Domino Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 The same old arguments are starting to get repetitive and boring now. The bloke is not going to let them move in because their lifestyle is not acceptable to him, his church, and for the (mostly silent) majority of society - end of story. Lets move on with the annual horse tram and then TT re-hashing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Yes. If it doesn't conform to the current establishment PC agenda then it is taboo. That's what it's all about. LDV, for example, is believes that he can be as rude as he wants about people he doesn't like - that's freedom of speech. But nobody is allowed to be rude about him - that's political correcness, which in his mind takes precedence over free speech. You can see why he likes the current rules, can't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Wooley - Please refer to my post #140 & #141. Medical science is getting close to making reproduction less of an argument (test tube babies anyone The same old arguments are starting to get repetitive and boring now. The bloke is not going to let them move in because their lifestyle is not acceptable to him, his church, and for the (mostly silent) majority of society - end of story. Lets move on with the annual horse tram and then TT re-hashing. Does that mean that you do not have a rational explanation for your views and that of the alleged "(mostly silent) majority of society"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 I think heterosexuality's need to sustain itself has done pretty well throughout history. Possibly too well. Surely heterosexuality IS the correct sexuality and homosexuality, although natural, like any other physical condition is certainly not. You seem to have the bad thinking. Heterosexualiy, the sexuality (identity and creation of a person who is defined by attraction to the opposite sex) is a modern phenomenon (and so by connection is homosexuality). It doesn't any further back the nineteenth century. In the western world, people simply didn't have identities based on sexuality. Heterosexuality demands certains perspectives, ways of being, rituals, and performance by those who define themselves as straight. It's unrealistic. It's a straightjacket that causes straight people a lot of problems. In that way, it is wrong. It does more harm than good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 The same old arguments are starting to get repetitive and boring now. The bloke is not going to let them move in because their lifestyle is not acceptable to him, his church, and for the (mostly silent) majority of society - end of story. Lets move on with the annual horse tram and then TT re-hashing. Your arguments are getting repetitive and boring because they lack substance. If you have an opinion it needs to be supported with good reasoning otherwise it is just hollow talk. If you think if someone doesn't like another's lifestyle they can deny service then you have to say more than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 That's what it's all about. LDV, for example, is believes that he can be as rude as he wants about people he doesn't like - that's freedom of speech. But nobody is allowed to be rude about him - that's political correcness, which in his mind takes precedence over free speech. You can see why he likes the current rules, can't you? You're talking total bullshit...yet again. I believe in free speech. Say what you want. And your lack of knowledge on this matters shows. Political correctness isn't about banning speech. Go and read about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTail Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 I think that this incident highlights some very fundamental questions which we need to address. I am an atheist and have a basic dislike of religion. I presume that the landlord would not let me rent either because of my views - except - of course - I am white, middle class and well paid - so maybe he would let me in - obviously you can't actually see an atheist by just looking at him (or her). Lets move on ...... if we introduce anti discriminatory laws to stop small, narrow minded bigots from renting to people they don't like then the next problem could be very serious. Lets say that a group of fundamentalist Muslims decided to move to Ramsey - that cant be stopped. After a while, because they tend to have more children than Christians, they got into a position of some power they could easily try to introduce all sorts of draconian laws/rules, quite against our western traditions. Maybe stop women from being educated, maybe introduce stoning for adultery (or worse). Such a scenario is, definitely not likely in the short term but it is a logical conclusion to our path. In other words, tolerance is trumped by intolerance, small time little church intolerance is trumped by big time serious church intolerance. I find this to be a very scary thought - which is of course why religion must NEVER be allowed to have power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinkle Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Other sites seem to pick it up as well now http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/05/13/isle-of-man-lesbian-couple-prevented-from-renting-flat-due-to-homophobic-landlord/ Lovely that the island's reputation for being backward continues to be fed. Hey, at least they're not birched anymore, right? unfortunately not!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Domino Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 Wooley - Please refer to my post #140 & #141. Medical science is getting close to making reproduction less of an argument (test tube babies anyone The same old arguments are starting to get repetitive and boring now. The bloke is not going to let them move in because their lifestyle is not acceptable to him, his church, and for the (mostly silent) majority of society - end of story. Lets move on with the annual horse tram and then TT re-hashing. Does that mean that you do not have a rational explanation for your views and that of the alleged "(mostly silent) majority of society"? I don't need to rationally explain my views; I dislike the gays and lesbians amongst us and that is all I need to say. That statement has brought about the usual nonsense arguments that I'm probably one of them because of my view, and that you and others are screaming for legislation to make me change it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 They need to rationally explain your views so that we can recognise your views as being rational, rather than irrational and a result of poor thinking. It's up you, of course. I imagine you would bow out if you are being irrational, as being shown to be so really wouldn't help your argument. If legislation came about, you'd still have your view and beliefs (although I'd hope some better thinking would lead to new beliefs) but you just wouldn't be able to do harm from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelo Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 No problem. The CM is bringing in more English laws to help the come-overs overcome (these kinds of phrases will of course soon be banned). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prism10 Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 I think that this incident highlights some very fundamental questions which we need to address. I am an atheist and have a basic dislike of religion. I presume that the landlord would not let me rent either because of my views - except - of course - I am white, middle class and well paid - so maybe he would let me in - obviously you can't actually see an atheist by just looking at him (or her). I know lots of atheists who dislike gays, blacks, jews, indians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 You're talking total bullshit...yet again. I believe in free speech. Say what you want. And your lack of knowledge on this matters shows. Political correctness isn't about banning speech. Go and read about it. Your posts always seem to remind me of this definition: Political Correctness: the resentment of spoilt children directed against their parent's values Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2thumbs Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 'so when do we start on them there negros boys!' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted May 14, 2013 Share Posted May 14, 2013 I don't need to rationally explain my views; I dislike the gays and lesbians amongst us and that is all I need to say. A question: Do you only dislike them when you discover that they have a gay lifestyle? Are you absolutely certain that some of the people you are friends with, that you trust, whose company you enjoy, do not have any homosexual leanings? I don't think every gay male behaves like Graham Norton or that every gay female can be identified purely by observation. So how is it even possible to make such a definite declaration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.