Racism and homophobia - where we are in 2008

[DaveR]

James, it's a pretty piss-poor leap from my criticism of your argument to your conclusion that I'm anti-gay, so I'm going to ignore it.

"And a gay pride march is obviosuly not the same as a march by religious fanatics preaching hate and intolerance. I can't believe that you could equate the two"

You believe this, and so do I, but many observant muslims (and christians for that matter) believe, entirely sincerely, both that homosexuality is a sin, and that the liberal media/establishment ignore them and/or belittle and mock their beliefs. That's the problem with comparative bigotry/tolerance - whatever you decide is 'bad' or 'worse' there will be many others who disagree.

"As for evidence that low-level homophobia is ruining people's lives, this month's Attitude magazine is full of heart-breaking stories about kids bullied at school for being gay" - fine, post a link and then we can read them.

"The very lack of coverage on the Liverpool gay murder compared to London gang-related stabbings shows that it's not a priority for the media." Good point, but do you think it says more about media attitudes and the way media priorities are set than about general attitudes/behaviour in wider society?

All I'm saying is that if you are arguing that homophobia remains a real problem and that more could be done to address it, you may be better off (a) not constantly making allusions to racism and (b) providing some examples or evidence to back up your assertions.

[RosieH]

James,

This is without a doubt an emotive subject and one which is very close to your heart. I don't think though that accusing DaveR of homophobia does much to further your argument - if hysteria weren't itself such a very loaded term I would suggest your response smacks ever so slightly of it. As far as I can tell, he's just asking for more detail to back up what you're saying. So make your argument without resorting to name calling - it will be all the stronger...

As for the papers and knife crime, don't take it personally. The papers aren't about balanced reporting. The papers are about selling more copies than their rivals. Right now teenagers with knives are the bogeyman. Think back to Madeleine McCann and it was kidnapping paedophiles. It often is paedophiles, and they'll be back. In the meantime stories such as the boy murdered in Liverpool, and all the children murdered by members of their own families, and women killed by abusive partners just don't make the front page. Not zeitgeist enough.

[James]

The comparison with racism is entirely relevant. It is another form of discrimination which we're further along the tracks at tackling. It's not a competition; it shows what can and should be done to address the situation.

>>You believe this, and so do I, but many observant muslims (and christians for that matter) believe, entirely sincerely, both that homosexuality is a sin, and that the liberal media/establishment ignore them and/or belittle and mock their beliefs. That's the problem with comparative bigotry/tolerance - whatever you decide is 'bad' or 'worse' there will be many others who disagree.

This does not make sense because being gay is not a religion! It is not a lifestyle choice. It's sad that people like you haven't grasped such a basic truth!

The point Diane Abbott made so well is that there simply does not have to be a conflict between people's beliefs and protecting minority groups. Everyone is free to believe whatever they like (and hold whatever prejudices they like - you can't police people's thoughts!) but institutions and the media must respect all groups if we are to have a fair and tolerant society. Nobody needs to preach hate! Similarly I do not believe in the Bible, Creationism and the Muslim faith. That does not mean that I should be able to stand in a town square telling people that Christians are a disgrace and should be killed! The law should protect us all against this sort of thing.

Btw the Attitude website does not carry the stories so I will leave it to everyone reading this to decide whether I made them all up! Alternatively, look in this month's magazine where they are. It's strange that you don't seem to believe that homophobic bullying exists. If someone complained of racially motivated bullying would you refuse to believe it and insist on evidence? You prove my point, yet again - and the validity of my comparison.

[SeanMacGabhann]

DaveR - making some good points all 'round and I wouldn't in any way agree with James' accusation of you being homophobic - but the quote above isn't comparing like for like

The ONLY basis some people have for imagining homosexuality is a sin is their belief in some old book, written by blokes, translated by other blokes and to all intents and purposes, worthless as a guide to modern life. In other words they aren't ENTITLED to it. They can choose to believe it but it doesn't make it so. James on the other hand isn't choosing anything. He just is....

Belief can only get us so far - reality and reason are needed to rebut belief

[James]

RosieH, try rereading DaveR's posts replacing "gay" with "black" and you will see how homophobic it is.

I'm finding all this quite depressing really. Reminds me of the things people said about black people who complained about racism in the 80s.

[DaveR]

Religion = lifestyle choice - James

The Bible, the Koran = "some old book, written by blokes, translated by other blokes and to all intents and purposes, worthless as a guide to modern life" - Sean Mc

Guys, you may be right on the money in terms of the mores of contemporary London (and again I largely agree) but several thousand years of history and most of the rest of the world suggest these can't be written off so easily. And if the racism/homophobia comparison does have any validity, what are you suggesting in practice?

"institutions and the media must respect all groups if we are to have a fair and tolerant society" Apart from Chris Moyles, which institutions tolerate homophobia? I'm no expert but institutions like the police and the armed forces (which were widely seen to have been bastions of prejudice) seem to have made huge strides dealing with both racism and homophobia.

[Jeremy]

James, I agree with much of what you say, and I understand why you're frustrated that some forms of discrimination seem more "acceptable" than others. Still, I can't work out which part of DaveR's posts is supposed to be homophobic?

[Keef]

What jeremy said!

[pk]

James Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > The point Diane Abbott made so well is that there

> simply does not have to be a conflict between

> people's beliefs and protecting minority groups.

> Btw the Attitude website does not carry the

> stories so I will leave it to everyone reading

> this to decide whether I made them all up!

>

can't you quote the relevant pieces verbatim?

[pk]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> >

> >

> The ONLY basis some people have for imagining

> homosexuality is a sin is their belief in some old

> book, written by blokes, translated by other

> blokes and to all intents and purposes, worthless

> as a guide to modern life. In other words they

> aren't ENTITLED to it. They can choose to believe

> it but it doesn't make it so.

so people aren't entitled to hold religious beliefs?

[pk]

i hasten to add, i said hold beliefs, not to act on them or encite other to act on them

[SeanMacGabhann]

Pk

Dont be naughty. Thats not what i said. And you know it

Choosing a religion is not the same as ones sexuality. One is real and one is a choice. But if one chooses a faith it doesnt entitle you to hold opinions such as homosexuality is wrong. Such a person might think it does. . . But that is not the same thing. And if one chooses such a belief should one be given a free pass?

[pk]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Pk

>

> Dont be naughty. Thats not what i said. And you

> know it

>

> Choosing a religion is not the same as ones

> sexuality. One is real and one is a choice. But if

> one chooses a faith it doesnt entitle you to hold

> opinions such as homosexuality is wrong. Such a

> person might think it does. . . But that is not

> the same thing. And if one chooses such a belief

> should one be given a free pass?

i do think that you've said people aren't entitled to hold CERTAIN religious beliefs and i think you said it twice now, including above (not being naughty)

i think that people should be free to hold and express opinions that i don't agree with and if that includes racist, homophobic beliefs then so be it - acting thereon is of course another story. i guess the reason i've picked this up is that i thought that you'd agree with freedom of speech

i also don't believe that religions are necessary chosen (or that in all cases homosexuality isn't - but i don't want to get into that one at the mo)

[SeanMacGabhann]

Of course i believe that certain religious beliefs are wrong. Indeed i dont know of any religious person who believes everything their chosen religion teaches so i dont think thats a controversial view

I do sort of agree a little bit about your last paragraph tho . . But like you i think thats a bigger discussion

[pk]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Of course i believe that certain religious beliefs

> are wrong. Indeed i dont know of any religious

> person who believes everything their chosen

> religion teaches so i dont think thats a

> controversial view

>

>

but the point i was making is that even if i believe that they are wrong they are still entitled to hold opinions other than mine, it wasn't about the above

[indiepanda]

pk Wrote:

> i also don't believe that religions are necessary

> chosen (or that in all cases homosexuality isn't -

> but i don't want to get into that one at the mo)

I'd be inclined to agree that religions are not necessarily chosen - too many children are brainwashed into their parents religion from such a young age it's hard to say if they ever really make an informed choice in the matter. Dawkins is particularly outspoken on the notion of children having a certain religion and I agree with him on that.

I do struggle with the notion that people might have a choice about whether to be homosexual or not. Some may choose (not entirely irrationally given the amount of prejudice against homosexuals) to suppress their sexuality to avoid censure, and some people may not be either totally straight or gay in their preferences. But I don't imagine there is much choice in the underlying preference, only in what is done with it. I could be wrong of course..

[SeanMacGabhann]

Haven't we gone off the point a little bit tho'?

Whether you are gay by choice, birth, curiosity, whatever - it should be of no consequence to anyone else

But if you are homophobic (and to be fair to religions, it doesn't require a religious faith to be homophobic) to the point of attacking and killing gay people - TO DEATH! - it's not really a like for like choice is it? No-one can really believe "Barry, you do have a point about the joys of gay sex, but unfortunately, because of my beliefs, you have sacrificed the right to safety and/or life" is a valid viewpoint?

That seems to be the gist of what some people are saying (even if it is qualified with an "I don't necessarily agree with it" ) No wonder James gets touchy...

[pk]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But if you are homophobic (and to be fair to

> religions, it doesn't require a religious faith to

> be homophobic) to the point of attacking and

> killing gay people - TO DEATH! - it's not really a

> like for like choice is it? No-one can really

> believe "Barry, you do have a point about the joys

> of gay sex, but unfortunately, because of my

> beliefs, you have sacrificed the right to safety

> and/or life" is a valid viewpoint?

>

> That seems to be the gist of what some people are

> saying

where is that the gist of what anyone's saying?

[SeanMacGabhann]

I'm not saying anyone on here is saying it pk - but as the thread started out with a gay person suggesting that persecution of gays was deemed more acceptable than racial persecutions, it then moved on to "ah but it is some people's belief that homosexuality is wrong" which surely gives ballast to people like:

This

this

and this

and so on...

[DaveR]

"but as the thread started out with a gay person suggesting that persecution of gays was deemed more acceptable than racial persecutions, it then moved on to "ah but it is some people's belief that homosexuality is wrong" which surely gives ballast to people like"

I don't think anyone has simply said "some people think homosexuality is wrong"; the point I have made (and which, after this post, I won't make any more) is that this thread, and James' posts on the previous thread, invite comparison between different types of prejudice in a way that I do not think is constructive. There are many 'minority' groups who could say to the world, "you've learnt how to stop hating black people, why can't you learn to stop hating us?" And many people, not just homophobes, will respond - "it's different". And like several posters above, I don't want to get into the debate about the extent to which homosexuality is the product of a free choice - suffice it's always a choice whether, for example, to go on a Gay Pride march, but it's kind of hard to change your skin colour.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I'm in 2 minds on this point - I certainly think that in the past James is quick to take offence and some people have said as much, me included. But this time, I have more time for the argument. You seem reluctant to give ground because, as you have said, where does it stop - in your words "There are many 'minority' groups who could say to the world, "you've learnt how to stop hating black people, why can't you learn to stop hating us?"

But I don't see what would be wrong with that. If any minority groups (not sure I like that phrase either) want special treatment I'm tempted to say "and why would that be?". But if the same people are saying "we don't want special treatment but would people mind awfully if we could stop being discriminated against or attacked?" then I really don't see any problem with that

Both racial and gay awareness have come on plenty since "the good old days" - is it helpful to compare how both "groups" currently stand? Maybe it is... I don't think either are where they want to be or should be. And any progress made has always been bitterly opposed along the way (good old Section 28 eh?)

[Keef]

Sean, I have to talke slight issue with your point that people choose their religion. Not always mate, some people are brought up with it, and it can be very very difficult to shake off a way of life!

[SeanMacGabhann]

Yeah pk made the same point and I do agree to an extent - Then again you are talking to a born and bred Catholic, 5 years altar boy service and a mother who genuinely believes she is going to hell for missing mass sometimes!

If I can shake it off.... ;-)

[Jah Lush]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> to which homosexuality is the product of a free

> choice - suffice it's always a choice whether, for

> example, to go on a Gay Pride march, but it's kind

> of hard to change your skin colour.

So are you saying it's not so hard to change your sexuality? Because you are totally wrong in suggesting that you can.

[DaveR]

"So are you saying it's not so hard to change your sexuality?"

No - read the post

At the very least gay people have a choice about the ways in which, and the extent to which they express their sexuality in their everyday lives, and how and to whom they reveal it, and thereby expose themselves to prejudice.