bensonhedges Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 I think the argument over 'normality' is largely pointless. Do homosexuals have to be 'normal'? Is it not possible to be accepted without being normal? Normal could be considered boring! What's wrong with being a bit different? You are so absolutely right - it was just the grammarian in me coming out (the gay part of me came out many years ago). I reckon under those criteria I am completely normal, work 9-5 to pay the mortgage, drive an average car, have a drink occasionally, love my mum and dad, feed the cat etc etc etc. I am as normal as they come - I just have a boyfriend rather than a girlfriend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiderPete Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 What are bi-sexual men classed as ?, are they normal or abnormal. Yet again a questioned not answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ sheffield Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 Yet again a questioned not answered. Neither, their either greedy or lucky....or both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom3t0 Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 An employer should have rights, they have plenty. You can hire people based on qualifications, personality, looks in certain situations. You can sack them for bad time keeping, inability to do the job, misconduct, etc... You can make them redundant if you don't have enough work, and the pay is completely up to you so long as it's above minimum wage. But to not hire someone because you don't like their sexuality, well that's just prejudice unless you can justify how it would interfere with the work, and prejudice should not be accepted in any case or situation. I don't follow your analogy, hiring someone and trespassing, I'm not getting it? What if you wanted to only hire people to promote a family orientted business? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meaks Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 What if you wanted to only hire people to promote a family orientted business? Then you would only employ your family I guess..? Or Chinese people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 Probably because people like Sutcliffe and the Wests considered themselves to be normal. It's the first I've ever heard that he was gay, in the 30-odd years since Sutcliffe started terrorising, and bashing in the skulls of the women of the North of England ... same as Fred West ... he wasn't gay, either... Nice segue, dungbeetle... We've had the idiots crawling out of the woodwork with the "gays are paedophiles" allegations, now they have to counter the "gay people are mass-murderers" concept. great stuff! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greybeard Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 We have to spend a quarter of our lives with our work colleagues - an employer should at least have the choice to employ people they like, and not be forced to take on people they dislike simply because of asinine positive discrimination laws. But that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Discrimination in the workplace on grounds of sexuality is already illegal. So what is your point ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pk014b7161 Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 when does the law come in to incite hatered to homosexuals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angle20 Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 A Labour councillor was yesterday found guilty of falsely accusing her political rival in an election campaign of being a paedophile and having sex with teenage boys... Ms Grell, a 29-year-old aide to the Deputy Mayor of London, was found guilty of two counts under the Representation of the Peoples Act 1983 of making false statements about another candidate to gain electoral advantage... “It was essentially a whispering campaign which Mr Smith would have found very difficult to disprove without bringing attention to his private life”... Mr Smith, who now lives in Northern England, broke down in tears, saying that he had to flee his home after the slurs. He said that he was spat at, verbally abused, and followed home by two men who said: “Now we now where you live, kiddie-f***er.” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2507836.ece Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alastair Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 "Goebbels was in favour of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favour of free speech, then you're in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favour of free speech." Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts