»

[Bear]

Originally Posted by KimyReizeger

and by arguing against this restriction you ultimately argue against an entire ideology, within which pot-smoking is a mere trifle.

No shit. The New dividing line in British politics is liberal vs authoritarian, didn't you know?...

[Stripey]

Originally Posted by Bear

The whole opposition to gay rights back then was based on prejudice and a desire to see the state legislate private morality

Um...you can't really use that argument because the gay rights movement has resulted in the government legislating private morality.

Pro-homosexual protesters lobbying to have homosexuality and related hate-crimes enshrined in law annoy me as much as the christian nutbags who oppose them and want their own agenda made law. Both are groups of ideological extremists attempting to use the law to enforce their moral prejudices on wider society - and this includes pro-legalisation of drugs campaigners - None of whom have any business telling the rest of us how to live our lives.

[Stripey]

Originally Posted by Bear

No shit. The New dividing line in British politics is liberal vs authoritarian, didn't you know?...

utter simplistic drivel.

[Bear]

Originally Posted by Stripey

Um...you can't really use that argument because the gay rights movement has resulted in the government legislating private morality.

Pro-homosexual protesters lobbying to have homosexuality and related hate-crimes enshrined in law annoy me as much as the christian nutbags who oppose them and want their own agenda made law. Both are groups of ideological extremists attempting to use the law to enforce their moral prejudices on wider society - and this includes pro-legalisation of drugs campaigners - None of whom have any business telling the rest of us how to live our lives.

Yes I can. Wanting a piece of discrimination like section 28 removed and same sex couples to have the right to form civil partnerships is not the same as wanting legislation outlawing hate speech on the grounds of sexual orientation. The strong anti-hate stuff came much later. As far as I remember, in the early 1990's they were fighting for equal rights, not special protections, that came later and is a different issue entirely.

[Stripey]

Originally Posted by Bear

Yes I can. Wanting a piece of discrimination like section 28 removed and same sex couples to have the right to form civil partnerships is not the same as wanting legislation outlawing hate speech on the grounds of sexual orientation. The strong anti-hate stuff came much later. As far as I remember, in the early 1990's they were fighting for equal rights, not special protections, that came later and is a different issue entirely.

No, it's the same issue - demanding the removal of section28 was itself an act of a prejudicial special interest group attempting to get the government to use the framework of the law to impose their own particular morality on wider society.

[Bear]

Originally Posted by Stripey

utter simplistic drivel.

Actually it was a joke, it was something Menzies Campbell used to say given every opportunity.

So what's the dividing line, if any? Last decent attempt I remember to find it was here ALL NEW! Political Survey

[Stripey]

Originally Posted by Bear

Actually it was a joke, it was something Menzies Campbell used to say given every opportunity.

So what's the dividing line, if any? Last decent attempt I remember to find it was here ALL NEW! Political Survey

Who cares what the dividing line is, apart from pricks who want to tell other people what to do?

[Stripey]

frankly it is a sad state of affairs when people will show up to a protest like this, yet nobody could be arsed making their voices heard in aberdeen against the invasion of Iraq.

[Stripey]

Originally Posted by Stripey

frankly it is a sad state of affairs when people will show up to a protest like this, yet nobody could be arsed making their voices heard in aberdeen against the invasion of Iraq.

Oh thats right because your right to get high is more important than reigning in miltarly adventurism by our government which has caused the deaths of over a million innocent civilians in the last 5 years alone.

[Bear]

Originally Posted by Stripey

No, it's the same issue - demanding the removal of section28 was itself an act of a prejudicial special interest group attempting to get the government to use the framework of the law to impose their own particular morality on wider society.

Ummmmm, no. Wanting the removal of section 28 was wanting a piece of discrimination removed. Section 28 had the effect of making it illegal for teachers to 'promote' homosexuality which, at that time, made it illegal for teachers to say that homosexual relationships were equal with what the state was, at that time, promoting (hetrosexual marriage). Wanting that removed was not an attempt to get special rights or privileges, it was an attempt to have equality. At that time the law prevented the two being called equal. Political correctness and all that came way after the first anti-section 28 campaign.