lol...I'm a nice straight person!

I do think it works both ways. I think homophobia still exists in a major way, and as a result gay people may develop heterophobia.

I'll reiterate once again that I don't think that sexuality is a choice. Acting upon it is obviously a choice, if we accept that we can "choose" to be celibate. I don't think that people should live a lie. We only get one life, and not living it according to your lights just because you're a bit different to the social norm is wrong.

I wouldn't (haven't) thought twice about introducing my kids to my gay friends. However, I don't make an issue of it. They have asked, and I have tried to explain that its not an issue

.....lol...................I've even said "when you bring boyfriends, or girlfriends home, your Dad will not be happy". Frankly I'm not bothered as long as they're happy. I think their Dad wouldl find it more difficult if they are lesbian. As I say he'd have trouble accepting anybody going out with his little girls so he will take longer to adjust to their being women anyway. I quite like their growing up.

but also some opinions need to be challenged, some beliefs need to be challenged, an opinion shouldn't be immune to scrutiny

I do know that but I see too many who won't even begin to understand others
Thanks

your sexual orientation is not chosen
your last sentence kinda bothers me as it's too much like when people claim not to be racist but and then say something racist

I've never heard of anyone who's heterophobic
the only times I mainly see that term is when it's used tyo attack lesbians, gays and bisexuals
the homophobes will attack people who want equality as heterophobes for disagreeing with the bigoted

Yes, but perhaps Mona doesn't think that homosexual and bisexual relationships are as acceptable as straight ones - that doesn't make her a bigot. I know you haven't called her one and are reserving judgement, but so many other posters here have.

Now if she had been refusing to work with, live with or eat with Howard then peole would have a stronger argument for calling her bigotted. But there is no evidence of this. Perhaps she was wrong to mention her son in what was a business task (we won't know for sure until the show comes out) but for other people on this thread to call her bigotted is wrong based on available evidence. For me, the bottom line is - will she discriminate against gay people in the work place? So far, from what we can see, the answer is no.

I've never met anyone who is hetrophobic (I always assume the 'breeders' soubriquet is meant in fun), but I have certainly met homosexuals who openly admit that they think the planet would be a better place without the opposite sex.

Not that they have any desire to bump half the population off - they just see a sort of single sex utopia.

And I'd actually count some of these people, both male and female, as friends. Which is why I would have so much trouble writing off someone for one mildly homophobic remark.

Exactly!

The people I mention in my post above were quite prepared to work and be friends with people they found sexually incompatible yet the still held quite an extreme view.

you are a bigot if you think same-sex couples are less acceptable

In your eye's I dare say that's true.

But if you are going to bandy that word about for relatively minor instances of homophobic behaviour then it becomes devalued and people such as that grotesque who runs the church that pickets funerals in protest about the US tolerance of gay rights do not receive the opprobrium they so richly deserve from the label: bigot.

It also makes it look as if you have a chip on your shoulder.

I don't know about that. Certainly where I work they wouldn't distinguish between "mild" and "extreme" cases of homophobia, or maybe they would but you'd still be quite severely reprimanded either way. And that's as it should be. And considering The Apprentice is a show which tries to mirror the workplace, it will actually be very interesting to see how they handle it.

Most companies now, especially relatively big ones like Amstrad, have very strict policies where this is concerned and they wouldn't, or shouldn't, count it as anything more or less serious than racism. And I'm not sure people would accept the term "mildly racist" as particularly permissible.

We should probably wait and see it before making any judgements on Mona though.

how is it relatively minor? there's a whole load of consequences when many devalue relationships! you can be a bigot for anything from discriminating over anything or are you gonna redefine the word?
it's not devalued when it's used accurately

But in this instance you haven't even seen what she said nor do you have a clue about the context.

You and many others just steam in and call her a bigot and a nasty person with no actual evidence beyond a tabloid rag. (Tabloid rags being known for their sensitivity to Homosexuals ).

Even if she does turn out to be seriously homophobic the bahaviour of those who have convicted her without even seeing the evidence, let alone allowing her the basic human right of a trial will be guilty of behaviour every bit as disgusting as anything of which she may be guilty.

Isn't the denial of basic human rights the fundamental reason that homophobia is now considered unacceptable?

A TRIAL? Really? You're entitled to a trial if you break the law, which I don't think anyone is seriously alleging she has done.

Clicky

I love that the person whinging about spoiler tags is the first one to mention Margate

well done you!

Well if it's a metaphor then you can hardly claim she's being denied a "basic human right" then can you? A trial is a basic human right, a metaphorical trial is not.

Nonsense.

You are just getting desperate now and playing with words.

It is, in this day and age, considered a basic human right (or tenet of civilised behaviour if you insist in playing silly beggers with words) that an accused person is entitled to have the evidence both for and against them examined and to have that evidence weighed diligently in a dispassionate manner.

What has happend in this thread, the other 'homophobic' thread and general comments on the board is a complete abrogation of those priciples and makes those guilty of that abrogation look like little more than an overexcited rabble.

I'm still hoping that what she supposedly said is pure tabloid distortion as I really like her otherwise.

Maybe, but that's an Internet discussion board for you. It doesn't really matter what we say on here, it doesn't have any bearing on her or the situation.

If the case was serious enough to warrant any kind of formal action (and it probably isn't) then absolutely this procedure should be followed. Indeed, to use my analogy from earlier, if it was in the workplace I would totally expect it to be handled in just the manner you describe. But this thread isn't a formal procedure, it's completely disconnected from the incident and is (interestingly so, I think) exploring people's reactions to what has allegedly taken place.

Also, I don't think it's that pedantic to make a distinction between civilised behaviour and human rights. It's not civilised if someone pushes in front of me in a queue but I can't claim my human rights have been abused. Human rights abuse is a very serious thing and a line we would find it very difficult to cross on Digital Spy.

Finally, while I would agree that it would be best to wait for the actual episode itself and to see the alleged incident before making our minds up, there is a chance that it will be edited out and if that is the case then we really do only have the tabloid report to go on. And just because it was reported in a tabloid doesn't mean it didn't happen. If it didn't happen, Mona should take that up with the editors and if she doesn't then all we are left with is the report and a lack of context. Which is a shame but that doesn't mean it should be ignored.

Only in as much as it is a reflection of real life.

In real life, if someone make a mildly homophobic comment and you can treat it quietly and gently, you have a chance of educating the person making that comment and getting them to see that their fears are unfounded and could be very hurtful.

This works gratifyingly often. Particularly if you can paint a picture of the way they could hurt someone.

If, on the othert hand, someone goes off on one and starts calling them an evil bigot - whether that person is gay or straight - it pretty well means that you have lost the opportunity to make any progress - at least for the time being. It may well make them harden their stance.

The same thing applies to racism.

And, I'm afraid that unless I see or hear concrete evidence, I am not going to make any judgement at all on the matter.

Tabloid papers are simply too unreliable and sensation seeking to allow them to inform your judgement of a person.

That's all fair enough, although I don't know if it should be swept under the carpet just because tabloids are unreliable. I just hope we DO get to see it so we can disregard the report and judge for ourselves. I just wonder if we will, considering the preview and the Radio Times write up made no mention of it at all.

so you think people who condemn homophobia are as bad as the homophobe? get a grip

I think people who become hysterically enraged when they have not seen any real evidence and have no idea of the context are certainly as bad as homophobes.

Isn't that exactly the basis for homophobia or racism?

The belief, based on no or inadequate evidence, that some group are a threat to decent (i.e. belonging to the same group as the holder of the belief) people.

So your and other's vitriolic attacks on Mona without having any valid evidence other than third hand hearsay does indeed place you in the same camp as homophobes and racists.

Something of which you should, if you have any decency, feel thoroughly ashamed.

I disagree. You are a bigot if you treat a gay person without respect merely because they are gay. You are not a bigot just because you disagree with homosexual relationships.