Why? Homophobes are intolerant of homosexuality. Those 100% against homophobia are intolerant (Zero Tolerant) of homophobes.


That is down to the individual, the "wrong gender" is the one that you would not be attracted to on a day to day basis. For Heterosexuals it would be the same gender. For Homosexuals it would be the opposite gender.


I use "being attracted to" as opposed to "want to have sex with" as in being in love or wanting to be with.


Nothing loaded about it, only your intrepretation. I made no mention of sexual orientation just "the wrong gender" and whichever is "wrong" is down to the individual.


Well there you go. As a Heterosexual man I have, as I mentioned before, seen people who have been attractive who have turned out to be the "wrong" gender for me.


By not pursuing a man, that I previously found attractive before knowing their gender, I choose to remain Heterosexual. One day, the attraction may be too great to choose to ignore it.


Agreed. Intolerance in used in too general a manner. By those who are intolerant and those who are intolerant of them.


There is no definition of people's sexuality in my post beyond who they are attracted to.

There you go. You find other women attractive but do not pursue it beyond friendship. That is all I mean by a choice.


He may find women attractive but choose not to pursue it beyond friendship.


It is about the "wrong sex" for you at that moment. There's nothing to say it won't be the "right sex" at another time in your life.


It is possible to mistake a person with a tall slender body and long hair for a women from behind. I guess there must be women that could be mistaken for men.

If you find yourself even slightly capable of have sex with or being sexually attracted to both sexes, (whatever the ratio) then you are by the very definition, bisexual: No matter what you want to label yourself.

A straight man who is sometimes attracted (sexually) to other men is not a straight man but a bisexual man.

That is more to the point of not WHY but how I have to describe myself: I am a gay man. That means that I have simply no sexual attraction towards females and never ever have done. Not even whilst under extreme peer pressure to conform whilst a teenager.

So what I want to label myself doesn't enter into it. I had no choice and a gay man is what I have always been - as far back as I can possibly remember I saw men in a very different way to women and that was long before I knew what sex was.

Then we get some extremely silly posts on here saying "I don't agree with Homosexuality" like it is something that can or can't be agreed with. Rightfully or wrongfully to explain things, people liken it to being born black and then of course you get all the pedantic people posting why it's not with cheep shots and missing the whole point by miles.

To a gay person it's feels exactly like being black in the sense and only in the sense that you were born that way, had no say in the matter at at and most importantly that you can change your sexuality as simply as a black person becoming white and a white person becoming white just with the power of thought and deciding to. That is where the analogy ends.

So any person saying that they don't agree with gay people is as utterly mind-numbingly stupid as saying that they disagree with black people. It's simply is not a thing that can be disagreed with. I disagree with the moon, is just as silly.

If it comes from religion then that's why they never come back with an answer as they have been told that being gay is wrong yet never get told why. Because the bible says so but we ignore all the other bits even we think are stupid doesn't cut it in 2009 and can only get less of an argument as more and more people reject religion for common sense.

Doing anything in the name of religion does not make it correct in any way and never has.

So passing on blatant and disgusting homophobia to offspring is a "Caring Mother" is it?

What a disgusting attitude!

No but people don't get attacked so vehemently for going to church.

What you have done above (the sentiment of which I am in full agreement, BTW) is to take your moral viewpoint and state it as if it were the only correct moral viewpoint (on that particular subject).

In this day and age there are many who would agree with you but at other times in history you would have been considered a more or less dangerous lunatic.

So although we may agree that doing something objectionable in the name of religion is wrong, we must recognise that that is only our own morality and not a universal truth.

a straight man who finds another man attractive does not make him bisexual

what are we labelling here???

I seriously cannot believe some of the things I am reading. I'm sorry, but some of these attitudes are so caveman! We're in the 21st century for crying out loud. Mona is clearly a very narrow minded woman. To me, she seems to believe that being gay is like some contagious disease that she wants her son to avoid. Or she's worried that the 6-year-old will be influenced by homosexuality? How would the kid even know that Howard is gay? How would he even know what 'gay' means? I'm not a parent myself and so I can't look from her viewpoint completely, but I do find her very bigoted and she is quite insulting to a very widespread group of people. At the end of the day, sexuality is so insignificant to what humanity is and it shouldn't be still seen by some as some sort of apartheid. It's a sexual preference and is something most normal people choose to explore behind closed doors. Shaking a gay man's hand won't give you a limp wrist. People wouldn't dream about saying they disagree about some people being black or disabled, so why should it be so difference about being gay? Sexuality isn't something you choose, and even though Mona is obvioulsy entitled to her beliefs and opinions, in this day and age, she should keep such contraversial, outstanding and out-dated views to herself.

I doubt Sir Alan (or any other organisation for that matter) will view homophic qualities in a person as positive.

And if Mona truly cared for her child, she would not be passing her outdated and bigoted views onto him.

I suspect that this thread (and the last one) are somewhat unrepresentative of the population as a whole.

Whilst one would hope that most people no longer have actively homophobic viewpoints I suspect that they don't particularly care one way or another if other people do - particularly if they are not actively promoting discrimination (and I doubt they would consider not wanting a child to meet homosexuals actively discriminating - even though it obviously is).

As such I suspect that people posting on this thread are expecting AS, the production company and the public at large to care a great deal more deeply about this event than they actually will.

I'm not expecting anything. But if what Mona said was brought to Sir Alan's attention, I doubt she'd go up in his estimations as the poster I was responding to was suggesting. That was my point.

Unless he's a closet homophobe.

Sadly, there are a lot of those still around.

Sir Alan doesn't strike me as a bigot. I don't think he cares about people's backgrounds.

This is such a lazy comparison I hate how ppl revert to this just because they both fall under minority groups.Mona walks into a room and the first thing you see is a black woman...Howard can walk in a room and would you know right away that he was a queer? How can you compare race with a sexual orientation its just stupid..A more fitting comparison would be "how would she like it if she was christian and someone said they didnt want their kids associating with bible bashers" or disabled even not race..Its funny how you put in words like "inferior" that wasnt in the transcript..Looks like you just have an axe to grind and your letting your inner feelings show

I really think it will bother Alan. As he states, he doesn't want people go upsetting others in his company, plus a lot of people will refuse to buy products made by his company, could lose a lot of business from that.

I'd wait to see the context of how it was said, and exactly what was said, but it doesn't look too good so far

many acknowledge that racism and homophobia are very similar

I think it might just be the awkwardness of having to explain it to a young child because they've been brought up in a certain way. It is a bit of a bad way to say it, as if poor Howard corrupts children, but there might be a normal meaning in it.

what do you mean by 'normal meaning'?

Many others acknowledge they are very different for very sensible reasons.

let me guess -sensible since you agree and you are blind to what Archbishop Tutu and others acknowledge

No, sensible because they are logical and fit the known facts.

Racism and homophobia are rooted in two very different human traits that happen to show similar symptoms.

BTW, when you say that Archbishop Tutu 'acknowledges', do you mean that he gives reasons for his opinion or does he just state that opinion as a fact?

Answer to that is dont live in a society where being homosexual is perfectly legal and normal then!!

For some values of 'normal'.

As someone who has been on the receiving end of racism and homophobia, sometimes at the same time, I can assure you I see no difference in them, as they are both involving someone's prejudice against me, based solely on something that I cannot change...

wtf - homosexuality is normal

reasons and I agree and others do as I said earlier