robinson gay gaff.

[cerberus]

http://unarocks.blogspot.com/2008/06/iris-robinson-inciting-hatred.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7447850.stm

Amazed that she said it but what do you expect from the Free Presby. / DUP.
"The word of God" , see the mary Whitehouse thread by Dan Dare.

[Geist]

This s why I cannot get with the program:

You've probably already read or heard what the DUP's spokeswoman on health said about gay people at the weekend. I know she was condemned from many quarters (but not enough, obviously) but can't this kind of outburst be stemmed by smacking her with inciting hatred? Are those laws ever even used?

http://unarocks.blogspot.com/2008/06/iris-robinson-inciting-hatred.html

That is, to put it simply, being charged for thinking. And I consider myself fine with homosexuality, but inciting hatred for disagreeing on consensus? PC nonsense.

[Hartmann von Aue]

And I consider myself fine with homosexuality.

You don't see problems with it?

Ultimately, if people accept PC attitudes as a matter of course, it's only a matter of time before speech is curtailed.

You say you want free speech for others, but if you do not allow free thought for yourself, it's only a matter of time before you (or others like you) will change your concept of ''free speech.''

[Geist]

You don't see problems with it?

No.

Ultimately, if people accept PC attitudes as a matter of course, it's only a matter of time before speech is curtailed.

Supporting homosexual rights is not de facto a PC attitude. And it does not logically follow that if your opinion converges with another political ideology that you have absorbed their reasoning and somehow free speech will collapse.


You say you want free speech for others, but if you do not allow free thought for yourself, it's only a matter of time before you (or others like you) will change your concept of ''free speech.''

I want free speech for others and myself. That the left would seek to curtail it and warp it is no reason for me to adopt opinions contrary to my own.

[Hartmann von Aue]

Supporting homosexual rights is not de facto a PC attitude. And it does not logically follow that if your opinion converges with another political ideology that you have absorbed their reasoning and somehow free speech will collapse.

It is a PC attitude, I can hardly believe you are denying that. It is not yet universal, but the intention is to make it so, undoubtedly, as has been done with so many other issues. When you reflexively deny that there's anything wrong with homosexuality you are in effect denying the legitimacy of holding the opposing view. Ultimately such opinions will be practically forbidden, by law if necessary, by people with the same reflexive reaction.

I want free speech for others and myself. That the left would seek to curtail it and warp it is no reason for me to adopt opinions contrary to my own.

I believe you do, but certainly you understand that effectively there can never truly be free speech, in the sense that there will always be serious social penalties that affect public discourse to such a degree that certain legitimate opinions will be stigmatized and refused a hearing. Ultimately people will see such speech as nothing but a slur, even an obscenity. It's already clear that ''free speech'' is no longer accepted as a binding legal principle in Europe.

[cerberus]

Giest
That is, to put it simply, being charged for thinking. And I consider myself fine with homosexuality, but inciting hatred for disagreeing on consensus? PC nonsense.
Absolutely - PC gone mad - on the other hand she should never have said what she said .
I am always amused by the attitude of these folks the God squad with a political agenda and the PC squad / Union Squad who also have a socialist agenda.

Mrs Robinson's political party - once upon a time they closed swimming pools on Sundays , they sing hymns when they win elections - this is a snap shot of what makes this party tick.

Like Giest i am happy with gay rights , as long as they don't make us all do it.:whip:

[Geist]

It is a PC attitude, I can hardly believe you are denying that.

It is a PC attitude, but how can that possibly mean only they can hold it? Are you actually suggesting that one cannot hold a view shared by an opposing ideology without succumbing to that ideology? I am against multiculturalism because we import people hostile to liberal views such as homosexuality and feminism. At a proper level this seems to me a perfectly non-extreme position, but try find a hardcore leftie willing to accept me into their group.


When you reflexively deny that there's anything wrong with homosexuality you are in effect denying the legitimacy of holding the opposing view.

Yes I am disagreeing with the other view, but am open to being swayed. I would not condemn the other for hate crime legislation. Therefore I cannot be held accountable for the view of the PC mugs.


I believe you do, but certainly you understand that effectively there can never truly be free speech, in the sense that there will always be serious social penalties that affect public discourse to such a degree that certain legitimate opinions will be stigmatized and refused a hearing. Ultimately people will see such speech as nothing but a slur, even an obscenity. It's already clear that ''free speech'' is no longer accepted as a binding legal principle in Europe.

I agree, but I also see the other side of the coin. Fascists too would do the same thing yet it is they who most often decree the loss of free speech. As bad as one another in my opinion.

[Dan Dare]

...Supporting homosexual rights is not de facto a PC attitude. ...

As I understand it what 'gay rights' actually amounts to is a demand that homosexuality receive official and public recognition that it is just as normal as heterosexuality, and that homosexual relationships should be awarded exactly the same rights and privileges as heterosexual ones, including the right to raise children. The latter of course have no say in the matter.

[Geist]

As I understand it what 'gay rights' actually amounts to is a demand that homosexuality receive official and public recognition that it is just as normal as heterosexuality, and that homosexual relationships should be awarded exactly the same rights and privileges as heterosexual ones, including the right to raise children. The latter of course have no say in the matter.

Its a difficult one, and I do not support it all the way. For example the link between gay rights and minority race rights seems disingenuous, but thats modern identity politics for you. I guess I support rights up until a point such as the early efforts at decriminalization (victimless crime), and up until the 70's most groups seemed to be for assimilation; that is recognizing that they are a minority with responsibilities to respect the general way of things. The attack on the family is clearly dangerous, but once again thats just socialist activist politics. In much the same way that many activists are not workers, or black or whatever most are not homosexual. Most of these groups would probably prefer note to make any noise.