So it's ok to to have homophobic thoughts and feeling as long as when you forget to hold your puss in and it gets verbally expressed, you immediately apologise for being a homophobe?

The action shows what she is as a person. No kind of apology makes that acceptable. Non- homophobes simply don't have those kinds of thoughts going threw their heads for them to come out with in the first place.

I mean whatever the situation, if I where you blert out "Err, filthy N*****!" and then said opps! sorry! - That would make me less of a disgusting racist would it?

Some things show what you really think and can't be retracted.

Decent people don't have the indecent thoughts to blert out at unguarded moments: I don't blert out racist things ever as they are not in me in the first place. The only place I ever use the "N" word is on here as an example. It's a word stored in my example part of my brain not in my vocabulary part of my brain so would never be blerted out in any conversation for any reason.

All this shows is what she really thinks and that exposes her as a homophobe.

but repeating the same point ad infinitum is not going to change people's points of view. If they don't agree, you either have to find another way of convincing them (revise your argument) which may or may not work, or move on to someone else. I'd advise the latter if you have been arguing for some days.

Define 'Decent people'.

There are plenty on people who consider themselves to be perfectly 'decent' who do not consider homosexuality to be 'decent'.

Groups self validate, amongst other things, their definitions of decent and indecent.

What I do note, however, its that people can be mildly homophobic and still perfectly accepting of Gay people they know. They never make derogatory comments about them or their activities.

Rather unlike the hate filled vitriol that is directed at Mona simply on suspicion that she may have made a homophobic remark.

Well, I wouldn't say I was a homophobe, but I still feel that gay people are "other" to me. That view is not helped by one poster saying that his gay friends envisaged some kind of same-sex utopia. I find that quite offensive. At what point did all women (including me) for example get lumped together in this person's mind? It is partly views like that that keep the gay community separate in some way, and allow some bigotry to continue and surface sometimes.

Incidentally my colleague was lashing out last year at work, and there were rumours at the time he was gay, and couldn't handle it. He's now got a girlfriend, but is lashing out again and getting verbal warnings for his behaviour. No, he's not saying anything that's homophobic, he's just swearing and shouting at people several times a week. He's obviously fighting against something, though I don't know what, but if he is confused about his feelings, he certainly shouldn't be taking it out on his colleagues. There's more than one way to behave badly, and Mona should get a warning for expressing her views, but really it should be let lie otherwise. I wonder how her son will grow up, but that really is her own business that we can't resolve.

Well, that certainly isn't all of them!

Most gay people seem to find the idea as bizarre as hetrosexuals do.

I don't actually think any of my friends have said they would particularly like the idea. They've merely speculated that they could be quite happy in such an environment if that's where they found themselves.

The sort of people who actually wish for such a state are the far extreme and probably wouldn't wish to be friends with a breeder anyway.


That's rather unfair.

It's like dumping the entire hetrosexual community into the same boat as the most rabid homophobic nutcases.

And, if the people holding the view I mentioned have suffered a lifetime of abuse and discrimination it's not surprising that they might see a single sex world as some sort of sanctuary.

Or they might just be nutso - hetrosexuals don't have a monopoly of that.

No, the only thing that is allowing bigotry to continue, is people excusing such behaviour, by suggesting that somehow what some gay people do, reflects on every gay person, but also somehow justifies the prejudice.

We are individuals, and represent ourselves, as much as you may not like that.

You seem offended by being lumped together by one poster, yet you have done the same to me, hypocritical much?

Thanks, Mr Bo, you have touched on the issues that count - ie. this quibbling over degrees of bigotry/homophobia. Either it's wrong or it isn't and, in my book, it's wrong, there's no excuse for it.

Bigotry, regardless of who it's aimed at or how it's voiced, is, in a civilised society, wrong. And IF Mona made the comment that she's alleged to have made, then she is a bigoted homophobe and deserves all the condemnation that will come her way.

Honestly, it would make me far happier to discover that she didn't say this at all. Why? Because I'd prefer to believe that people - in 2009 - are past all this type of ignorance.

An expression of an ideal society being entirely of one gender seems to me to be purely sexist, rather than "heterophobic" - they're saying they want all of one sex to disappear, not all straight people. It's a little like a straight man saying that all a woman is staying in the kitchen and out of the public sphere. Or a straight woman saying that all men are useless and the world would be better off without them.

As such, it hardly separates "the gay community" apart from "the straight community".

If Mona said what she's been reported to have said, then I don't for one moment condone it. It's wrong, simple as. However, we haven't actually seen the relevant episode yet, have we? So shouldn't we reserve judgement until we see that she did actually say that.

Except for one small point.

A hetrosexual has no chance of nookie in a single sex world.

As sex is something that has evolved to be extremely important to us it rather mitigates against a single sex society for hetro's.

In that case both sexes will disappear as how can a single sex reproduce by itself?

Well exactly. And judging from how many straight people talk about members of the opposite sex, it sometimes seems like it's the only thing. How many women and men talk about how the opposite sex are "only good for one thing"? The entire panel of Loose Women for a start. Remove that "one thing" (as you do in the case of homosexuals) and you get "single-sex Utopia" being an even more attractive prospect.

Which is why I'd say sexism is the root cause of this particular idea, rather than heterophobia.

Although a cursory glance at many actual "single sex worlds" (male prisons for example) would suggest that heterosexuals wouldn't have NO chance at nookie. They'd just have to... adapt.


I dunno. Ask all those tabloid news editors who thought that the advent of IVF would turn Earth into some sort of Lesbian Mothership.

They still need to get the sperm from somewhere!

I'm not sure that just getting rid of women would make this utopian world a sanctuary. Sexist? its misogynistic actually! I think I'm much more than just a "breeder" based purely on the gender I was born into, or is that meant to be a joke? If you are gay, then surely you are more than your sexuality? Also surely you'd have to get rid of all heterosexual men for this utopia, or you'll have them up in arms about no sex!

***wearily******* Why can't we all just get along without making presumptions about what we're all about as individuals based on our sexuality or gender.

I'm positive it wouldn't but we were talking about the views of extreme homosexual men.


Of course it's mysogonistic. That was rather the point.

There was a balancing extreme view from misandrist lesbians.


I think you're taking this a wee bit too seriously.

I only brought it up to point out that there are a few homosexuals that have unpleasant ideas that are as extreme as raving homophobes.

So? You'll find certain individuals from any grouping who have extreme views.

It doesn't weaken the fact of Mona's homophobia if the quote is quoted accurately. Or lessen its offense.

That wasn't the point at hand when I brought it up.

Tern, If you keep jumping from one side of the fence to the other and back again as you are doing trying to play Devil's Advocate and Agree/Disagree just to counter every post, you will end up with splinters in your ar*e!

I'm not jumping from one side to the other.

I just don't agree that the majority of the population attach as much importance to this a a few people here seem to think they do.

There are a great many tthings that I personally find important that the majority of people don't.

And I find the 'you either agree 100% with everthing we say or you're obviously homophobic yourself' ever so slightly sickening.

I don't think the debate on here has really centred that much, if at all, on people's perceptions of what the public reaction will - or should - be. It's kind of irrelevant. Just because the majority of the population don't get worked up about it (though at what level of offense or irritation can we even set to say, yes, this is an "issue"?) doesn't detract from its importance. I don't think anyone has been suggesting this? Indeed, where there are issues of discrimination against a minority, is it not just a complete misnomer to be even considering the reaction of the majority in terms of the importance of an act of adverse discrimination? If that were the case, we'd never get anywhere.

I don't know if this is what you are suggesting, but it seems to me the discussion and level of reaction on here is no less significant because the public's reaction might not be so outspoken. Besides which, are forums like this not a representation of the public's reaction? Sure, it's one group amongst many, but a fairly diverse one demographically I should think.

I also don't think the vast majority have been saying there should be a full-scale public outcry, as I think you might be implying. Just that they feel personally affected by such comments, and that maybe they find it hard to understand why someone would not see the offence. But that's a world from saying this is a front-page worthy scandal and the public should start fetching stakes and pouring the oil, and if don't join in that you're also a homophobe.

If Mona's comments are true, then she should be removed from the show.

She shouldn't have the chance to justify her reasoning to SAS, and certainly not a lovefest "you're fired".

She's highlighted a serious issue, that some people still think and act like they are in the dark ages. Instead of the focus being her (and her probable zillion mags where she poses with gay people to "prove" she's "not homophobic") the focus should be on the issue.

Let Mona fade into obscurity (unless ofc you recognise her serving you in MacDonald's )

A lot of these coments on this thread smack not only of the Thought Police, but trying to ram your own views down someone else's throat in a way you would not accept yourself.

While it is obviously the only real limit on free speech that you should not advocate violence againat a particular group, I do not see why any individual should be forced to take a particular view about a group. Several religious group feel that homosexuality is morally wrong and most straight people obviously think there is some a bit peculiar about it (otherwise they might try it!). Nevertheless, society as a whole tolerates it in terms of acceptance of various lifestyles. That does not stop anybody saying their own view that they do not wish to have anything to do with a particular group and the "group" does itself no favours by trying to force someone to change their views.

If that is her view, fine - accept it in the same way that your views are tolerated.

Think what you like, as long as you do not use those thoughts to try and impinge on the rights of other individuals.

If she said what was quoted, I find it is quite a questionable attitude to have. I am quite insulted by the opinion that I would in some way be a harmful influence on children.

I absolutely adore children, and have done plenty of voluntary work with them.

I realise what she said would not necessarily impinge on any rights I have, but it feels like it is being said that people who are gay cannot be trusted with children, something that upsets me.

I cannot help how I feel, any more then she can, but surely, I have the right to express how I feel in response to comments she makes, if she made them?

I certainly thought that is how discussion works anyway..we each talk about how we feel.

I've certainly never tried to tell anyone how to think, but I like to think I can help change opinions, by allowing an insight into something they may not know much about.

I think a lot of these harmful opinions come from a place of ignorance, something which is not necessarily the opinion holders fault...

I think people are missing a vital point. Mona was not born in Britain, she comes from a continent where 90% or more of the countries do not tolerate homosexuality and is illegal in many places.

She's probably been born and raised with the idea that homosexuality is wrong and (not to say her comments - which I haven't heard - are acceptable) but her views are probably cultural, and well...in a way, she can't help it, if you get what I mean.

It's like racists who have children who then become racists etc etc.

I suppose you could say she needs to be educated, but at her age it probably would't do any good.

My dad is much older then Mona. He was raised Catholics and held a very dim view of homosexuality.

However, I think when he realised I was gay, it helped break some of the pre-conceptions he had about homosexuality, and it really has benefited our relationship.

I think people can change, but only if they want to.