@BigD

Quote:

the BBC should actively seek to redress its “innate liberal bias”.

The problem is reality has a liberal bias.

@BrianK

Daily Mail - Its business usual new director general arrives

Quote:

... the Corporation’s soon-to-quit director-general, Mark Thompson, has admitted that it had been guilty of a ‘massive’ Left-wing bias in the past and that there had been a ‘struggle’ to achieve impartiality. But a new report based on analysis by an independent think-tank of all the BBC’s TV output over the past five years suggests the reasons are deep-seated. The New Culture Forum says: ‘The assumptions of programme-makers are frequently sufficiently apparent . . . to alienate viewers and listeners with a more conservative outlook on life.’ The report’s author Dennis Sewell, who worked in BBC news for 22 years, concluded: ‘Insufficient care is taken to avoid coming across to audiences on the Centre-Right as preachy, politically correct and sanctimonious, and to avoid appearing to establish the Left-liberal consensus position as the “norm”. ‘Polemical, political drama and comedy continue to be monopolised by Left-of-Centre writers and performers.’ The report also accuses the BBC of being over-solicitous towards Islam — in marked contrast to its treatment of Christianity. The Forum, whose patrons include Education Secretary Michael Gove, singles out the drama Frankie’s Story, which portrayed British soldiers in Afghanistan as thugs. It was described by Gulf War veteran Colonel Tim Collins as ‘a stab in the back’ for the military.

Doesn't sound particularly healthy unbiased public broadcasting to me

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@Nimrod

Quote:

I value marriage and recognise that spreading the benefits does not threaten my own security.

Your marriage is under threat of being redefined as per every other married person in the UK. Marriage will be no more than an formal agreement between two persons and over time may be redefined to become an agreement between a large polygamous group of individuals. All mention of consummation, gender complementarity, the importance of male and female role models for children and assumptions that society is first and foremost concerned with the protection and nurturing of our children will instead be replaced with a selfish individualistic INTOLERANCE AND INEQUALITY directed towards anyone who dares question the ideals of the liberal / progressive mindset! How you feel this doesn't affect you is mind-numbing to say the least!

Any civilisation that has turned its back on marriage and also had such disregard for the lives of its unborn children (abortion rates running at near 200,000 a year) and its elderly (we routinely debate euthanasia and suggest our elderly are a burden) that we have, has not lasted very much longer! It's time the UK reflected on where it is heading

Last edited by BigD on 19-Jun-2012 at 12:50 AM.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Your marriage is not under threat. You and your partner made your marriage arrangement based upon the mutually agreed upon conditions. That someone else wants a slightly different condition has no bearing whatsoever on your marriage.

As for parent roles - married or not kids will have a mom and a dad or two dads or two moms or a single mom and no dad or whatever. Whomever chooses to be in that relationship will be there. Having 'marriage' assigned to it has no bearing either. Some kids simply will have 2 same sex parents running the household.

inequity directly at anyone questionting liberal ideas is just poppycock. There's no inequity there those who don't like the idea of marrying another same sex partner can, shock, not marry a same sex partner. It's no different if you find a woman unsuitable to you, you don't have to marry her. In order for you to not marry her it's not like you have to forbid her to marry to prevent you from not marrying her.

As for intolerance - 'tolerance of such hatred as you display is cowardice' Intolerance of views that divide people and make less than equal citizens is indeed the honourable choice.

Quote:

Any civilisation that has turned its back on marriage

Again pure bunk no such real life example exists.

Last edited by BrianK on 19-Jun-2012 at 01:58 AM.

@BigD

Quote:

BigD wrote: Your marriage is under threat of being redefined as per every other married person in the UK.

You know something, the length of this thread and the amount of posts you placed in it probably amounts to more than the entire discussion going on with this subject between all the political parties, religious institutions & the general public combined...

and yet, you still haven't grasped the reality or the facts of any of it...

You claim "Your marriage is under threat of being redefined as per every other married person in the UK."...

Yet despite everything you have posted you have failed to grasp the simple fact that neither you or anyone else's current marriage status is NOT going to be redefined or changed in the slightest...

The marriage certificate that you may or may not has already signed if/ when you got married will remain as it always was, no one is going to force or even just ask you to sign a new one and no one is changing the status or definition of your current marriage...

Your marriage certificate whether made through a registry office or on religious premisses already is a formal agreement and always has been...

You go on with your scare mongering by claiming this will lead to INTOLERANCE AND INEQUALITY and yet you blatantly choose to ignore the fact that you are the very one spreading your own INTOLERANCE AND INEQUALITY against other section of society here...

So why not go and actually read about the proposed changes and take the time to comprehend and understand them and you will maybe finally realise that if successful these new laws will not have the slightest effect on your marriage, instead of spouting utter nonsense on a subject you clearly have no idea about...

As for your crazy comment about "civilisation", all I can say to that is... awe gawd...

_________________

@Franko

Quote:

So why not go and actually read about the proposed changes and take the time to comprehend and understand them and you will maybe finally realise that if successful these new laws will not have the slightest effect on your marriage, instead of spouting utter nonsense on a subject you clearly have no idea about...

I seem better briefed than you! Marriage as an institution will be categorically changed, watered down and made far more of a general agreement than it is now. When married couples go to dinner / the theatre / any social engagement they will inevitably be introduced to a same-sex couple who will broadcast to them that they 'got married too' even though what they committed too is completely different to the historical / biblical and widely held view of what constitutes the institution. We'd be perpetuating a intricate hoax that the two relationships were the 'SAME', in the name of (false) equality! It will effect the Government forms married couples fill in, the laws we are asked to abide by and it will affect everyday parlance so the word 'partner' will completely replace the word 'spouse' or 'husband' or 'wife'. All these WILL effect my marriage.

In my opinion the same-sex couples that would partake in this ceremony would continue to badger their liberal MPs / the National Secular Society / Stonewall etc until they can have the 'white church wedding of their dreams'. As I've already pointed out this might not even be necessary as the ECHR judgement could legalise same-sex ceremonies in churches through our courts! This will impinge on my church and hence effect 'my marriage' or people's understanding of it anyway.

Quote:

As for your crazy comment about "civilisation", all I can say to that is... awe gawd...

I suggest you read some more history! How naive of you to suggest this hasn't happened before! We should learn from historical mistakes not try and disguise it as progress!

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Quote:

Marriage as an institution will be categorically changed, watered down and made far more of a general agreement than it is now

Gay marriage isn't a threat to marriage. Divorce is the threat to marriage and you appear OK with that? You're blaming the wrong issue for Marriages problem. If you want everyone to be married simply ban divorce.

Quote:

historical / biblical view

If norms were moral, we'd still have slaves and women wouldn't leave the kitchen. Slavery is clearly a historical fact and biblical view. As is the subjectation of women.

Quote:

We'd be perpetuating a intricate hoax that the two relationships were the 'SAME', in the name of (false) equality!

This is you judging 2 other people's love and relationship as not as good as your own. You simply don't believe two women can love each other the same amount you love your wife. If anything brain studies of love can detect slight differences between people but no noteable differences of same or opposite sex love.

Quote:

All these WILL effect my marriage.

No they won't. You will still call your married partner your wife. The only effect on your marriage would be if you feared you made the wrong choice, then get divorced, then remarried to a guy. Your problem is you made the wrong choice and married the wrong parnter. Your problem is you choose the easy way out, divorced, instead of fixing the problem. The problem here isn't the guy.

@BigD

Quote:

BigD wrote: @Franko When married couples go to dinner / the theatre / any social engagement they will inevitably be introduced to a same-sex couple who will broadcast to them that they 'got married too' even though what they committed too is completely different to the historical / biblical and widely held view of what constitutes the institution. We'd be perpetuating a intricate hoax that the two relationships were the 'SAME', in the name of (false) equality!

You really are genuinely delusional in your beliefs on every aspect of this subject aren't you...

Hmmm... so there you are having a nice wee dinner party, or a night out at the theatre or at a social engagement and "inevitably" some "couple" who happen to be the same sex, for some strange reason decide to "broadcast" to you and your good lady wife those dreaded words that haunt your every waking moment "we're married too"...

Good gawd... it's the end of civilisation as we know it, your marriage is now in ruins, the kiddies all over the UK will all now grow up to be intolerant and demand inequality and run riot in the streets, the churches & religion will fall & crumble, there will be no more laws and anarchy will consume our society, the word partner will cast a nasty stigma upon everyone making them feel so ashamed they'il have to offer up their first born in sacrfise to appease the gawds, governments will fall and the price of cheese will sky rocket, no one will remember or care who Shirley Temple was, my pet Hamster will run away to sea & join the Brownies...

Yup, your right we're all doomed to die in hellfire & brimstone all because John& Davie or Alison & Cheryl just so happened to announce to you at you're nice wee dinner party those unimaginable & unforgivable three little words "We're married too"...

Hmmmm... didn't realise until now that things we're really that bad and the end was nigh... is it too late for me to repent my sins and borrow your copy of the old testament so that I can try and save my sinful soul and book my place in heaven where I can live in eternal craziness with all the other loony tunes...

_________________

@BrianK

Quote:

No they won't. You will still call your married partner your wife. The only effect on your marriage would be if you feared you made the wrong choice, then get divorced, then remarried to a guy. Your problem is you made the wrong choice and married the wrong parnter. Your problem is you choose the easy way out, divorced, instead of fixing the problem. The problem here isn't the guy.

The 'marriage' that I entered into with my wife will be changed / altered / damaged / watered down by the redefinition. I will have to use Government paperwork with 'Progenitor A' and 'Progenitor B' instead of husband and wife so as to not upset the homosexuals. I won't see my wife referred to as my wife on my passport, driving license etc because yet again political correctness will lead to a change in the forms. My church will eventually be refused a license to conduct marriages due to European Court of Human Rights guidance that once the redefinition takes place they won't be able to pick and choose which 'brand' of marriage service they want to conduct even in order to obey Bible teaching. This will change the way my church celebrates marriage if we can't even have marriages in our own church!!!!

Your arguments are very individualistic as is our culture at large! You value a single 'white wedding' ceremony for homosexuals more than you value the benefits to society the current definition of marriage has brought to the UK over centuries! Our children should be encouraged to desire to get married and have a stable monogamous relationship and the current definition of marriage should continue to be taught in our schools. Homosexual relationships by their very nature advocate promiscuity and casual sex. A 'same sex marriage' is a sham and an oxymoron; homosexuals do not live in monogamous relationship by and large and thrive on the thrill of the chase, the danger of chance encounters and hence reap a shorter life expectancy hence depriving their adopted 'children' of their parents from an earlier age;

Quote:

One study in an internationally recognised journal found that homosexual men have a life expectancy of up to 20 years less than all men. Ref: Hogg, R S et al, ‘Modelling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men’, International Journal of Epidemiology, 26 (3), 1997, pages 657-661

Why you'd want to further pander to people who live a homosexual lifestyle in this way I do not understand. It must be for no other reason than to further a homosexual agenda / liberal progressiveness while turning a blind eye to the destructive effect you will have on the marriage / family dynamic of this country. I must assume you just have a gut feeling that equality means 'SAME' and whatever destruction, pain, suffering and damaged children you create from the social experiment that results, you'll sleep well knowing that you made the world and theoretically more 'liberal' and 'equal' society while our communities further degrade around us and a new generation of sexually confused children struggle to find an identity having been deprived either a mother or a father!

Kidding yourself that the only people this affects are people who practice homosexuality is delusional. For one thing the take up for same-sex marriage will be minimal because believe it or not the homosexual community don't view it as a priority!

Telegraph - Gay marriage poll suggests doubts in gay community
Quote:

Just over one in four – or 27 per cent – said that they would marry their partner if the law allowed it, a similar proportion to those who would consider a civil partnership.

Quote:

only a minority (39 per cent) said that it was a “priority for gay people” and just over a quarter thought there was “no need” to change the law because civil partnerships, introduced under the last government, already confer the same legal rights as marriage.

They don't view themselves as second rate citizens as you are trying to make out as they have Civil Partnerships for their profoundly 'DIFFERENT' relationship. They have all the rights they want and it is purely an aggressive attack on marriage and the nuclear family.

@Franko

Stop your ranting and see the facts;

Latest news from the Scottish Parliament Consultation;

Quote:

About 50,000 of the respondents are understood to be opposed to changing the definition of marriage, winning the consultation battle by more than 2:1.

Listen to the people and stop this madness!

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Quote:

As I've already pointed out this might not even be necessary as the ECHR judgement could legalise same-sex ceremonies in churches through our courts!

And this is the main lie that you keep using while trying to spread fear uncertainty and doubt, ready for a 1960's style session of queer bashing. The ECHR is required to observe its own rules which in article nine guarantees freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. Claiming that religions that proscribe homosexuality will be forced to change their beliefs and carry out same sex marriages, is as ridiculous as claiming that golf courses will be required to hold football matches on their greens.

Quote:

We should learn from historical mistakes not try and disguise it as progress!

We have learned from previous mistakes, which is why this country is no longer a theocracy, as it was under the rule of Cromwell.

P.S.
I just read your post 389, and substituted the word "black" in the place of homosexual, and used "interracial" instead of gay. The result read like some of the stuff churned out in support of the apartheid regime that used to rule South Africa, or the KKK in America.

Quote:

My church will eventually be refused a license to conduct marriages due to European Court of Human Rights guidance that once the redefinition takes place they won't be able to pick and choose which 'brand' of marriage service they want to conduct even in order to obey Bible teaching.

Have you tried reading article nine of the European Convention on Human Rights, instead of just spreading horror stories that you heard from a friend who met a man in a pub whose brother in law knows somebody who...etc. etc. etc.

Last edited by Nimrod on 19-Jun-2012 at 10:53 PM.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

12th June 2012 Daily Mail - Cameron CANNOT protect Church gay marriage laws says Justice minister

Quote:

David Cameron’s promise to protect churches from gay marriage laws could hit legal hurdles, a justice minister admitted yesterday. Crispin Blunt said it would be hard to guarantee that clergy would not face court challenges if they refused to preside over same-sex unions. ‘We’re seeking to protect, indeed, proscribe religious organisations from offering gay marriage,’ said Mr Blunt, who announced two years ago that he is gay. Crispin Blunt said it would be difficult to guarantee that clergy would not face court challenges if they refused to preside over gay marriages Crispin Blunt said it would be difficult to guarantee that clergy would not face court challenges if they refused to preside over gay marriages ‘That may be problematic legally, but the proposal the Government are putting forward is that marriage should be equal in the eyes of the state whether it’s between a same-sex couple or between a man and a woman. We’ll have to see what happens with that.’ Mr Blunt’s comments appear to undermine reassurances from both Downing Street and Home Secretary Theresa May yesterday that churches will not be affected by the law. ... The European Court of Human Rights is likely to overturn the promised safeguards meant to assure churches they will never have to conduct gay weddings, they said. The statements came in a fiercely-worded response to the consultation on same-sex marriage that is due to end tomorrow.

How do you explain that away with your knowledge of Article 9? It's a real risk and you should factor it in. The Government's reassurances on this aren't worth the paper they're written on.

Quote:

We have learned from previous mistakes...

Answer me this then: Why is an advanced industrialised democratic country killing 200,000 unborn infants every year and not questioning it? What makes us any better than the Nazis gassing Jews in the concentration camps?

Last edited by BigD on 19-Jun-2012 at 10:48 PM.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Quote:

BigD wrote: Answer me this then: Why is an advanced industrialised democratic country killing 200,000 unborn infants every year and not questioning it? What makes us any better than the Nazis gassing Jews in the concentration camps?

Happily for you we as an "advanced industrialised democratic country" are a lot better than the Nazis who gassed Jews during the holocaust...

Otherwise if we weren't any better than that you would not have the freedom to express your crackpot views, spread your lies and scare mongering, post your bias, hatred and intolerance's you have for other sections of our society and all the other BS that you've spouted here...

So think yourself very fortunate that despite your intolerance & hatred you have towards other sections of society, that you have the freedom to spread here all those lies, venom & hatred without the fear of being gassed by some slightly more (only slightly) intolerant Nazis than you...

PS: Are you really that hate filled & nasty or is this all just for the sake a having a wee debate as you've nothing better do do, as I'm really beggining to wonder about you now !!!

_________________

@BigD

Quote:

Answer me this then: Why is an advanced industrialised democratic country killing 200,000 unborn infants every year and not questioning it? What makes us any better than the Nazis gassing Jews in the concentration camps?

So, not satisfied with discriminating against homosexuals, and possibly doing to them what the Nazis did. (hint Jews may have been the largest group in the death camps, but they werent alone), you are now expanding your campaign to outlaw abortion. What is your next target, contraception, divorce, theatre, Santa Claus?
As I said at the beginning of this thread homosexuality is not being made compulsory, and neither is abortion. Nobody is trying to make you do something that goes against your beliefs, but you insist on trying to make the rest of us comply with your rules, and because people have the right to make a different decision than the one you want, it gets right up your nose.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Can't you take a step back and look at society at large rather than your little mircrocosm of existence just for a minute?

As a society our taxes are used for the state sanctioned murder of 200,000 babies a year and we are still considering legalising euthanasia in the recent case of Tony Nicklinson. What makes us so different from the the Nazis on the basis of those 2 facts? Sobering thoughts you have to agree! Let's add the destruction of marriage into the mix!

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Quote:

The 'marriage' that I entered into with my wife will be changed / altered / damaged / watered down by the redefinition

Your marriage is a contract between you and your wife recognized by the State. My marriage is a contract between me and my wife recoginized by the State. The terms of the marriage agreement only are upheld on my end and my partner's end. Allowing others to have a marriage agreement in no way changes your agreement with your wife. These others are not part of your marriage.

Quote:

Government paperwork with 'Progenitor A' and 'Progenitor B' instead of husband and wife

Progenitor would only be used if you had kids. Many marriages don't. Or some perhaps 1 partner has a kid but the other partner does not. If you're really worried about a form there are fairly easy fixes how about
(circle one) husband / wife and (circle one) husband / wife. There you get to keep whatever term you see fit. Fixed! You can sleep good tonight.

Quote:

. I won't see my wife referred to as my wife on my passport, driving license etc because

Strange practice in the UK. My wife is neither listed on my driver's license nor on my passport in the USA.

Quote:

My church will eventually be refused a license to conduct marriages

You may be right here. Afterall churches were forced to marry blacks to each other and forced to marry whites to blacks in the USA. The net result was - not a darn difference. Today there are churches that are refused a license to conduct gay marriages. So either way there will be a church that's impacted in a way.

I hope you also realize the Church of England was in part established so a King could obtain the dissolution of marriage. Really you should be trying to destroy that church as divorce is against marriage.

Quote:

You value a single 'white wedding' ceremony for homosexuals more than you value the benefits to society the current definition of marriage

Because net there's more value in allowing people the right of selfdetermination. I can't say my love is stronger than Jill and Sarah's or Bob and Dan's or BigD and Mrs. BigD. To each the partner in the agreement determines if they have sufficent conditions that marriage is acceptable within their relationship.

Quote:

Homosexual relationships by their very nature advocate promiscuity and casual sex

But not all are. Nor do we disallow men and women from marrying each other if they are promiscuis. If this is your reason then you have a double standard. And likewise blacks are not smart enough to have the right to vote and women to dumb to work -- ooh wait we fixed those offensive stereotypes by enabling the right of self determination for both blacks and women.

Quote:

Why you'd want to further pander to people who live a homosexual lifestyle in this way I do not understand

I think you're spot on here. You don't appear to understand the right of an individual to determine their own course of life.

Quote:

. I must assume you just have a gut feeling that equality means 'SAME' and whatever destruction, pain, suffering

Seperate but 'equal' is not equal.

Quote:

They have all the rights they want and it is purely an aggressive attack on marriage and the nuclear family.

The same arguement was made that slaves were happy being slaves. And in no way is the expansion of marriage to the other 5% of the population an attack on the other 95% of straights.

Last edited by BrianK on 20-Jun-2012 at 02:21 AM.

@BrianK

Comparing people who practise homosexuality with slaves and blacks is not relevant. The race and colour of skin people are born with if fixed whereas homosexual behaviour isn't. Slavery is obviously abhorrent and sadly it continues today in the form of sex trafficking but practising homosexuals lead free lives and have access to Civil Partnerships so your argument is flawed.

People with homosexual urges can either act on them, be 'out and proud' or seek help and some revert to heterosexuality or not act on them and live a single life. I know of people from all the above outcomes. Your view that homosexuality is fixed like gender, colour and race cannot be substantiated with science and yet we know it is true that people do leave the homosexual lifestyle. This is not a correct comparison. You've probably been to one 'Gay Pride' too many if you believe with such conviction that people are born gay!

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

You do realise don't you that yours, mine and everyone else on this planet ancestors were all "black" once...

Or is that offensive to you too !!! (maybe there should've been a law against it)...

Michael Jackson had a good go at changing his skin colour (think he's green now)...

Wonder how someone whom has always been homosexual reverts to being heterosexual if the were never heterosexual in the first place...

If certain people should live a single life in your infinite wisdom then perhaps the rest of us should be going round shagging every female in sight as it's not a natural state for a human male to be monogamous... seems only fair to me...

Sex trafficking eh... strange how you think that's the only form of human slavery in existence today...

Hmmm... there's a theme running through this now... it's all to do with sex with you... sex, sex, sex...

This is where I'd normally make a smart arse comment at your expense but there's no need really, as now it's all perfectly clear what this entire subject is really all about for you...

Need I say more...

_________________

@BigD

Quote:

Comparing people who practise homosexuality with slaves and blacks is not relevant.

I agree! And follow up with I didn't do that.
What I did do is compare the behavior and arguements of one type of discrimination with another type of discrimination. It's very easy to neglect a person as an individual and stereotype them into a narrow group definition. It's what you are doing to people who are gay. People are born gay, hatred, such as you have, is learned and is truly a choice. In fact there's over 1900 different species of animals documented having homosexual behaviors. Humans are but 1 of many.

In the United States we have the case where a majority of States it is still legal to fire someone because of the sexual choices they make outside of work. It's legal to not rent apartments or sell cars to them. It's legal to kick them out of hospitals so they aren't there in the final moments of their partners. Being gay in no way effects the ability to work, the ability to live, or the ability to love. Because they choose to do it slightly differently than the mainstream is no reason to reject gays from anything.

I'm highly doubtful I'd love MrsD but I don't reject her from marrying whatever schlep that comes along.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: In the United States we have the case where a majority of States it is still legal to fire someone because of the sexual choices they make outside of work. It's legal to not rent apartments or sell cars to them. It's legal to kick them out of hospitals so they aren't there in the final moments of their partners.

Feck me, I've never been one to be a great supporter of a lot of things and ways in the states but if that's true then the states and by the sound of it is in an even sorrier state (no pun intended) than even I had believed the so called "land of the free" to be in...

Never could figure out why anyone would want to live there, especially my sister in Portland Oregon who does nothing but whine about how she can't afford to be ill etc.. and yet the idiot still chooses to stay there !!!

All she has to do is move back to Scotland and she can be as unhealthy as she want's safe in the knowledge it won't cost her a penny for medical treatment...

_________________

@Franko

Things are improving slowly for homosexuals in the US. Some, less than half though, have included sexual preference in their anti-discrimination laws. As well they should. We should be judging people as individuals and how their individual characteristics fit the situation. Don't rent to people because they are gay? That's blantantly unfair. Don't rent to people because they can't afford it or are bad credit risks. Fire someone for failing to perform their job duties, not for after hour activities that don't impact their job performance.

Heck we even saw the US military fire translators and monitors in the middle-east because they were gay. Somehow being gay was more of a threat than a terrorist? WTF!

It is time for discrimination to end, period. Certainly we can't force individuals to stop their discriminatory ways. However, society represents us and it should always be driven to represent the best of us. Keeping discrimination is not the best, it's the worst.