McDonalds security guard stopped a gay kiss.

trinidadone

Edwardia wrote: »

Being LGBT ISN'T a lifestyle choice or a point of view.

Most of the people defending homophobia, racism etc tend to be Caucasian, middle aged, male and people who have never experienced discrimination themselves.

Because it isn't a problem to them personally, their perception is that it isn't a problem to anyone and that ppl like me who protest against being treated badly in real life and online by homophobes are politically correct whingers, rather than victims of threats, violence, hatred and discrimination.

A lesbian got chucked out of a pub today too, for kissing her girlfriend. Blatant discrimination.

I have to agree with alot of Edwardia thinking.

zagfles

Edwardia wrote: »

Being LGBT ISN'T a lifestyle choice or a point of view.

Most of the people defending homophobia, racism etc tend to be Caucasian, middle aged, male

Oh really? Evidence for this? Maybe like a PP you reckon you can tell peoples' age from their posts. But race as well? That's impressive.

and people who have never experienced discrimination themselves.

Which is probably just about no-one.

Because it isn't a problem to them personally, their perception is that it isn't a problem to anyone and that ppl like me who protest against being treated badly in real life and online by homophobes are politically correct whingers, rather than victims of threats, violence, hatred and discrimination.

TBH I've found that the biggest bigots are those who've been victims of bigotry themselves.

A lesbian got chucked out of a pub today too, for kissing her girlfriend. Blatant discrimination.

Quite.

Though maybe you should check where the most homophobic countries are. Here's a clue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory

What proportion of countries in which homosexuality is illegal have predominately "Caucasian" populations or governments?

Nick_C

Edwardia wrote: »

a security guard telling a gay couple that they cannot kiss in public is unacceptable.

On that point we are in complete agreement, and I made my views known quite strongly in my first post in this thread. However, I firmly believe that tolerance should be a two way street.

You assert that anything that you personally find offensive must be homophobic, and you therefore have the right to report these comments and have them removed. This effectively means you claim the right to try to censor anyone whose views differ strongly from your own. This intolerance strikes me as hypocritical. The world will only be a better place if we all try to be open minded and attempt to understand each other’s views and feelings. Censoring free speech puts us on a very slippery slope.

daytona0

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

Calling homosexuality unnatural, abnormal and an aberration is not an innocent remark.

Calling homosexuality natural, normal and a non aberration is also not an innocent remark.... They are loaded statements to make, and I'm not fully convinced that we could argue either side as correct right now.. especially when you consider the bottom line and the evolution of species.

Religious people may say that homosexuality is a sin, aberration, unnatural etc but in the USA, their intangible religious beliefs have been shown in the Supreme Court not to be as important as every citizen's right to equality under the constitution.

Religion is doctrine. It changes. I am therefore happy to hear of this.

In the UK we have equality and anti-discrimination laws. There is no legal definition for homophobia, but the CPS uses " Any incident which is perceived to be homophobic or transphobic by the victim or any other person ".

That is quite a broad definition.... I like the use of "perceived" though....this shifts some responsibility to the victim/other person in determining whether something is homophobic or not... clearly allowing some leeway and discretion to be exercised where homophobia is done in the context of a debate, or by complete accident. Don't you agree?

So a person who makes offensive remarks doesn't get to tell me in real life, what I should or shouldn't be offended by.

Well... I do believe that should be the case, otherwise "perceived" would open up the doors for many frivolous homophobic cases which would ultimately dilute those which are much more serious/important. So yep, I'm happy with allowing people to tell (or in this context make a comment/suggestion, as you are not obliged to follow such advice) you what is and isn't homophobic.

If I chose to report a real life incident, the police and CPS would decide whether it's in the greater public interest to prosecute the person for a hate crime, or whether they will just record it as a hate incident.

Aye, but does that apply to this situation?

MSE has forum rules which members sign up to. Some people then ignore them and make homophobic comments.

Not going to argue with that. But then again you have to also appreciate that people believe different things and a thread about homosexuality (especially when it ultimately turns into a heated debate) is going to evoke such opinions.

I will not debate homophobia, because it gives legitimacy to homophobes.

That is a silly thing to say. Many people hold such beliefs so they have legitimacy already, else there wouldn't be a concept of society (and by extension you might be castrated or beheaded like in other countries who do not have strong rights for members of society). If you don't remain open to the reasons why people may act like this then you will be closed minded, and you should never expect any change to take place in the world. You may also even expect gay people to exist on the peripheral of society.

The homophobe's belief that homosexuality is unnatural, immoral, an aberration etc etc is intangible. It's all in their head - or if religious, in their holy book. No-one can prove, in a court of law, that those beliefs are correct or that the god/s who supposedly said these things ever existed.

What about evolution theory? That is pretty clear on what our sexual organs are used for, what our anus is used for and the whole process of re-producing. Of course that is all theory and not something you could likely argue in a court of law, but by the same token can you legitimately prove that it IS natural, moral (ok that is easy because religion is doctrine) etc?

Whereas there are acts of law which give LGBT people protection, and there are forum rules about being offensive.

Which all boils down to a very interpretive piece of text you quoted. I haven't cared to check the MSE forum rules, but suspect that it would also be similar.

Quite probably, when people were told that they couldn't discriminate against black ppl or Irish ppl they claimed it was humour or political correctness gone mad but now hopefully few ppl would make racist remarks.

To an extent I would argue that this dilutes freedom of expresion, and our rights in general. Sometimes it is funny to have a joke about Irish people etc (ie comedians), and most people (Irish included) will simply take it as such. Then you've got some who just jump on it unnecessarily (which seems to be the whole basis of the person you quoted). There is a line between humor and discrimination and that is something which needs defining (presumably something you would not disagree with)

We haven't got to that stage yet with attitudes towards LGBT ppl.


However, in a society in the UK where all LGBT people can now marry and adopt children - or make other arrangements eg IVF and surrogacy - a security guard telling a gay couple that they cannot kiss in public is unacceptable.

Food for thought, but if I told you to get out of my shop because you had a big mole on your chin and it was insulting to my religion would you have the same powers against me under "discrimination"? Gay kissing makes people uncomfortable, and some people may say so in public. That is a fact of life. Just be thankful that they have very little room to act upon their potentially unacceptable behaviour (ie by knifing you, or getting you arrested) because of the extent at which you are protected by the law in UK. I'm not completely straight myself, but I have to say that the whole LGBT thing does my head in because people are much more than a label and their rights are nothing special when compared to other types of discrimination currently taking place in the country/world.

zagfles

daytona0 wrote: »

Calling homosexuality natural, normal and a non aberration is also not an innocent remark.... They are loaded statements to make, and I'm not fully convinced that we could argue either side as correct right now.. especially when you consider the bottom line and the evolution of species.

Evolution has resulted in homosexual people existing. So what is evolution supposed to prove? If homosexuality went against evolution, there would be no gay people! As mentioned above there does seem to be a genetic link between gay men and "super" hetero women.

JReacher1

zagfles wrote: »

Evolution has resulted in homosexual people existing. So what is evolution supposed to prove? If homosexuality went against evolution, there would be no gay people! As mentioned above there does seem to be a genetic link between gay men and "super" hetero women.

Ultimately evolution will lead to the entire human race becoming homosexual. It will take millions of years but the numbers will increase and ultimately everyone will be homosexual.

The same thing happened to the Dinosaurs, thats why they died out

daytona0

zagfles wrote: »

Evolution has resulted in homosexual people existing. So what is evolution supposed to prove? If homosexuality went against evolution, there would be no gay people! As mentioned above there does seem to be a genetic link between gay men and "super" hetero women.

I wasn't saying that it proves anything, as the theory of evolution is still technically a theory (but it is clear on how we reproduce). I am merely pointing out that it is difficult, if not impossible, to argue that homosexuality is either natural or unnatural.

Edwardia

Sexuality is on a continuum. If you think of it as a river, gay and lesbian on one river bank, straight on the other and the rest in the middle. Those in the river are the majority, but the gay rights movement has largely been led by gay men.

People within the river wanted to be included and represented so the letters to represent us all get ever longer eg LGBTIQQA which still doesn't include everyone. It is tiresome sometimes but I can certainly understand the desire for community and inclusion.

I want to live my life without homophobia, and there are laws in place to give me and my community some protection, in the UK.

What I am isn't wrong, I'm a person, not a lifestyle choice nor point of view. Homosexuality etc seems to be seen by some posters as an abstract concept rather than something which actual people are. That's why I don't debate it. I am, we are, ppl can't wish us away.

If the security guard had been at a McD's in Michigan, his actions would have been legal. A trans friend of mine in NYC said that outside of NYC, LA or San Francisco it would be unsafe for me to wear a tshirt saying 'Some People Are Bi, Get Over It'.

States in the US are being forced to accept that a ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. A rearguard action is being fought by some states, in the name of 'religious freedom' to allow bigotry and deny ppl perceived to be LGBT access to services - including emergency medical assistance.

There's a mismatch between what the laws state and what the population does.

Edwardia

JReacher1 wrote: »

Ultimately evolution will lead to the entire human race becoming homosexual. It will take millions of years but the numbers will increase and ultimately everyone will be homosexual.

The same thing happened to the Dinosaurs, thats why they died out

Dinosaurs were gay ?! How did I not know this. I'm gonna go look for a purple stegosaurus tshirt yay !

RichardD1970

There you go.



For someone who refuses to debate homosexuality/homophobia you don't half go on.