First off, it's about using reason and rationality, not ramming opinions down people's throats. Is the greater danger not that of a prejudiced adult enforcing their opinions on a child? Not saying Mona has done this; we don't know what she has said. But generally this sort of thing can and does happen. Childrens' views are more easily influenced whereas at least the adults on this forum and in general have a greater capacity for developing their own views.

Second, we don't - as a society - just limit freedom of speech to cases of inciting violence. We also see a societal need to limit freedom of speech, where - for instance - a person's reputation or character is defamed. So it isn't just about tackling another evil (violence in your example) but exercise of the freedom itself can be harmful to others and so we balance it with other freedoms, rights and values, like dignity for instance. So we can't necessarily put freedom of speech on an unassailable pedestal - they are other freedoms and rights we have to think about as well.

Thirdly, I don't quite see the leap in your argument from religious views and those apparently of "most straight peoplle" to what society thinks. I would argue we're now a largely secular society anyway, but even so, religions can also be accepting of homosexuality and increasingly so. Plus, religion doesn't mean society any more. Cheerio Middle Ages. Moreover, some religious views could be construed as limiting the freedoms and rights of women - is this then acceptable because this is what some religious people think? Bearing in mind, as I said, we have other freedoms to protect. Last of all, I really don't get your point about straight people. If they're straight, isn't that rather the point why they won't be trying out homosexuality? I find certain parts of the female body rather peculiar, but it doesn't mean I'm "tolerating" people who think otherwise.

We won't even go into those straight people who do indulge in peculiarity...

'Childrens' views are more easily influenced whereas at least the adults on this forum and in general have a greater capacity for developing their own views.'

As much as it pains some people to hear, as far as other people's children are concerned it's no one else's business how they are brought (obviously excluding child abuse and neglect).

'We also see a societal need to limit freedom of speech, where - for instance - a person's reputation or character is defamed. So it isn't just about tackling another evil (violence in your example) but exercise of the freedom itself can be harmful to others and so we balance it with other freedoms, rights and values, like dignity for instance.'

General comments do not consititue defamation of character especially when these are opinions. As long as it doesn't impinge on someone else's rights.

'Plus, religion doesn't mean society any more. Cheerio Middle Ages.'

More and more double standards. By your argument homosexuality wasn't morally acceptable in the middle ages because it didn't go along with the prescribed views of the time. And racism during slavery was okay because of societal consensus. Plus you try completely discount the fact there are religious people, majority or no majority, and they do not agree with homosexuality. I've seen too many comments to the tune of 'I'd like to think people like this do not exist' - not only is it naive and hugely steeped ignorance, it's also going to do nothing in the way of progress.

Surely it's a simple matter of treating other people with respect? Not everyone is going to view homosexual relationships as acceptable, but that does not mean that they should treat a gay person disrespectfully.

I know lots of people who do not agree with homosexual practice and so would not want their child to mix with gay people. It's not because they think the gay person might be a paedophile as some posters here have supposed, but because for moral/religious reasons they are opposed to homosexual relationships and it is their right, as a parent, to limit their child's contact with something they are opposed to. Personally, I think Mona was silly to make the comment as The Apprentice is a "business" show so her child need not have come into it, but some of the posts on here are way too hostile, especially considering we haven't yet seen the show.

This type of thing is ridiculous!

I don't; Have a view or an opinion or an idea or a theory or thought that I'm gay and that I never had any choice at all ever... I AM GAY AND NEVER HAD A CHOICE - FACT!

It's sheer stupidity to bring down homosexuality to the level of the thought processes of a homophobe.

Then compare something that actually exists in reality with a thought process??? It's just get more an more bizarre!

And then state that she has a right to have that view - She can have that view but people have a right to tell her where to stick that view if she utters it. People also have a right to correct her ignorance before it spreads more hatred.

Yes it's all just my view that I'm a homosexual - How stupidly offensive!

Show silly! People who don't agree with something that exists need to educate themselves. No one should have to put up with that level of stupidity in 2009.

And "Oh it's my religion so I can get away with thinking such rubbish" is no pathetic or valid excuse any longer. These people can't even come up with a shred of evidence to support their on claims of a god and that's before they start other people because of that nonsense that they can't even back up.

Gay people exist and are as much as fully valid as straight people. No one has to put up with the oppression from stupid uneducated morons any longer.

Time all this nonsense was put to bed and that people stopped nannying people with these nonsense views and put them in there place instead of posting on here that it was ok for them to have these disgusting views.

It's no ok at all and will never be so.

On the first point, I was trying to explain that people aren't ramming points down people's throats as the poster had suggested. The implication there was that this was not the right way to go about things, with which I agree. So does it not also apply to the parent who does the same to their child? The parent-child relationship is not, or should not just, be passive. Children have rights as well, of course, one of which I would say is a right to education and so an ability to develop their minds freely. It's not just about the rights a parent has as parent. So I do think it is society's business if young people are being brought up to perpetuate prejudice and bias. Now that doesn't mean we tell parents how to do things; I'd agree there are more subtle ways of going about it. But I don't think we can box up parents' rights and shield them from criticism.

On the second point, the poster had said that freedom of speech is only limited where it is used to incite violence against a particular group. I was giving but one example where that isn't the case. I wasn't saying that the comment here was defamation under a legal definition. Simply that freedom of speech can be limited in other circumstances and that this occurs because there are other values with have to balance with it. Your point that we don't limit it unless it impinges on someone else's right is the very point I was making. I think we are in fact agreeing here. My point, as I say, was to make clear that isn't just the extreme of violence where we limit freedom of speech.

On the last point, clearly homosexuality was not morally acceptable by the standards of that society. Do I think that therefore that state of affairs justified that prejudice? Of course not! So yes slavery was morally acceptable by the standards of society at one time, but that doesn't mean I think that justifies it. The point I was making was that in the original post, I did not see the logical leap from the views of some particular religious groups as being that which society also thinks and therefore why we should not challenge such views, as I think the implication was. In older times, some religious views (more I think in the case of homosexuality, than slavery) did perhaps affect society's views to a far greater extent that today, but again that doesn't make it automatically justified. So I don't think I get the "double standards" point here.

What's more, in my post, I am clearly not ignoring religious views! I acknowledge the variety of views out there. But you are missing, I think, the thrust of my argument, which is that where a viewpoint starts to impinge on other people's rights or values, (which was my point about the subjugation of women example) then we have to balance that freedom of speech against other values, as I think you were also saying. So please do not suggest I am steeped in ignorance here. I am more than aware of the views of some groups. We wouldn't be having this discussion, if it were otherwise.

[quote=mr.bojangles;32376038] So I do think it is society's business if young people are being brought up to perpetuate prejudice and bias.
This isn't relevant to what Mona said. Someone not allowing their child to 'meet' a gay person at a young age in particular, as she doesn't say indefinitely, is not therefore bringing them up with prejudice and bias

My point, as I say, was to make clear that isn't just the extreme of violence where we limit freedom of speech.
Again this isn't relevant to the incident unless you're saying freedom of speech isn't okay and Mona should not be 'allowed' to say what she said

The point I was making was that in the original post, I did not see the logical leap from the views of some particular religious groups as being that which society also thinks and therefore why we should not challenge such views.
As I understood it the person you were replying to was making the agrument that people were entitled to their views including religious people and what as stated as a significant amount of the population. You;re answer to me seemed to imply that tey don't have an entitlement to the views they hold because they are not in a majority. I apologise if that is not what you meant.

I'm not sure what the point of that was really.

You have never heard of Tom Robionson then? If you wish (or feel obliged to be) gay, that is fine and frankly I do not care. However, you are expecting me to accept your lifestyle, views etc., but denying the same to somebody else. you are saying in effect "I will decide what Mona should think". What gives any of us the right to do that?

I see another poster further up has used the Trevor Phillips argument about "society" has decided. What is this "society", because no-one asked you or me. It is people like him, who feel they have some right to tell others how to think. Then that poster refers to the libel laws - that is not "society" closing down an opinion, but giving thoise, who feel aggrieved the opportunity to gain some form of redress without the use of violence.

You keep on about respect and then are so discourteous as to tell others how to think. That is not a position deserving of respect.

I think there is a bit of double standard going on, because people are criticising Mona expressing her homophobic views, but its seemingly ok for the same people to express misogynistic views, and tell me that I'm taking it too seriously because I find it offensive to be stereotyped as a breeder. I don't agree with either view being expressed. To me, both are bigoted.

I think perhaps you are not appreciating quite how inflammatory this sort of comment is. If you are coming from a point of view that "being gay" is something that people wish to be, feel obliged to be, choose to be, or pretty much anything along those lines then you are going to upset a great many people.

If you speak to any gay person they will be able to tell you that it is nothing they ever chose to be - it's just the way they are. That is what I think is the very crux of the problem in fact - people not appreciating that it isn't anything gay people have a choice over. Being told "I don't agree with the way you are but I tolerate it" is in and of itself extremely hurtful. It is hardly surprising that people are unwilling to respect a point of view which they feel is inherently degrading to themselves and which they know for a fact is forged in an ignorance that being gay is something they ever had a choice about.

Tolerance is the only thing we should expect from others. We are all different and it is totally unrealistic to expect everyone to like us.

We are not even entitled to respect, despite the rubbish politicians spout. Respect or disdain is earned by our actions.

When people continually whine they lose my respect and earn my disdain.

Unfortunately a person can no more control what they feel uncomfortable about than they can control their sexuality.

People need to accept that that is just their personal feeling and they should not allow it to cause them to cause hurt or offence to others.

I knew it would not be long before "offence" popped up, which is just as much an attempt to control the way other people think as "ism".

I don't care whether you are gay or not - I don't think there is any compulsion in (not least as Mr. Robinson of "Sing if you're glad to be gay" shows otherwise). However, I am not the one making an issue of it. There are I am sure things that some people might find different about me - I have never wanted kids, for example. Some people tell me that I am selfish; I get happy families and their demands for tax rebates/time off pushed at me all the time. So, every time some politican goes on about "hard working families" or someone says I am selfish, should I get all "offended? No, I don't. That is their view and as long as they "tolerate" me, that is fine, just as I tolerate kids being a pain as they sometimes are.

Nanscombe is right - just earn some respect and if you expect toleration of your lifestyle , then learn to tolerate other people's views and lifestyles. Otherwsise, you are just trying to control how others think - and they certainly will not have any respect for you for doing that.

I disagree. Sexuality is not actions.

And your sexuality will earn you neither respect nor disdain. However the way you act or behave will.

What on earth? (has this got to do with anything)


You see, this is the problem. This argument, though put so reasonably by you and other people in this thread (and indeed other message boards) is fatally flawed.

Being gay and fighting for your right to be accepted is not the same as having homophobic opinions and fighting for your right to voice them. They should not be equally tolerated. (In fact one should not be tolerated at all.)

If you're gay, you're attracted to the same sex for reasons that you have no control over. You're fighting for the right not to be shunned by society because of this, just as others in the past have fought for the right not to be shunned on the basis of their race, colour or creed. And make no mistake about it, what Mona reportedly said amounts to a shunning of the gay population. In answering this, a gay person is not being intolerant of other people's opinions or discourteous, but standing up for their rights as a human being. And of course that is deserving of respect.

Do you also apply your argument to racist opinions? Do you feel that anyone criticising a racist attitude is also being 'intolerant' of other people's opinions or discourteous towards them. Do you feel racists' opinions are deserving of respect?

[quote=tv_child;32377204]
I think maybe we've got crossed wires on this one. I wasn't making a point about majority viewpoint as such. The only reason I posted about that firstly was because I just did not see the relevancy in the argument in the original post. And then I was trying to think about what the post might be trying to say hence babbling on, as I did. But where a viewpoint is intolerant of another group and is expressed, then I think we can (and maybe have to) try to argue with that viewpoint with reason to see if those people might understand why their behaviour might cause offence without having been reasonably justified. I'm don't feel as though I'm quite explaining myself very well, but I hope you can sort of see where I'm coming from.

Also, I apologise for my shoddy "quote" skills.

But there's ways of going about it.

Of course homophobia shouldn't be tolerated but there is a difference between finding the attitudes wrong and just blindly palming the person off who is making then as some evil bigot who should f off.

There seems to be this ignorent idea that homophobia and the ignorence surrounding homosexuality just happens, that a person just chooses to have these attitudes. Of course they don't, it's a result of culture and upbringing and... well thousands of years of society. And also there is just this incredibly deep emotional aspect to it. I can't speak for every gay person but I'm pretty sure like me the majority did have a point where they couldn't accept their sexuality so it's natural to assume that a straight person might also struggle to understand homosexuality in some respects. Homophobia exists and it exists in a lot of people who aren't bad or hateful, just ignorent, to treat these people with a similar level of closed minded ignorence even if the intentions are well meaning or on the side of 'right' just doesn't work. Homophobia comes from somewhere and to choose (and it is a choice) to refuse to try and understand it just means you're gonna endlessly fight a battle you'll never win.

You're right but at the same time what about my right as a gay man to know what people think of my lifestyle? Am I not entitled to know the truth?

Afterall how can I understand and therefore try and inform and change if I am shielded from this? If people have a problem with my sexuality I at least expect them to have a level of respect for me as a person that they can be honest about it.

Isn't that part of what acceptance is about?

I think Laurie's response on some of this pretty much sums up how I would respond but since I've been referred to, I thought best to respond a little again.

On the society point, the reason why it was even referred to was because I read your post as importing the views of religious people and "most straight people " (i.e. the majority in society) into what society thinks. I'm not really sure what you meant here anyway, as I said, but that's how it seemed, and so you see, it seemed as though you were making the very same type of argument.

If you read my post, I am not telling people how to think. I am quite clear about this from the off. What I'm saying is, when someone expresses something which causes offence or harm or perpetuates prejudice against a particular group or person, then we have to try to reason it out. And where there's no genuinely reasonable justification to be found, then, no, I don't see why such a harmful view should be tolerated. Is that not the very basis for why we don't approve of discrimination?

On the defamation point, does the imposition of legal liability (by a legal system created and based on social norms and values after all) on those who cause harm to others not indicate disapproval of that exercise of freedom of expression? Obviously in most cases, the defamation will have already been committed, but there are instances where publication of certain material will be prevented in advance, thereby limiting freedom of expression, because there are other values (dignity as an example but also perhaps for public security reasons, as has happened, and there might well be all sorts of reasons why this will be done) which supercede the right to freedom of expression in that instance.

Moving away from the law, there are also just normal everyday customs and social behaviours which in effect limit our freedom of expression, and where those are broken, we might very well take offence and think that the right was being used in a harmful way, and so justify restriction on it.

So, in general, what I'm saying is the freedom of expression isn't an impervious value. When it's used to harm others without justification, if anything that's an abuse of that right, and so I don't see why that should be tolerated, and certainly not respected.

You make some good points here, but hardly anyone on this thread has actually said anything that actually goes against what you have said.

I think I've been more then respectful on this thread, personally, but have merely stated how her statement, if she said it at all, has made me feel.

From a psychological point of view, stereotypes are a way of limiting processing, which makes things quicker for your brain, if you think about how much stuff gets processed, these neural short-cuts are needed from time to time.

However, these neural short-cuts are by no means fixed, and can be changed through education, something many of us have suggested would be useful to anyone who suggests keeping children away from gay people.

And to be honest, I think her comments if she said them, do come across as quite hateful.

I do think it is important to point out though, that we still do not know what was said, and in what context, I wonder if it will be shown in the programme?

You may have come to the thread late.

There have been some very nasty and intolerant posts from a couple of posters.

Most of the people posting from a gay perspective have been polite and reasonable but, as always, those who are beligerant and rude have a far greater impact on perceptions than their numbers warrant.

Another excellent post by Brumilad.

It is this sort of thoughtful, tolerant attitude, respectful of other people's problems (which homophobia is, after all) that enables its holder to make real progress against the homophobic elements in society.