Homophobia

Ushaara

Lusternia, its admin, and its players have made me more aware of LGBT issues, and the inequality that gay people still face, so I thought this story regarding homophobia, who can/can't define it, and when someone can be called a homophobe would be of interest to some of you, and to raise awareness in general. Hopefully it doesn't contravene the forums' rules regarding political/religious threads.

There is a bizarre situation here in Ireland. The speaker in the clip below appeared on TV and was asked about being gay in Ireland. When questioned he mentioned two columnists in one of the national newspapers and a conservative group who regularly write in support of "traditional marriage," and how he wished they would stop impacting his life. The interviewer questioned whether one of those mentioned could be considered a homophobe, and Rory O'Neill (Panti in the clip below) replied about how subtle homophobia can be, and how he believed their opinions to be homophobic. In the aftermath of the interview, the national broadcaster was threatened with legal action from two of those parties mentioned and quickly paid out to avoid going to court.

Since then there has been large public backlash against the national broadcaster for paying out, as in the next two years or so, Ireland will vote on gay marriage and because they paid out, during future on-air debates LGBT people may be denied from expressing their opinion that someone is homophobic. As the speaker says in the clip below, it's like an Orwellian trick where the word has been removed from their vocabulary and the "victims" of homophobia are now the homophobes.

As an example of what Rory O'Neill expressed his distaste of, one of those mentioned in the interview writing against gay marriage (arguing a child's need for a mother and father), has written that: "Gay people deserve rights and recognition. However, a same-sex relationship cannot provide a child with a mother and a father. This makes it profoundly different to marriage. Therefore, it is not discriminatory to treat same-sex relationships differently. It is never pleasant to take a stance like this, and it must be a thousand times less pleasant to be the person who is told that important values like equality must take second place to the common good. I would prefer if the conflict could be wished away, but it can't."

"...equality must take second place to the common good..."

Rialorm

Shame that it was paid out, but sometimes that is just the quickest way even if the broadcaster was in the right. I can see why it could make people fearful of censorship, but that will only happen if everyone pays out.

Also, regarding the "a child needs a mother and a father" argument, what do these people think about single parents, either those who are so by choice or because one parent has passed away / disappeared from the child's life? And what about divorced parents? 

Ushaara

Rialorm said:

Shame that it was paid out, but sometimes that is just the quickest way even if the broadcaster was in the right. I can see why it could make people fearful of censorship, but that will only happen if everyone pays out.

Also, regarding the "a child needs a mother and a father" argument, what do these people think about single parents, either those who are so by choice or because one parent has passed away / disappeared from the child's life? And what about divorced parents? 

Honestly, I don't know how they continue can defend their stance with those arguments, but divorce is still relatively new, only becoming legal here in the late 90s. Historically, treatment of single mothers (fallen women) was shameful, and hundreds were placed into institutions known as the Magdalene laundries. Single mothers I think would still have been uncommon up to the early 90s. The writer of those comments would be of the pre-Celtic Tiger generation during which society opened up a lot, so hopefully it is just a dying and backward viewpoint that is now in the minority.

Xenthos

I like to think that such views are a minority. Unfortunately those who espouse them tend to be extraordinarily vocal (and in many ways vicious, such as described in your original post when they immediately threaten to sue when someone expresses dismay about the opinions they shout out for all to hear).

Basically, it seems to be "I have the right to say whatever I want about a subset of humanity, but how DARE you say anything negative about me?!". What gives me hope, at least in the States, is that after years of these vocal few dominating the discussion things have begun to shift, and they are doing so rapidly.

Lawmakers are even beginning to realize they must address the concerns of the majority instead of the vocal minority on this subject; things really still are not "great" on a national level but they seem to be inexorably moving in that direction and it is great.

PS: It is not possible to discuss this topic without being political, but it is a pretty important topic to many of us who play this game (regardless of personal orientation, comments such as those quoted in the original post and the many more I have heard aired in the States are absolutely absurd and should be given no weight). What right do I have to judge consenting adults who love each other, just because they happen to be the same gender?

Kethaera

Strange attitude where the ability or desire to produce children is more about the 'common good' than is equality for all people.