tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32796536.post8673887953391042939..comments2023-11-29T09:38:02.377+00:00Comments on Philosopher's Tree: The Observer and Mrs StroudAl Shawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07179473485486839470noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32796536.post-67591011474972975502010-05-08T20:42:26.512+00:002010-05-08T20:42:26.512+00:00Thanks Steve.
I'll check it out.Thanks Steve.<br /><br />I'll check it out.Al Shawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07179473485486839470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32796536.post-73648110183268789742010-05-08T20:00:39.609+00:002010-05-08T20:00:39.609+00:00Al
You may find an introduction to an aspect of qu...Al<br />You may find an introduction to an aspect of queer theory interesting, which I just came across here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_theory.<br />Particularly interesting is Foucault on 'A history of sexuality' Vol 1 (which I read in my first year). Pertinent for your blog's respondents is how for some queer theorists, sexuality is not essential to the self, contra some gay/lesbian theorists.Steve Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07469756955336783096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32796536.post-22849374625784825332010-05-08T10:59:47.530+00:002010-05-08T10:59:47.530+00:00Hello Ezekiel,
Thanks for your comments.
I think...Hello Ezekiel,<br /><br />Thanks for your comments.<br /><br />I think that's a helpful distinction between freedom of speech and the denial of goods and services. <br /><br />My own views are as follows:<br /><br />1. Like most people (I assume) I would affirm the right of people to recieve goods and generic services regardless of their sexual orientation. <br /><br />2. I do see a difference between the provision of a generic service (eg a drink in a bar) and a service which is sexually specific. The recent example of a Relate counsellor in Bristol who declined to give sexual counselling to same sex couples would be an example of the latter, in my opinion. <br /><br />The difference between the two types of provison, it seems to me, is that in the latter, the individual is required to actively facilitate the sexual acts which he or she believes to be wrong in themselves, thus violating some of their basic beliefs and values. <br /><br />The court has given its verdict on this speciic issue. The reality, however, is that the judgemet is widely seen by Christians as a denial of their rights to work within the remits of their own conscience. My article seeks to highlight this as a social and legal problem which at present is unresolved.<br /><br />3. Marriage is given a particular prominence in the Christian faith and has virtually always been defined hetrosexually, both within the churches and in wider society. <br /><br />The universality of heterosexual marriage, including in regions of the world untouched by Christian faith, might lead us to consider whether it is an institution that is far more embedded into the human psyche than we might realise. <br /><br />It is against this backdrop that I am personlly opposed to the redefinig of marriage to describe homosexual as well as heterosexual unions. In the end, I do not see marriage as merely a socially constructed institution but as a God-given arrangement. <br /><br />My own view is that the existence of civil partnerships is a pragmatic and workable solution to the issue, guaranteeing equal rights with married couples under the law. <br /><br />4. You say that "The overwhelming majority of gay people support anti-gay people's right to BELIEVE that gay people are wrong, or even evil. We support a person's right to say so."<br /><br />I am glad to hear that, because in saying so you are out of step with much current equality legislation on the issue. <br /><br />If in the course of going about one's job, a stright employee told a gay colleage that he/she were evil, the straight worker would be disciplined, possibly suspended. If such a statement were made in a school classroom, the teacher would be dismissed. <br /><br />Beyond these examples, there is clear pressure being bought to bear on faith-based schools to deliver their sex education programmes in ways that affirm gay sex even though many Christian teachers do not believe such acts as moral. <br /><br />These (and other) developments are real problem areas for the issue of free speech and suggest that the arguement which says "free speech, yes; denial of service, no" is easier to say than it is to implement at the level of social policy.<br /><br />Thanks again for commenting.Al Shawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07179473485486839470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32796536.post-62330368469111691022010-05-08T10:16:38.096+00:002010-05-08T10:16:38.096+00:00Dear Anonymous,
Thank you for visiting and taking...Dear Anonymous,<br /><br />Thank you for visiting and taking the time to comment.<br /><br />I think you're right about my potentally confusing use of vocabulary.<br /><br />I do recognise that homosexuality (like heterosexuality) is an orientation. Lifestyle is a summary of the choices that individuals make arising from that orientation. Apologies for any confusion there.<br /><br />Where I think we may differ, is over the statement that "people can do nothing about their sexuality" (which I understand as their orientation.) <br /><br />A few friends over the years, male and female, have told me that they have experienced a significant degree of change in their sexual orientation during the course of their lives. I'm inclined to accept what they tell me. <br /><br />Thanks for commenting.Al Shawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07179473485486839470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32796536.post-38424414967566520572010-05-06T12:48:51.214+00:002010-05-06T12:48:51.214+00:00The blogger also doesn't seem to make a distin...The blogger also doesn't seem to make a distinction between having a right to BELIEVE something or SAY something and having the right to legally deny other people rights based on one's personal beliefs.<br /><br />The overwhelming majority of gay people support anti-gay people's right to BELIEVE that gay people are wrong, or even evil. We support a person's right to say so. We don't support a person's right to deny us goods or services or access to CIVIL institutions based on THEIR beliefs and opinions.<br /><br />I believe that a lot of religious people are foolish, even dangerous, but I have NEVER advocated taking away their right to a public accommodation (even at a bed a breakfast or their right to shop at a certain store or eat at a certain restaurant and CERTAINLY not their right to access to ANY civil institution, such as marriage.<br /><br />That's the difference between having a freedom of opinion, belief, speech and believing that because of one's beliefs it is a violation of his rights to allow a person to have a CIVIL right that his personal opinion or religious beliefs don't support.<br /><br />Why is this discussion about freedom of religion and violation of freedom of speech NEVER brought up when discussing racism and other forms of discrimination against entire communities? Why is it that this discussion only seems to take place when discussing the rights of and respect for LGBT people? People have religious objections to black people's equal rights and women's equal rights but yet you NEVER hear people defending racist and misogynists as victims of religious oppression by blacks and women?<br /><br />Why would that be? <br /><br />EZEKIEL SUTHERLANDAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32796536.post-44851956152129203602010-05-06T11:34:44.946+00:002010-05-06T11:34:44.946+00:00This blogger, who has written the above considerat...This blogger, who has written the above considerations regarding Philippa Stroud, has made an extremely serious error.<br /><br />Much of what he has written is predicated on the assertion that homosexuality is "a lifestyle".<br /><br />Homosexuality is NOT a lifestyle.<br /><br />Homosexuality is no more a lifestyle than heterosexuality is a lifestyle.<br /><br />Some people ARE heterosexual and do not find members of the same sex sexually attractive.<br /><br />Some people ARE homosexual and do not find members of the opposite sex sexually attractive.<br /><br />Other people range on the spectrum that is in between heterosexaulity and homosexuality. In the centre of that spectrum are bisexual people. They have not chosen the bisexual lifestyle: they ARE bisexual. They simply ARE attracted to both sexes.<br /><br />Heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals can do nothing about their sexuality.<br /><br />So where does this term "lifestyle" spring from?<br /><br />It springs from bigots and also from those people who are living as heterosexuals although they know that they are, in actuality, homosexuals - but they do not have the courage to live and be open as the people they actually are.<br /><br />Homosexuality is NOT a lifestyle choice. It is only true to say that homosexuals have different lifestyles - and one of these lifestyles, for some homosexuals, involves a great deal of clubbing. That is a lifestyle. The homosexuality is not a lifestyle. Other homosexuals live in the countryside and participate in fox-hunts. That too is lifestyle. But their homosexuality is not a lifestyle.<br /><br />I hope that blogger Al Shaw is not now hindred by personal homophobia and can now adjust his thinking and his future writings accordingly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com