Topic: Invisible Sky Monster Podcast 8 - Infinite Monkey and Stuart Robbins

[Parrot]

Website | RSS Feed | MP3 Download

In this episode I'm joined by my senior gay issues correspondent Infinite Monkey, and my senior astronomy correspondent Stuart Robbins of the Exposing Pseudoastronomy podcast to have a gay old time talking about issues relating to gay rights.

[Chew]

"senior correspondents"? You must have quite the podcasting team.

[Parrot]

"senior correspondents"? You must have quite the podcasting team.

Sure do!

I've got a whole team working behind the scenes here in the same way that I'm the mogul of a media empire!

[Belgarath]

"senior correspondents"? You must have quite the podcasting team.

Sure do!

I've got a whole team working behind the scenes here in the same way that I'm the mogul of a media empire!

Sorta like Rupert Murdoch.....

[Parrot]

I'm EXACTLY like Rupert Murdock! 

[Belgarath]

I'm EXACTLY like Rupert Murdock! 

For some strange reason this brought to mind a line from Idiot Abroad 2:

Karl: "I think I just imagine my boss naked"
Ricky: "You imagine Rupert Murdoch naked"


Thanks for that, Parrot........  Now, are you SURE you're exactly like Rupert Murdoch?

[ickle_Tayto]

I am only 40 mins or so into the podcast and already I look like a lunatic on the street as I am violently disagreeing with you on so many things..

But then I am a liberal... I don't get the libertarian mentality at all. it makes no sense to me.

If you have a license to operate a restaurant, pub, cafe, printing press and you should have to operate it to a set opf national standards, including employment or serving the public.. otherwise you are back to segregation and signs like "NO BLACKS, NO DOGS, NO IRISH, (& now) NO GAYS.

Also, with regard to outing yourself at any given opportunity.. How often do you (Parrot) say "well as a straight man...". It's a part of you not the whole of you. it's the same for people who are gay.

it's not the only thing they ever think about.. sometimes they think about science, or the Muppets, or how did the T-rex develop those teeny tiny arms..

I dunno..

Maybe once I've listened to the full podcast I'll be less disagreeable :oP

xx
me

[Parrot]

Happens to me all the time too.  I know it can be a little frustrating listening to podcasters saying things you disagree with. 

On the topic of whether public businesses should be allowed to discriminate as they see fit, I talked a little more about that at the end of the show.  I'll quote it here in case you haven't finished it yet:

I disagreed with Jeff regarding whether privately owned businesses should have the right to discriminate as they see fit.  Now I know it's not entirely sporting to hit Jeff with an argument at a time when he has no ability to respond. But I just thought of an angle to the discussion that I think should be mentioned, and it would be awkward to arrange another session just to hash this out now. And this *is* my podcast so I do have the privilege of putting in the final word. I'll try to represent Jeff's side of the argument as best I can, but I'm sure he'd have more to say about it in response if he was given the chance so please don't think that I've completely settled the disagreement.

Anyway, Jeff said during our conversation: "Part of that is you serve everybody, and if you can't handle that then shut your doors."  What I want to add here is an example of why I'd argue that this just isn't true.  There's a gym that's opened up in my neighbourhood that caters only to women.  The idea is that a lot of women feel more comfortable working out in that kind of environment.  If I wanted to join up, I'd be flat out denied.

And there are other businesses out there that cater specifically to some minority segment of the population.  Stu talked for a little bit about a matchmaking service that catered only to the gay community. So I think it's untrue that when you offer some sort of product or service that you're obliged to do so for *everybody*

I think Jeff's response to this would be that there are valid and invalid reasons to exclude groups of people from your service.  He was making some arguments along those lines during the conversation.  My question in response to that would be "who gets to decide what's a valid or invalid reason to exclude people?".  I think it's pretty clear that private businesses do have a right to selectively cater to only a subset of the population, and I'd argue that they should be allowed to do so at their own discretion.

My position on this is pretty much the same as my position on free speech, and the book I was trying to remember during the conversation was "Freedom For The Thought That We Hate" by Anthony Lewis.  I hold to that old saying of "I disagree strongly with what you say, but I will fight to my death for your right to say it." - I think we have to be very careful about how we limit people's freedoms, and that just because we don't like what they might do with that freedom, that's not, in itself, a good reason to limit it.

Now, in the case of widespread discrimination, if it's to the point where a certain group of people is finding it very difficult to even integrate into society, then I can see the point of making laws saying that you can't discriminate.  I believe I even said something along those lines during the podcast.

But I think we have to be careful and make sure there's a real need for these kinds of laws before we implement them.  I think you're wrong if you think that if we didn't have anti discrimination laws today we'd see a large resurgence in signs forbiding entry to blacks or other groups (I 'm not sure I understand the "NO DOGS" reference... aren't businesses allowed to refuse entry to pets?)

I think in today's climate, putting out such a sign is a sure way to make sure that you're ostracized by everybody - and that's the way it *should* work. Hopefully we'll get to a point where refusing these specialized services to gays generates just as much social pressure. 

I think the scenario against homosexuality is a lot different than that which the black community faced decades ago.  I don't think it warrants the same level of legal intervention.

And here's another interesting question - those of us on who are advocating for homosexual marriage are always telling Christians that their churches will not be forced to officiate at gay marriages if they don't want to.  But that requires us to give churches permission to discriminate in just this manner.  Do you think this should not be the case? 

[Parrot]

Also, with regard to outing yourself at any given opportunity.. How often do you (Parrot) say "well as a straight man...". It's a part of you not the whole of you. it's the same for people who are gay.

it's not the only thing they ever think about.. sometimes they think about science, or the Muppets, or how did the T-rex develop those teeny tiny arms..

I think you misunderstood the point of the discussion a little.  Stu wanted to talk about issues related to coming out, and my aim was to explore the question how and when people out themselves.  Stu and Jeff both had slightly different perspectives on this and I wanted to get an idea of their thought process.

I don't believe I ever endorsed any specific way of coming out of the closet.  When I questioned Stu about why he didn't say anything when we were talking about the shaman, I wasn't trying to rebuke him for that.  I was just trying to figure out under what conditions he thinks it's best to mention something like that.

[ickle_Tayto]

When I questioned Stu about why he didn't say anything when we were talking about the shaman, I wasn't trying to rebuke him for that.  I was just trying to figure out under what conditions he thinks it's best to mention something like that.

I got that.. My impression tho was that Stu just doesn't see the need to out himself in every conversation. He's not looking for the cue to interject with it. It was telling that he couldn't even remember you giving him the opportunity.

I think that's the future.. a time where people don't have to introduce themselves by their labels, they'll just get to be themselves...

[ickle_Tayto]

I think the scenario against homosexuality is a lot different than that which the black community faced decades ago.  I don't think it warrants the same level of legal intervention.

Really? Have you read this Rolling Stones articlehttp://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/one-towns-war-on-gay-teens-20120202?link=mostpopular2 ?
You may not see it, but it's there. The statistics around suicide and being gay are horrific (one website with info: http://www.youthprideri.org/Resources/Statistics/tabid/227/Default.aspx).
They may not be lynched in the traditional sense but people still end up hanging (sorry if that's overly crass).

In Ireland if a lesbian has a child, her partner (if she has one) does not get custody of the child should the mother die. The child would have no power of attorney or right to medical information should the non-biological mother fall ill.

The non-biological mother cannot adopt the child.

This needs to change.

And here's another interesting question - those of us on who are advocating for homosexual marriage are always telling Christians that their churches will not be forced to officiate at gay marriages if they don't want to.  But that requires us to give churches permission to discriminate in just this manner.  Do you think this should not be the case? 

this is a difficult one.. to be honest a church wedding is sort of meaningless.. it's the window dressing people want to have, but it has no legal status. When you sign the marriage register you are civily recognising the marriage. That's the important bit.. the non-religious bit. I could get married in a church tomorrow, but if I do not sign that register then I am not legally married and get non of the tax breaks or benefits.

I think the church (any church - catholic, protestant, mormon, hindu, buddhist, muslim, orthodox, jewish, pagan etc) should have no influence on the civic marriage register.

after that I think I'd leave it up to the individuals involved.

**Oh by the way.. the No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish was a reference to signs around britain and parts of the states banning certain sections of society from establishments.. as in Blacks & Irish were equivilent to dogs.. you wouldn't want them in your bar or coffee house.

[Parrot]

I think the scenario against homosexuality is a lot different than that which the black community faced decades ago.  I don't think it warrants the same level of legal intervention.

Really? Have you read this Rolling Stones articlehttp://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/one-towns-war-on-gay-teens-20120202?link=mostpopular2 ?
You may not see it, but it's there. The statistics around suicide and being gay are horrific (one website with info: http://www.youthprideri.org/Resources/Statistics/tabid/227/Default.aspx).
They may not be lynched in the traditional sense but people still end up hanging (sorry if that's overly crass).

Well, I agree that bullying in schools is a terrible thing, but that doesn't change my point that it's a fundamentally different problem to that of "No Blacks Allowed" signs. 

And if you'll remember, my position on this allows for government intervention in this case.  Public schools are government funded institutions, and I stated quite clearly that we should expect the government to require some sort of anti discrimination policy attached to that funding.

So I'd be fully in support of laws that require schools to take reasonable actions to prevent bullying and to help those being bullied.

[ickle_Tayto]

Public schools are government funded institutions, and I stated quite clearly that we should expect the government to require some sort of anti discrimination policy attached to that funding.

So what about Private Schools? Do you believe they should be free to victimise gay students to their hearts content?? most students don't have a whole lot of say in where they go to school.. it's not like they can choose to go to another if their parents are insisting on them going to that particular private school.

Also, the bullying and discrimination carries on. You may not see it. but it's there. people get passed over for promotion/get harrassed on the street (this has happened to me, *to clarify, I'm bi, and have been approached by a group of men in a threatening manner on a very main street in Dublin after they had seen me and my companion making out)...

anti-discrimination laws are there for a reason. they come first, public opinion comes after.

[Parrot]

Public schools are government funded institutions, and I stated quite clearly that we should expect the government to require some sort of anti discrimination policy attached to that funding.

So what about Private Schools? Do you believe they should be free to victimise gay students to their hearts content?? most students don't have a whole lot of say in where they go to school.. it's not like they can choose to go to another if their parents are insisting on them going to that particular private school.

Also, the bullying and discrimination carries on. You may not see it. but it's there. people get passed over for promotion/get harrassed on the street (this has happened to me, *to clarify, I'm bi, and have been approached by a group of men in a threatening manner on a very main street in Dublin after they had seen me and my companion making out)...

anti-discrimination laws are there for a reason. they come first, public opinion comes after.

Private schools accept money directly from parents, and these parents have a voice in how their children should be looked after.  If bullying becomes a problem at a certain school then the parents should certainly demand that the school look into doing something about it.  And private schools are generally quicker to act on problems like this than public schools, because they have the authority to take action rather than waiting for permission from the government.

But really, I'm not sure either scenario is a perfect solution.  I don't believe there's any way to really stamp out bullying, but perhaps there are things schools can do to help.  Perhaps you could make an argument that schools should be legally required to take reasonable action to prevent student abuse on school ground, and if they don't they're guilty of negligence.  That's not an anti discrimination stance, but it would apply just the same.  I would be behind that kind of legal action.

But I don't see any good legal solution to the problem you describe of being passed over for promotion or being hassled on the street either.  Anti discrimination laws aren't going to help you there.  Things will steadily get better as the LGBT community continues to put its message out there and public opinion continues to shift.

[Parrot]

I've been thinking about this issue a little more, and I've come to the conclusion that corporations should be forced not to discriminate.

I believe strongly that we should be very careful how we limit the rights of individual people.  But in spite of what the US Supreme Court may want us to believe, corporations just aren't people.  And corporations rely on the government for their very existence.  Without the rules of limited liability imposed by the government, corporations could never form.  So these are fundamentally government supported institutions, and I think that gives the government the right to regulate them in this manner.

I still think privately owned businesses should be able to discriminate willy-nilly, but I'm on board with forcing corporations to implement anti discrimination policies.