Extreme Political Correctness

New Posts

C

Casshew

Former Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
27,884
Reaction score
88
Wedding painting 'unsuitable for gays'

 A painting of a bride and groom has been removed from a register office in case it offends gay couples tying the knot.

The wedding scene, and another of Romeo and Juliet, has been ruled unsuitable for single sex civil partnership ceremonies, which start next month.

Register Officer Janet Taubman said: "We had two pictures up before. There was a picture of a groom signing the register with a young bride and the other was of Romeo and Juliet on a swing.

"They were innocent but the new paintings are less likely to offend. We are looking forward to the civil partnerships. People have been waiting a long time."

The old pictures at Liverpool Register Office have been replaced with landscapes while the Wedding Room has been renamed The Ceremony Suite.

Liverpool City Council said: "The world's moved on. It's not just weddings any more - that's why it's the Ceremony Suite.


http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1607705.html?menu=
 
The article does go on to say:

This decision wasn't based on the new civil partnerships. They do all kinds of things - citizenship ceremonies, non-religious naming ceremonies and heterosexual partnership ceremonies.
"The wedding pictures did not reflect any of these. They have been moved to a more prominent position in the reception area."

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1607705.html?menu=

So the pictures are still there, just moved.
 
When I read stuff like this I wonder if it is even true. The article is "thin" on details. I don't read about real complaints in the article. Just that someone moved paintings to a less prominent location.

Note the place this occurred is Liverpool, England.

Imagine you are hetero and the place you go to "tie the knot" has paintings of gay couples in wedding apparell gazing longingly into each other's eyes....the shoe were on the other foot, so to speak..

Is it "extreme political correctness" ???

(Political correctness btw was a term liberal groups used to indicate intolerance within their own group. It was appropriated by conservatives seeking to attack and focus negative attention on tolerance efforts by liberals.)
http://www.diversityweb.org/researc...ues/politics_campus_diversity/pc_briefing.cfm

Perhaps, someone decided to move this painting as a harmless gesture with a motivation to be sensitive or respectful to gay couples honoring their love and committment on a day that is special to them? Maybe this level of kindness is extreme.

But why did someone write an article on it? To indicate "wow" what kind, sensitive, public servants we have?
 
Well, what's next? The other night on Boston Legal the firm represented a guy in an annulment case. His wife was seeking one when she learned he had been sexually unfaithful to her several times during the marriage with...ahem...his cows. The bovine, not human, variety. I mean, hey, why not? :rolleyes:

Eve
 
Ummm, unless the article was misquoted above, the paintings were moved to a MORE prominient location, not less. It sounds like someone making a fuss over nothing - a little rearranging to account for the functions of each of the rooms - a bunch of wedding stuff in a room for citizenship swearing in and such does sound out of place.

It's not extreme political correctness, it's extreme attempts to scare conservatives, done by the media (they love scary stories, those get linked and re-reported).
 
It would have been easier to ad a photo of a same sex couple.

Anyone who is offended by the image of a couple getting married is WAY too easily offended :bang:
 
Casshew said:
It would have been easier to ad a photo of a same sex couple.

Anyone who is offended by the image of a couple getting married is WAY too easily offended :bang:
Click to expand...


Ditto. :cool:
 
Casshew said:
It would have been easier to ad a photo of a same sex couple.

Anyone who is offended by the image of a couple getting married is WAY too easily offended :bang:
Click to expand...
I don't know which is worse---overreaction by the thin-skinned or the gutless caving in of those yelled at by the thin-skinned.
 
Too close to call Billy
goat.gif
 
BillyGoatGruff said:
I don't know which is worse---overreaction by the thin-skinned or the gutless caving in of those yelled at by the thin-skinned.
Click to expand...
Except in this case I can't find anything to suggest anyone, thin-skinned or otherwise, reacted to the pictures, much less overreacted. Or that there was any caving-in done. Were there complaints that prompted the action?
 
BillyGoatGruff said:
I don't know which is worse---overreaction by the thin-skinned or the gutless caving in of those yelled at by the thin-skinned.
Click to expand...
How about false stories that suggest gutless caving in and overreactions when none exist? Or leaping on a false interpretation to further an agenda?

Two paintings were moved to a MORE - not less - MORE prominent location because a room that was for marriages was becoming more of a general room where many types of ceremonies took place.

You should read the article - the writer did what he could to suggest a problem, but it was a simple redecoration, as the use of the office had evolved.
 
Details said:
How about false stories that suggest gutless caving in and overreactions when none exist? Or leaping on a false interpretation to further an agenda?

Two paintings were moved to a MORE - not less - MORE prominent location because a room that was for marriages was becoming more of a general room where many types of ceremonies took place.

You should read the article - the writer did what he could to suggest a problem, but it was a simple redecoration, as the use of the office had evolved.
Click to expand...
This assumes I give more than a passing rat's *advertiser censored*, but snce I could care less either way, why bother?
That's the problem with today's society--somebody, somewere is always trying to raise a stink, for some reason or another. The older get, the more I appreciate the mentality of the mountain men who moved into the wilderness to get the hell away from people with too much time on their hands and nothing to keep them occupied. God knows this is the Internet's second largest function, its primary function being that of delivering *advertiser censored*.
 
Maybe you should give a rats *advertiser censored* as to whether or not something is real before you get outraged over it.

There was no overly sensitive PC action here - just some writer reading too much into a little redecoration.
 
eve said:
Well, what's next? The other night on Boston Legal the firm represented a guy in an annulment case. His wife was seeking one when she learned he had been sexually unfaithful to her several times during the marriage with...ahem...his cows. The bovine, not human, variety. I mean, hey, why not? :rolleyes:

Eve
Click to expand...
Wedding photos of guys and cow? is that what you mean?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 208 more.
Total: 3,848 (members: 209, guests: 3,639)

Online statistics

Members online
209
Guests online
3,640
Total visitors
3,849
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,256
Messages
17,966,327
Members
228,734
Latest member
TexasCuriousMynd
Back
Top