In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, girlsown-
>1. Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour,
>ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief,
>political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority,
>property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be
>If you really believe, as Buttiglione apparently does, that
>homosexuality is a sin and that marriage is an insitution designed for
>women to have children with the protection of a man and that all single
>mothers are bad mothers then you really shouldn't be representing an
>organisation that supports the apparently despised liberal values of
>fairness and equality for all.  And yes, if that isn't being a bigoted
>right-wing fundamentalist, what is ? Though obviously these are not
>values everyone would despise.

Fun though this is, I feel certain Helen A will soon tell us to put a
sock in it...

Nevertheless, and until that sorry day, I think it's perfectly possible
to imagine a world-view which regarded some acts as sinful but didn't
discriminate structurally against those known to perform them.  I might
for example regard gluttony as a sin, but I wouldn't for that reason
select students for thinness or react adversely to one weighing 300

Also, on a point of accuracy, he didn't say single mothers were bad
mothers.  He was using the idea of a single mother and a single father
getting married as an analogy for something-or-other.  There was an
implication that both parents might like getting married, but that was

I don't think he said he despised liberal values either, which don't
have to be the same as enthusiastic agreement with anything people might
do.  What happened to the ideal of toleration, which is not the same as
warm acceptance, but more a kind of organised shrug, a chacun a son

I do think the response to this guy has been OTT.  
Diane Purkiss
Girlsown mailing list
For self-administration and access to archives see
For FAQs see

Reply via email to