LGBT Thread

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

I don't believe in positive discrimination under many circumstances, fwiw. With regards to the gay community in the UK it's an entirely inappropriate measure.

Agreed. Depends on the population in question, the industry you're trying to give people a leg-up in, how much it actually 'furthers the cause' etc. For example, I know people who've asked me whether I've looked into any Nunga scholarships for aviation. There are none and that's only fair, tbh, don't see how getting more Aboriginal pilots will benefit anyone in and of itself.

Positive discrimination, for it to work, needs to be quite strictly applied and there should be some semblence of earning one's keep for the person themselves. Just gifting something to someone that others have to work for really doesn't work and there's heaps of evidence to support that. I know there's some scholarships available for Nungas to do medicine at Adelaide Uni. One or two places are set aside but the candidates still have to do all the entry tests any med students have to do, etc. Don't know all the details but I think the scholarships offer a bit of money for textbooks/equipment and pays for some out-of-hours tuition.

[silentstriker]

Where are these places that people are talking about where it's not an issue? Where they have full homosexual equal rights? Shouldn't we get there first before talking about any positive discrimination? If they can't have something as fundamental as marriage, or serving openly in the military, or adoption, I think it's pretty crazy to start talking about discrimination the other way.

[sledger]

To be honest, the question of marriage is an iffy one here. IIRC (am willing to be corrected on this), marriage by definition is the union of a man and a woman, and if the civil partnerships bill contained the word marriage it would likely be blocked by the houses of parliament. As far as I am concerned the fact that a civil partnership is not called a "marriage" by title makes no odds, to all intents and purposes it is the same thing.

[silentstriker]

Well perhaps it doesn't make a difference to some, but many find the notion of separate but equal not very appetizing. Either being gay matters or it doesn't.

But at least in the US - even that's not yet everywhere - so this world people are implying is very far away indeed, at least here.


Although UK is most definitely ahead of the curve and pretty much close to being 'there' as far as legal protection goes, so definitely kudos to them.

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Where are these places that people are talking about where it's not an issue? Where they have full homosexual equal rights? Shouldn't we get there first before talking about any positive discrimination? If they can't have something as fundamental as marriage, or serving openly in the military, or adoption, I think it's pretty crazy to start talking about discrimination the other way.

In this country, positive discrimination is usually the tool to readdress any imbalance, not to push things in the other direction after equity has been achieved.

[Craig]

Perhaps it's me, or does anybody else hate the term 'positive discrimination'? Couldn't the boffin who coined that term come up with something better?

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by Craig

Perhaps it's me, or does anybody else hate the term 'positive discrimination'? Couldn't the boffin who coined that term come up with something better?

They did; affirmative action.

[sledger]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Well perhaps it doesn't make a difference to some, but many find the notion of separate but equal not very appetizing.

But at least in the US - even that's not yet everywhere.

I could understand why people would get annoyed about this, but for me personally it is something of nothing. Though obviously I'm not able to comment in any great detail on this particular issue, not being interested in entering into a civil partnership/gay marriage/whatever. But to be honest, if I ever get married, I couldn't give a toss what name it's given. It is what it is, and as long as it remains the same in substance, the name of it really would not bother me. However, this is probably just a question of personal preference, nothing to do with your sexual orientation or any other factor.

[Burgey]

Has anyone else clicked on the link to this thread instead of the Lmao thread, or vice versa?

[silentstriker]

No you old over the hill bastard, us younger people have proper eyesight.




Even if you're in a million times better shape than me.

[Top_Cat]

*self-deprecating humour/fishing for compliments alert*

[silentstriker]

I'll start fishing for compliments when I can see all of my junk when I look down.

[Pothas]

Originally Posted by sledger

Yes, this.

The whole issue of "gay rights" is a troublesome matter for me. Obviously nobody should be made to suffer or be victimised because of their sexuality. But it strikes me that some campaigners take this sort of thing to an extreme where they are almost suggesting that homosexual people should have some sort of positive rights conferred on them, which strikes me as being both wrong and stupid. As Duffer has previously said, I don't think this sort of thing is really an issue for anyone who is not gay/not a raging homophobe. Am pretty glad I'm no longer living with my rabidly Lid Dem, LGBT, Amnesty International. Human Rights activist housemate though, as he is probably the biggest **** I have ever met in my life, just on an unrelated note.

I think this idea is exaggerated to be honest.

Certainly none of my gay friends have this sort of attitude and the gay society at holloway had no such agenda.

They just object to getting abuse chucked at them, which does regretably still happen from time to time.

You just need to get better housemates.

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

I'll start fishing for compliments when I can see all of my junk when I look down.

Quoted for posterity.

[Nnanden]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Hey Nath, genuine question. Surely you don't take all of the bible at face value, because there's some pretty horrific stuff in there. Given that you ignore some parts, why are you inclined to believe the stuff about homosexual acts being wrong?

I believe in all of the Bible, of course. Off Topic though, so feel free to PM me if you'd like.