"Not gay! Post-gay, ex-gay and proud. Get over it!"

[Halibut 12]

Charlie Brooker on homophobes in the Guardian yesterday:

 

Excellent - read it and weep my homophobic chums, read it and weep...

[Conrod 10]

You can only cure something if there's a problem to be cured in the first place.

 

I've seen no evidence that homosexuals have such a problem that needs curing.

 

Now homophobic bigots, I reckon they have a problem.

 

Not that I'm implying Conrod falls into this category in any way.

 

Homophobic bigots have so much of a problem that they can't leave the issue alone, in fact you could almost say it's an obsession and possibly even class this inability to just accept homosexuality as just another normal everyday part of human life, as a mental illness.

 

I wouldn't know as I'm not a psychiatrist, but from my cursory reading homophobic bigotry could be argued to be a form of OCD.

 

I would suggest that homophobic bigots are in need of a cure as they would appear to have a fairly major problem.

 

It must be incredibly stressful, and stress can cause people to die and has even been found to kill brain cells in rats.

 

The ability to tolerate other people regardless of their differences would surely benefit them wouldn't it.

 

They wouldn't endlessly fret about bumping into homosexuals in the course of their day, or worry about seeing a news article they didn't like about homosexuals.

 

Their blood pressure wouldn't go up and their hearts wouldn't race thereby extending their lives, stress hormones would not poison their bloodstream, their brain cells wouldn't die as quickly thereby increasing their intelligence and ability to enjoy life.

 

All it takes is a cure for bigotry and intolerance and these people can live happy and productive lives.

 

So please any bigots out there that are reading this, seek medical help and hopefully a cure for your affliction.

Most thought-provoking Esme, and so well-balanced.

 

It's interesting how some of the contributors to SF who use the term bigot at any opportunity seem to overlook their own bigoted intolerance of others’ rights to hold a view.

 

Not everybody is a great fan of public displays of homosexuality. That doesn’t necessarily mean that such people wish ill on homosexuals, or would wish to see them oppressed, but perhaps the constant attention-seeking that the homosexual community relishes could, dare I say, be put behind them. That way, they could behave normally, which is apparently what one should be able to expect normal people to do.

 

Some people are overly-defensive to the point of obsession of the whole ‘gay’ rights issue, and get themselves terribly over-excited at the very thought of somebody not wishing to embrace the homosexual scene. They let the whole thing become too emotive, and of course resort to bitter comments, nastiness and name-calling because, well, that’s what comes naturally to overly-emotional people with a chip on their shoulder. Their behaviour reflects, and at times exceeds, the unpleasantness they seek to fight in those they view as bigoted

 

Now, wouldn’t for a moment suggest that Esme comes into that category, but it might be worth a moment’s thought for others. A little self-reflection, and acknowledgement that we don’t all share the same views, might allow some people to be more relaxed about allowing others the freedom to have their own opinion.

[Conrod 10]

Excellent - read it and weep my homophobic chums, read it and weep...

I read it out of curiosity, but rather than weep I was merely astounded that such a ridiculous piece of childish writing would be published in a national newspaper. Then I realised it was the Guardian, and my surprise diminished.

I'll leave you to the penis fascination, I'm sure you will enjoy that and many other stories on the same subject.

[Chris_Sleeps 10]

Not everybody is a great fan of public displays of homosexuality. [...] but perhaps the constant attention-seeking that the homosexual community relishes could, dare I say, be put behind them. That way, they could behave normally

Which public displays are you not a great fan of?

What do the 'homosexual community' do that you consider attention seeking?

[esme 10]

Most thought-provoking Esme, and so well-balanced.

 

It's interesting how some of the contributors to SF who use the term bigot at any opportunity seem to overlook their own bigoted intolerance of others’ rights to hold a view.

 

Not everybody is a great fan of public displays of homosexuality. That doesn’t necessarily mean that such people wish ill on homosexuals, or would wish to see them oppressed, but perhaps the constant attention-seeking that the homosexual community relishes could, dare I say, be put behind them. That way, they could behave normally, which is apparently what one should be able to expect normal people to do.

 

Some people are overly-defensive to the point of obsession of the whole ‘gay’ rights issue, and get themselves terribly over-excited at the very thought of somebody not wishing to embrace the homosexual scene. They let the whole thing become too emotive, and of course resort to bitter comments, nastiness and name-calling because, well, that’s what comes naturally to overly-emotional people with a chip on their shoulder. Their behaviour reflects, and at times exceeds, the unpleasantness they seek to fight in those they view as bigoted

 

Now, wouldn’t for a moment suggest that Esme comes into that category, but it might be worth a moment’s thought for others. A little self-reflection, and acknowledgement that we don’t all share the same views, might allow some people to be more relaxed about allowing others the freedom to have their own opinion.

I agree conrod, we don't all share the same viewpoint and this is perfectly fine and exactly as it should be.

 

I also agree not everyone is a great fan of public displays of homosexuality, also not everyone is a great fan of the monarchy or the government or organised religion or public firework displays for that matter, however obsessing about these perfectly legal things could be the first step on the road to mental illness.

 

I also agree the whole thing has become too emotive and has a tendency to descend into a shouting match where the argument is forgotten and people just call each other names.

 

We agree on so many things.

 

I'm sure you would agree that certain acts are against the law, for example it is against the law to incite hatred on the grounds of race, religion, gender, ability and sexual orientation.

 

Now you can have a contrary opinion to this law, and by writing to your MP you can attempt to get this law changed and that is perfectly fine and good, that embodies the right of free speech for every citizen in the country when they disagree with a law, your MP is the only person who can get the law changed, so tell them.

 

Regardless of this right to tell your MP, making bigoted comments which contradict these laws on an internet forum, ( which as I explained in posts on another thread is classed as a publication and not as a privileged communication, in short you can go to prison for what you say on here, now I agree it doesn't sound right but it's true there was the guy on twitter who found that out to their cost ), making such comments on an internet forum is irrational at best and at worst illegal.

 

And repeatedly making such irrational comments, knowing full well the possible consequences but continuing to do so regardless, is, in my opinion at least, obsessive and as I pointed out earlier, obsession is a form of mental illness which requires treatment.

 

Now me pointing this out is not contravening any laws, I am rationally seeking to help those who suffer from this problem before they can harm either themselves or others.

 

I'm not just suggesting that only homophobic bigots need treatment, I'm suggesting all bigots need treatment, that's the racists, the religious extremists, the misogynists, the misanthropists and those who see the differently abled as somehow second class.

 

Society needs to be protected from obsessed bigots, regardless of the target of their obsession.

 

Personally I don't think they should be allowed to vote, who knows what sort of government they would elect, and if they don't voluntarily acknowledge the fact that they hold irrational, bigoted and obsessive views which are contrary to the laws of the land then perhaps they need to be incarcerated involuntarily to protect both themselves and society from the harm that they can do.

 

After all bigots can do terrible damage if they are not treated for their condition, Anders Breivik's obsessions descended into paranoid schizophrenia according to news articles and 69 innocent people paid the price, David John Copeland AKA the "London Nail Bomber" was another obsessed individual, bigots can be dangerous and society needs to be protected from them, I'm sure you will agree.

 

So if you know of any individuals who seem to hold irrational views about topics which are perfectly legal and further seem to "obsess" about them, please urge them to get treatment for their condition.

Edited April 16, 2012 by esme
mis spelled "many", tsk

[Conrod 10]

I agree conrod, we don't all share the same viewpoint and this is perfectly fine and exactly as it should be.

 

I also agree not everyone is a great fan of public displays of homosexuality, also not everyone is a great fan of the monarchy or the government or organised religion or public firework displays for that matter, however obsessing about these perfectly legal things could be the first step on the road to mental illness.

 

I also agree the whole thing has become too emotive and has a tendency to descend into a shouting match where the argument is forgotten and people just call each other names.

 

We agree on so many things.

 

I'm sure you would agree that certain acts are against the law, for example it is against the law to incite hatred on the grounds of race, religion, gender, ability and sexual orientation.

 

Now you can have a contrary opinion to this law, and by writing to your MP you can attempt to get this law changed and that is perfectly fine and good, that embodies the right of free speech for every citizen in the country when they disagree with a law, your MP is the only person who can get the law changed, so tell them.

 

Regardless of this right to tell your MP, making bigoted comments which contradict these laws on an internet forum, ( which as I explained in posts on another thread is classed as a publication and not as a privileged communication, in short you can go to prison for what you say on here, now I agree it doesn't sound right but it's true there was the guy on twitter who found that out to their cost ), making such comments on an internet forum is irrational at best and at worst illegal.

 

And repeatedly making such irrational comments, knowing full well the possible consequences but continuing to do so regardless, is, in my opinion at least, obsessive and as I pointed out earlier, obsession is a form of mental illness which requires treatment.

 

Now me pointing this out is not contravening any laws, I am rationally seeking to help those who suffer from this problem before they can harm either themselves or others.

 

I'm not just suggesting that only homophobic bigots need treatment, I'm suggesting all bigots need treatment, that's the racists, the religious extremists, the misogynists, the misanthropists and those who see the differently abled as somehow second class.

 

Society needs to be protected from obsessed bigots, regardless of the target of their obsession.

 

Personally I don't think they should be allowed to vote, who knows what sort of government they would elect, and if they don't voluntarily acknowledge the fact that they hold irrational, bigoted and obsessive views which are contrary to the laws of the land then perhaps they need to be incarcerated involuntarily to protect both themselves and society from the harm that they can do.

 

After all bigots can do terrible damage if they are not treated for their condition, Anders Breivik's obsessions descended into paranoid schizophrenia according to news articles and 69 innocent people paid the price, David John Copeland AKA the "London Nail Bomber" was another obsessed individual, bigots can be dangerous and society needs to be protected from them, I'm sure you will agree.

 

So if you know of any individuals who seem to hold irrational views about topics which are perfectly legal and further seem to "obsess" about them, please urge them to get treatment for their condition.

Esme, do you understand the difference between questioning something and inciting hatred? It doesn't seem that you do.

 

Either that or you're having a laugh, in which case I must ask, do you do stand up as well as written comedy?

 

I think you'd be rather good at it

[esme 10]

Esme, do you understand the difference between questioning something and inciting hatred? It doesn't seem that you do.

 

Either that or you're having a laugh, in which case I must ask, do you do stand up as well as written comedy?

 

I think you'd be rather good at it

I can assure you I do understand the difference between questioning something and inciting hatred, I understand the defamation laws in this country quite well as well having spent many hours trawling legislation on government websites, not the most fun I've ever had but quite useful once you get the hang of the legalese.

 

Thank you, I did consider trying stand up once, I think I'm a bit old for it now though, however I do have to tell you I'm not being humorous in this instance.

 

I am genuinely concerned that obsessive bigots are mentally ill, I'm even considering writing to my MP to suggest that anyone charged under the incitement laws undergo psychiatric assessment to see if they do indeed have a mental illness and if so that they receive the appropriate treatment, early screening might save a few innocent lives.

 

Do you think suggesting such people be barred from positions of authority over others until their condition is either cured or managed would be going too far though ?

 

Actually no, now I've written it, it makes more sense to include that suggestion, never mind.

 

Further though I am a staunch defender of the right to free speech and I've noticed you reference this right in a few of your posts so I must assume that this is something else we have in common.

 

I am sad to report, that as this is a privately owned and operated message board I can assure you that you have no such rights regarding your posts on this board, no one does, not even me, the T&C's which are available as a link at the bottom of every page on the forum contain the following clause

Users shall not post or transmit through this site any material which violates or infringes in any way upon the rights of others, which is unlawful, threatening, abusive, defamatory, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, confidential, vulgar, obscene, profane or otherwise objectionable, which encourages conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability or otherwise violate any law.

Now as homosexuals are not breaking any laws, statements which question homosexuality could be construed as objectionable or as infringing their rights, in some cases such statements could be classed as defamatory, and in extreme cases they could be taken as inciting hatred, which as I pointed out earlier, is a crime.

 

And it gets worse, you see it's not just statements people make now that can be taken this way, and a long history of individually innocuous comments can be taken as a whole to incite just as much hatred as a few posts filled with vitriol, nothing on the internet truly goes away.

 

And as I've further tried to explain, anyone continuing to post such statements despite the laws and even the rules of the board, is irrational and possibly obsessive.

 

So if you know of anyone who is exhibiting this kind of obsessive and bigoted behaviour please urge them to get an independent psychiatric assessment,as I said before, early screening could save lives, not to mention the health and productivity benefits to the individual concerned.

[mort 10]

Posts removed for various reasons

[retep 68]

Has the Waddington amendment been scrapped?

 

“for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred”.

[flamingjimmy 10]

Has the Waddington amendment been scrapped?

 

“for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred”.

 

No-one's been arrested and charged with 'stirring up hatred though' so the waddington amendment is not relevant.

 

It's simply a case of the folks in charge in London saying 'no we don't want that garbage on our buses'

[Conrod 10]

Has the Waddington amendment been scrapped?

 

“for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred”.

Ah, but don't let such sage advice get in the way of overly-excitable people manipulating others' words and trying to imply that they said something that clearly was never said.

 

Some people might, for example, make an utterly ridiculous statement such as “ statements which question homosexuality could be construed as objectionable or as infringing their rights, in some cases such statements could be classed as defamatory, and in extreme cases they could be taken as inciting hatred, which as I pointed out earlier, is a crime”. Clearly nonsense, and something the poster made up, because that’s the way they choose to interpret the matter (just to be objectionable it would seem).

 

One can question religion, sexuality, or preferred choice of coffee, but it doesn’t take a huge leap of intellect to realise that there’s somewhat of a difference between questioning something and inciting hatred. Still, an obsessive mind will read what it wants into somebody else’s words, and over-react accordingly – not that I think any contributor to this thread would be so misguided or so unable to apply honest perspective to a discussion, and will be familiar with the straw man concept http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man.

 

Similarly ridiculous would be a comment like “a long history of individually innocuous comments can be taken as a whole to incite just as much hatred as a few posts filled with vitriol”. Another rather weak attempt to twist another's words and intent.

 

I’m sure that if a poster wishes to continue that line of accusation, he or she they will provide evidence of statements which do, indeed, incite hatred or infringe others’ rights. I expect, more likely, just to see another long diatribe using awfully emotive words like 'bigot' as many times as possible.

[medusa 16]

Ah, but don't let such sage advice get in the way of overly-excitable people manipulating others' words and trying to imply that they said something that clearly was never said.

 

Some people might, for example, make an utterly ridiculous statement such as “ statements which question homosexuality could be construed as objectionable or as infringing their rights, in some cases such statements could be classed as defamatory, and in extreme cases they could be taken as inciting hatred, which as I pointed out earlier, is a crime”. Clearly nonsense, and something the poster made up, because that’s the way they choose to interpret the matter (just to be objectionable it would seem).

 

One can question religion, sexuality, or preferred choice of coffee, but it doesn’t take a huge leap of intellect to realise that there’s somewhat of a difference between questioning something and inciting hatred. Still, an obsessive mind will read what it wants into somebody else’s words, and over-react accordingly – not that I think any contributor to this thread would be so misguided or so unable to apply honest perspective to a discussion, and will be familiar with the straw man concept http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man.

 

Similarly ridiculous would be a comment like “a long history of individually innocuous comments can be taken as a whole to incite just as much hatred as a few posts filled with vitriol”. Another rather weak attempt to twist another's words and intent.

 

I’m sure that if a poster wishes to continue that line of accusation, he or she they will provide evidence of statements which do, indeed, incite hatred or infringe others’ rights. I expect, more likely, just to see another long diatribe using awfully emotive words like 'bigot' as many times as possible.

 

Or, as an alternative, you could have a very short reply from me.

 

Freedom of speech doesn't exist on SF because we are a private forum where we keep things both family friendly and non-offensive.

 

If you want to post in another way then you're perfectly free to do it, as long as you do it somewhere else.

 

Post hate language, bigotry or inflammatory language on SF and you're very likely to find that you can't post anything else at all.