Monday, 22 March 2010

Another Gays vs Christians battle.

A gay couple turned up at a B&B run by Christians, and were told 'No poofters'.

Well, anyone who's been here before knows that I am definitely opposed to any form of discrimination against anyone at all for any reason, but this isn't a clear case of 'damn Christians' because I'm also opposed to discrimination against Christians. Of which there is a lot, these days.

Most religions regard homosexuality as wrong. They are wrong to regard it as wrong, as far as I'm concerned, because it doesn't harm or affect anyone else and is therefore an irrelevance. All the same, those religions have deeply held beliefs and a B&B is private property. I cannot argue that a pub should be allowed to decide whether to allow smoking, on the grounds that it is private property, then argue that a B&B must be forced to accept tenants they don't want on their private property. It's the same law. It's the same dictatorial attitude that decides what you can and cannot allow to happen on your own property.

The gay couple were incensed, and that's not surprising. They had booked in advance so the B&B owner must have known that there were two men arriving with one room booked. Well, if it were me, I wouldn't have assumed 'gay'. I'd have assumed 'two guys sharing' and nothing beyond that. It's a common money-saving method among straight men too. Unless they turned up dressed like Julian Clary, nothing beyond that would have even occurred to me.

Here's what would have happened if I had been running that B&B:

Me: Yes, what is it?

Guest 1: We've booked a room.

Me: One room, two of you?

Guest 1: Yes. Is that a problem?

Me: No, no, it just means I get paid less for having the two of you here, but don't you worry about that. It's my business that's going down the tubes, not yours. Right. Smokers?

Guest 2: Huh?

Me: Smokers? Do you smoke?

Guest 1: Yes. Do you have an outside smoking area?

Me: No, I have an ashtray. Here you go.

Guest 1: Is that legal?

Me: An ashtray? As far as I am aware, ashtrays are still legal.

Guest 2: But you can't allow smoking in the rooms, surely?

Me: If it bothers you, put the ashtray on the windowsill. I'm not going to check that room until after you've left and I'd rather not find cigarette burns on the sheets. So take the ashtray and keep your gobs shut and nobody gets into trouble. Okay?

Guest 1: Well, if you're sure...

Me: Sure. Now shut up about it. The room has one double bed. Is that a problem? Would you like an electric fence down the middle of it? Igor will set one up for you...

Guest 1: Ha-ha, no, it's fine, we're a couple.

Me: Good, the price of electricity these days...

Guest 2: You don't mind?

Me: I don't care. Just don't drop ash anywhere an inspector can find it, don't leave any obvious burns and open the window wide before you check out.

Guest 1: Thanks. Oh, by the way, my friend here is the leader of the Lib Dems in the local council.

Me: Out! Get the hell out of my house. Take your money back and begone, fiends, before I call Igor and have him give you a proper anointing, thou dastardly poltroons!


The owners of hotels and guest houses have more to fear from someone smoking in there than from someone building a thermonuclear device in there. That's Labour's idea of perspective.

The police are now investigating this B&B owner for having the temerity to decide who can and cannot stay in their house. When really, if we didn't have all these 'Thou shalt not' laws, that B&B owner could have placed on their website - 'Christian owned, no gays, witches or heathens or hideous little men in steel masks who are going to make smartass remarks about the mummification of bacon at breakfast'.

If they could have said that, no gays need have been harmed in the making of this story. Those men would simply have taken their custom elsewhere. The B&B cannot say in advance whether they have preferences as to clientele. If they could, the problem would never arise.

If they had turned away someone for being a smoker, the police would not have been involved at all. If they had turned away someone on the grounds that they'd had a few beers, the police would not have been involved at all (even though that's the main reason for booking a B&B if you're visiting somewhere else). If they had turned away someone because they were so large the owners were a-feared for their bedsprings, the police would not have been involved at all. Even when hotels have turned away soldiers, there was no police involvement.

If they turn away someone for being Muslim or coloured or gay, or because the place had no disabled access, the full weight of the law is brought to bear at once. Some groups, when offended, can prosecute. Others, when offended, will be prosecuted.

Isn't equality wonderful?

Do gay rights trump religious rights or vice versa? What if they were Chinese Muslim beef-loving ex-convicts trying to get a room in an Indian Buddhist vegan gay hotel? Which group is the more favoured? Does a run beat a flush, does four of a kind beat a full house? How does this equality work anyway?

Wouldn't life be so much easier if we didn't have it? If we just said 'Everyone is the same. Everyone can choose who and what they like and don't like as long as there's no violence.'

Labour's 'equality' is not good for anyone. It just sets up confrontations like this because you don't know in advance which places will not make you welcome. They are not allowed to tell you.

If they were, we'd know who to avoid.

41 comments:

Pavlov's Dalek said...

Brings back the old adage about people dropping stupid ideas when it doesn't benefit them.. I'm sure the christian B&B owners would doubt the wisdom of it in their private moments, after factoring in the loss of potential sale, should they not be prosecuted for hell for being a bit suspicious of a few happy campers

Anonymous said...

I think a B&B is the private property of the people owning/running it & I agree with you that they should have the right to accept guests or not. The only proviso I'd make is that their advertisements must list that so that people from out of the area don't book, arrive tired & dusty at midnight only to be greeted by 'sorry, we don't allow gays/Muslims/dogowners' etc.

JuliaM said...

"If they had turned away someone because they were so large the owners were a-feared for their bedsprings, the police would not have been involved at all."

Not sure how long that will hold, with gaining blue whale proportions now being classed as a 'disability'. It might soon be a disability hate crime!

banned said...

Hotels can be advertised as "Gay Friendly" so can a B&B likewise be "Hetero-Friendly" and advertise its welcome for "traditional families and genuine singles" or indeed "this B&B has a Christian ethos"?
It can certainly say no dogs, no smoking, but not yet, no smokers. It can probably say no children but I doubt if they would get away with 'no old people'.

Anonymous said...

What can muslim hotel owners be made to tolerate?

Mark Wadsworth said...

"Do gay rights trump religious rights or vice versa?"

That is the big question, and we fans of Victimhood Poker would like to remind you that

a) non-Christian religion usually trumps gays, but
b) gays usually trump Christianity, except for the recent Catholic-adoption-agency-allowed-to-be-homophobic tale, so even that is no clear cut.

Uncle Marvo said...

It's not easy, is it?

At the risk of being labelled, I am more pro-Christian than pro-gay.

I think what has gone wrong here is that it has been in the press at all. Why is it? Who gives a toss? Not me, really. I heard it on R2 this morning, Beeb news, even Sarah Kennedy didn't know what to say. And I think one of the blokes was black (but I was watching the rearview mirror whilst tramping up the M1 doing just over 70:-) so I wonder if the B&Bers were blackist as well as gayist?

I think it's blown up out of all proportion. Again.

subrosa said...

Just one point LI, you say the B & B owner 'must have known that there were two men arriving with one room booked.'

Not necessarily so. The reservation would have been made in the name of the person making the booking. I very much doubt if any B & B owner asks say a Mr x who wants a double room if it's Mrs x with him or Miss x or another Mr x. So, in defence of the owners, they very possibly did not know in advance.

Banned is reasonably accurate but I doubt if many B & B owners would like to have hetro-friendly on their websites. :)

He's right that an owner can say no children or dogs and they can also say they have no facilities for the disabled.

As smoking is not permitted in a B & B, even though the owners smoke, the smoking issue does not arise these days. Some B & Bs are very tolerant of it and allow guests to smoke in a conservatory or have a garden seat for pleasant weather.

Personally I would have just let them in and taken their money but what I do find offensive about the whole business is the fact that one of the men believes he is an 'important' person because he's on some political committee. Using what he considers his 'status' is actually laughable.

I doubt if the owners will lose business because of this publicity. What I can't understand is why it has become a police matter. As you say a B & B is a private business.

John Pickworth said...

I'm not religious. I am gay.

Having stated the above; I have to say I have some sympathy for those of a religious nature.

People often ask me where I stand on the gay marriage debate? Yes, I'm all for civil partnerships and to a degree full-on religious ceremonies... but, and its a big but, it should be up to the church/religion concerned (and not the State). If a church happens to believe that a practice or lifestyle is contrary to their beliefs then surely its for them to decide to whom they offer their services? If the gays don't like it they can go off and jolly well start their own religion or find one more accommodating.

Same argument for any other establishment, business or organisation.

I think the vast majority of B&B's tolerate the goings on upstairs even if they don't fully approve, after all its a business and principles are expensive. But for a small minority that cannot approve of such nonsense under their own roofs (whether its based on religious grounds or not) should be allowed to refuse those guests.

I think what's missing here is some common-sense.

I am Stan said...

Yo Metal Leg,

Good for them for standing up for what they beleive,They are Christian,they follow the teachings of the bible.

Leviticus 18:22

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Thats just one example,there are several,they were not prepared to allow sin on their property,of course the Socialists fear anyone or group who have a belief system other than their own.

They claim it to be homophobia,I`d say they were following Christs teachings as they understand them rather than socialist indoctrination,teachings they were not prepared to compromise

He claims its the first time he has experienced "homophobia",I would suggest he gets out more.

Personally I would have taken their money made them welcome and then maybe said a prayer for them,after all,

"let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

Religion eh!...its a mine field!

Uncle Marvo said...

I'm just glad they hadn't invented cigs when the bible was written. It might have been banned.

Also John 11:35 might have said "Jesus lit up".

I admit I originally put "invented fags" up there, but these days ...

live and let live said...

They probably have an agenda as there are plenty of sites where they could have booked accommodation..

http://www.hotelforgay.com

Wasn't there a Scottish B&B in the news recently with the same discrimination ?

Angry Squaddie said...

On the subject of religion and smoking, I had a little thought earlier and found this page:

http://socyberty.com/society/smoking-is-a-religion/

Would love to hear your thoughts on this.

AS

wv: trick

Anonymous said...

One of them is called Black - his name, not his skintone.

Little Black Sambo said...

I'm not religious. I am gay.

Having stated the above; I have to say I have some sympathy for those of a religious nature.

People often ask me where I stand on the gay marriage debate?


No! Do they really?

Mick Turatian said...

The Daily Mash explores this topic in a useful way:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/b%26bs-forced-to-offer-gay-breakfast-201003222578/

(How do you insert a hyperlink, I wonder)

Anonymous said...

Subrosa:

"As smoking is not permitted in a B & B, even though the owners smoke, the smoking issue does not arise these days."

You may (or may not, depending on your preference) be pleased to know that smoking is actually permissable in B&B’s (bedrooms only) if the owner wishes to allow it, because the bedrooms are classed – like hotel rooms – as a person’s temporary “home” and as such are one of the very few exemptions mentioned in the Health Act. So much so that some B&B’s and hotels now specifically state “smoking permitted in bedrooms” as one of their “facilities,” in the same way as, prior to the ban, “all non-smoking” or “non-smoking throughout” was often trumpeted as a “facility” by establishments run by anti-smoking owners.

Little Black Sambo said...

"We're two respectable middle-aged men.

That is a matter of opinion.

PeterJ said...

Actually, L-I, it's not a criminal offence to discriminste in this way; the gay chaps went to the cops for whstever reason, and the cops took a brief look and said "none of our business". It's up to the chaps whether they sue in civil court, and I hope they don't.

Stewart Cowan said...

I have just covered this story as well. I disagree with one thing, Leg-iron: that homosexuality is harmless. It is far from that...

"Let me remind you that the early homosexual activists knew they would have to destroy the traditional family unit in order to feel fully 'equal'. And as a strong and free society depends on strong family bonds, they are actually destroying our society. The same is true of the use of pornography and New Labour's sex 'education'. By changing the natural bonding rules, those human bonds become weaker - one night stands, homosexual liaisons, single parents - and thus society becomes weaker and collectively we are less able to stand up to the increasing amount of authority which is depriving us of our freedom."

I invite you and the other sane bloggers to join myself and the likes of Cranmer and condemn the promotion of behaviour which is contributing to our downfall.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Is Stewart Conway for real?

Leg-iron said...

Uncle Marvo - it would have messed up the last supper. Half of them would have been standing outside and missed Jesus's speech altogether.

They might have tried smoking inside but Judas would have grassed them up.

Anonymous said...

What do B&B owners need to know about the new 'smoke free' legislation? Whilst the legislation applies to virtually all enclosed premises, such as offices, shops, factories, restaurants and pubs, there are a few premises that will be exempt from the law, subject to strict conditions.

Hotels, boarding houses, guest houses, bed and breakfasts, inns and hostels which have two or more bedrooms set apart for the sleeping accommodation of guests are covered by the new law. However, as a proprietor you have the option of designating one or more bedrooms where the occupants can smoke.

The No Smoking Legislation does not apply to these designated 'smoking' rooms. The designated room should have a ventilation system which does not ventilate into any other part of the no-smoking premises and should be clearly marked as a room in which smoking is permitted. You are not, however, required to designate any rooms for smokers, if you do not wish to do so. Communal areas of your premises will be required to be smoke-free.

Those responsible for smoke-free premises will be required to display 'No Smoking' signs at the premises - for example, at the entrance of the B&B, in a prominent position. Failure to comply with the new law will be a criminal offence.

Leg-iron said...

I'd support the right of any B&B/pub/hotel/shop owner to allow or disallow whoever they please from entering their premises. If they are happy to reduce their customer base, then it should be their choice. It will reduce their customers by more than is apparent. If I saw a shop with a sign saying 'No blacks', I wouldn't shop there. I'm not black but I don't want to support bigotry so I'd shop somewhere else.

I think they should be allowed to make their preferences clear, rather than pussyfooting around the issue.

I won't condemn homosexuality as a lifestyle because it doesn't affect me. Seriously, it does not. However, I do get fed up with the militants who keep popping up, having big marches, getting massive media coverage and then claim they are oppressed and ignored. Those people annoy me not because they are gay but because they are noisy, pushy gits.

What people do in private is no concern of mine unless they have a box of bullets and are writing my name on them.

As for promotion of gay lifestyles in schools - there should be no sexual promotion of any kind in any schools. Don't they have bike sheds any more? We had only one very biologically-correct lesson, only taught to those studying biology as a subject, and it was late in the O-level course.

We'd already figured it out by then anyway, and computers and the internet hadn't been invented yet.

Schools should not have any influence over any lifestyle choice of any kind whatsoever. Just give those kids the facts and let them work out the details themselves.

They've always managed perfectly well before.

There's a long rant in this one but first, work.

subrosa said...

Anonymous said:

'You may (or may not, depending on your preference) be pleased to know that smoking is actually permissable in B&B’s (bedrooms only) if the owner wishes to allow it, because the bedrooms are classed – like hotel rooms – as a person’s temporary “home” and as such are one of the very few exemptions mentioned in the Health Act. So much so that some B&B’s and hotels now specifically state “smoking permitted in bedrooms” as one of their “facilities,” in the same way as, prior to the ban, “all non-smoking” or “non-smoking throughout” was often trumpeted as a “facility” by establishments run by anti-smoking owners.'

Anonymous that is not the law in Scotland for B & Bs. If you wish a copy of the law then email me.

Stewart Cowan said...

Leg-iron,

I must insist!

Two men or two women doing things to each other in private doesn't affect you or I at that moment in time.

Agreed. At least in physical terms.

But that's not the end of the story.

The social engineers are fully aware of what they are doing.

You know that the PC agenda is partly to divide the population into separate infighting 'communities'.

This is true of the 'gay' community, but it is even worse, it is destruction of the family and our values - both of which are necessary for a free society.

So, they make homosexuals a special case - based on behaviour that was considered a sign of mental illness until the '70s when pressure from militant homosexuals made the psychiatrists remove the condition from their lists.

Anyway, read The Overhauling of Straight America if you haven't already. See what they planned over 20 years ago and how it has come to pass.

If homosexuality is so wholesome, ask yourself why brainwashing has been necessary for the masses to 'accept' it.

Remember that just ten years ago, 7 out of 8 Scots voted to keep Section 28.

Were they homophobes or realists?

Uncle Marvo said...

@Stewart - you're right.

You need to look no further than this if you want a serious conspiracy theory. Forget the NWO and all that rubbish, the social engineering and divisiveness is all you need to get you back to the Third Reich.

Now, please can you say no more? I'm in the middle of writing a book and comments like these are spoiling my plot. It was supposed to be a surprise.

:-)

John Pickworth said...

Little Black Sambo said...

"No! Do they really?"

Not sure if you actually wanted a response; but yes they do. Although I'm mystified why they think I have any special insight. Certainly my point of view (as expressed above) often surprises those who assume I'd whip out a rainbow banner and begin a passionate tirade about 'my people'.

Bollocks to all that.

As LI alludes to (and I applaud his enlightened views totally) there should be no discrimination - be it positive or negative. Both are equally as evil and do more to corrode society as a whole than the imagined harms they seek to prevent. Its simply illogical and ridiculous to discriminate on the basis of race, sexuality or gender. When push comes to shove, I doubt many really give that much of a damn either way. So why do we allow the State to craft ever more complicated rules?

Same for this indoctrination in our schools. Last time I looked, a relationship usually involved just two people now it seems the teaching faculty, headmaster and Minister of Education are all in bed with us too. I can only imagine the newspaper problem pages in a few years time. I'm not surprised the kids are confused, as an adult I lost the plot with all this crap long ago.

So what if some B&B doesn't want to accept a gay couple? As long as their refusal is courteous I see no harm in them declining such business. Having finally gotten around to reading the story, I see that the proprietor met the couple concerned in the car park and according to the declined guests the B&B owner apologised. End of story. But no, the hurt party decided make it a police matter and then go running to the newspapers. Why?

So, to reiterate my original comment... I'm with the B&B owners on this one and if that tramples upon the fallen heroes of Stonewall, tough!

Stewart Cowan said...

I didn't mean to sound bolshy there, by the way.

Uncle Marvo said...

@Stewart

... and you certainly didn't. Not from where I'm standing.

Stewart Cowan said...

Uncle Marvo,

If you had read (and understood) the article I linked to, you would be better informed.

As for the NWO. What would YOU prefer to call the emerging global system with centralised lawmaking and taxing power?

It is literally a New World Order. Politicians keep referring to it as such.

It's not a 'theory' anymore.

Uncle Marvo said...

@Stewart:

I understand the NWO as you linked it. It isn't the NWO that the conspiracists keep harping on about.

The NWO, as I believe the cognoscenti see it, is a more insidious thing, reminiscent of the Reich which Hitler started to create and which was responsible for world anarchy, in the end, as well as his downfall in the bunker.

I believe the one to which politicians refer, the one to which Common Purpose subscribe, is one which they think they can justify not only to themselves, but also to others.

Not me though.

Each to his own, as they say in France.

Stewart Cowan said...

It is the spirit of the Third Reich. We already have a politically united Europe with many of the institutions Hitler wanted to install if he got to rule the continent.

There are many other institutions now which are doing the same thing on a global scale - under the pretext of 'spreading democracy'. 'saving the world from climate change', etc.

If they love the planet and its people so much, why do they keep making war, taxing us till the pips squeak, reducing our freedoms, etc.?

indigomyth said...

Stewart Cowan,

Stewart, Stewart, Stewart. Still peddling the line that you are a defender of freedom, are you? Despite all the times when I have conclusively shown that you are not? When I have had to practically force the logical conclusion from you that you do not support free speech, and parental choice in education, despite your claims.

How on Earth can a society be 'free' that does not even allow individuals to do as they wish with their own bodies? What weird definition of 'freedom' are you using where the state can dictate what people can and cannot do in their own homes, over some nebulous idea of weakening society and a subsequent taking over by some undefined entity.

//and thus society becomes weaker and collectively we are less able to stand up to the increasing amount of authority which is depriving us of our freedom//

Hmmm, so what you are saying is that people cannot do what they want with their own bodies, because you want to use them for your own defence? What of the authority you want to wield to control what people do with their bodies? Is that not a threat to freedom?

You really are pathetic Stewart, you know that?

//And as a strong and free society depends on strong family bonds, they are actually destroying our society. //

Does it? Really!? I thought it was based on the state staying out of peoples lives, and not using violence to get them to stop doing consenting things with their bodies?

It seems strange that you claim to support freedom, when denying individuality? When you degrade the individuals capacity to choose how to dispose of their own bodies, on the basis of what "society" wants or needs.

//I invite you and the other sane bloggers to join myself and the likes of Cranmer and condemn the promotion of behaviour which is contributing to our downfall.//

I imagine that they will never do that - because unlike you, they actually believe in liberty, in the freedom of individuals to choose how they can use their body.

//You know that the PC agenda is partly to divide the population into separate infighting 'communities'.//

The population is divided Stewart. Because, you know what Stewart, people are different from one another. People naturally form themselves into their own groups. And that is good. That is a sign of freedom, a society that has different, mutually consenting communities in it. Only a tyrant tries to destroy those communities to serve the "value" of cohesion and unity.

So, I know that you are very bad at conducting logical conversations, Stewart, but just answer these questions: How can people be free, when the State dictates what they can and cannot do with their own body? When the State uses violent threats to persuade or dissuade people from mutually consenting actions? And, why, if you believe that it is acceptable for the State to tell people what they can and cannot do, do you oppose the smoking ban? Is that not merely the State 'looking after' the health of the population?

indigomyth said...

Leg-iron,

I was wondering what you thought of this post by Stewart Cowan:

http://www.realstreet.co.uk/2010/03/letter-to-malawis-high-commissioner/

Do you think that Stewart is a defender of individual liberty and freedom?

Stewart Cowan said...

Indigomyth,

I thought we had realised some time ago that we had reached an impasse.

Your comment that a divided society is "a sign of freedom" shows how little you comprehend about what is happening in the UK and why.

Don't worry, Leg-iron understands this too. Not that we agree on everything, but on this we do.

Look at history - divide and rule politics are used to take freedoms away. It's a fact. You are wrong, but I wouldn't be so mean as to call you "pathetic" because you just need to educate yourself.

I wrote to Malawi's High Commissioner because the people in his country have the right to keep homosexuality a criminal offence without threats from the West.

Why do you imagine that the devisers of our sick and declining society have the authority to determine morality half the world away?

indigomyth said...

Stewart Cowan,

//I thought we had realised some time ago that we had reached an impasse.//

Only because you are an inveterate liar, who is incapable of following logic and reason. You use words like "freedom" when you mean subjugation, you use "liberty" like all would be dictators. Because you want to resort to violence to resolve issues. Because you want to deprive individuals of freedom, because you think what they are doing is wrong. Isn't that true? Because you want to send to prison people who have not attacked anyone, who have stolen nothing, merely on the basis of what they do with their genitals, isn't that true? Isn't it true that you want to arrest people if they articulate beliefs that you do not agree with? Indeed, under your ideal system, Leg-iron would now be arrested because he does not believe that homosexuality is evil, and has had the temerity to articulate that belief. Is that not true?

Tell me, why do you want to control people? Why are you so devoted, so utterly and completely committed to enslaving people, under threat of violence, to your standard? To making people, act, think and talk like you? What sort of evil is in you, that you think that good?

//Look at history - divide and rule politics are used to take freedoms away. It's a fact. You are wrong, but I wouldn't be so mean as to call you "pathetic" because you just need to educate yourself.//

My point was that it is natural for people to join communities of like-minded individuals, and inherently illiberal to force them to mix. That is what I said, wasn't it? Divide and rule politics may have been used in the method you suggest, however the aim is exactly the sort of illiberal, freedom sucking laws that you advocate.

//I wrote to Malawi's High Commissioner because the people in his country have the right to keep homosexuality a criminal offence without threats from the West.//

No they do not. You have not answered my questions regarding the freedom of the indivdual, and how you can justify claiming that you support freedom, even while you advocate laws to control people.

//Why do you imagine that the devisers of our sick and declining society have the authority to determine morality half the world away?//

Because I do not believe state morality is relative. It is true and universal. It is wrong for the state to dictate what someone can and cannot do with their body. It is wrong in the UK, it is wrong in Malawi. It was wrong 5,000 years ago, it will be wrong 5,000 years hence. That is the authority on which I dictate that the state has absolutely no right to control an individuals body. Do you understand?

Also, I imagine you are again confusing your own morality with that of the states. Do you think that Iraqis have the right to imprison Christians? Do they not have that right? Yet that is exactly the right that you are claiming Malawis have over homosexuals, and it is sickening that you do this.

Stewart Cowan said...

Indigomyth,

I'm too busy to engage with trolls today.

Just answer me this: do 'consenting adults' have the right to kill and eat each other?

There MUST be a moral framework for society to be strong and free. I favour the tried and tested one and you opt for the socialist one which is designed specifically to remove your freedom through destroying morals, values, family life and sense of belonging and community.

Uncle Marvo said...

Can't see what's wrong with killing and eating each other, as long as there's consent.

Is that wrong?

indigomyth said...

Stewart Cowan,

//Just answer me this: do 'consenting adults' have the right to kill and eat each other?//

Well, they have the right to be killed, via euthanasia, should they wish it, and the right to direct that they be eaten (as is the custom in parts of the world, and as Billy Connolly joked about once), so yes, I do think that they do. Because they are these things called "adults".

//There MUST be a moral framework for society to be strong and free. I favour the tried and tested one and you opt for the socialist one which is designed specifically to remove your freedom through destroying morals, values, family life and sense of belonging and community.//

Hmm, call me socialist, yet I am libertarian, implacably opposed to socialism. Indeed, you are more socialist than I, for you have a fundamentally communitarian and collectivist outlook, and favour the sacrifice of individual liberty for collective "gain"; the drafting of individuals to your cause, so that you can control them.

//remove your freedom through destroying morals, values, family life and sense of belonging and community//

Ho ho ho. I have a community - they are called my friends, work mates, family. What more community could I need? I have a sense of belonging - it is called being good at my job, being confident in my relations, because I know the people I relate to.

How fragile must your sense of belonging, or community, be in that it can be so easily destroyed by someone next door to you engaging in a little "anal loving"? How timid must your family be, that it is torn down by the act of a stranger kissing someone of the same-sex?

And, why must the moral framework be based on restricting what you can and cannot do with your own body? How does that work? How can you be free, if the state decrees what you can and cannot do with other consenting adults? You have a logical problem - you become enslaved by doing the very thing that you claim (unwisely) that will protect you from enslavement. It is absurd.

I would also note that Cranmer is not in the same league as you - he does not advocate state control of the sexual activity of consenting adults (for that I credit him).

NB, I am not a troll. I troll would not answer. You are again, typically, avoiding debate, logical discourse.

If you decide to consider things even slightly, start with this
http://mises.org/daily/3867

---

Uncle Marvo,

//Can't see what's wrong with killing and eating each other, as long as there's consent.

Is that wrong?//

I would say it is wrong, but I would not wish to make it illegal. Much in the same way that I disagree with human sacrifice in religious rituals, but provided it is done consentingly, I see no reason to forbid it. I fail to see how it reduces my liberty? How do you think it would affect you?

rosec63 said...

Leg-Iron - came on here to look for your commments on proposed smoking in car ban! Can't wait :)

One of the lesser known policies of Mrs Thatcher in 1979 was to remove all the nanny state TV adverts on health and safety she quite rightly considered them an affront to the intelligence of the electorate,this is just more of the same but with 'suffer the little children' thrown in for good measure.

Hah!

opinions powered by SendLove.to