Has This Christian Group Got A Point?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/9890160/Christian-group-challenges-ban-on-gay-poster-campaign.html

If posters such as these are allowed

*** “Some people are gay. Get over it!” ***

*** “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying. And enjoy your
life.” ***

Then why not this?

*** “Not Gay! Ex-Gay, Post-Gay and Proud. Get over it!” ***

[jim360]

I think given the past it's excusable perhaps for the time being for homosexuality to be a bit of a statement. But in the long run it shouldn't be used as a label, nor something to be "proud" of or even overcoming. At the moment we are living in a society still very prejudiced towards and discriminating against gay people so the first thing surely is to overcome that. Then people who are gay can live their lives normally as they should be entitled to, and not feel like coming out about it should be a difficult thing to do.

I think having an issue with someone purely because of their sexuality has to be the definition of homophobia. And, for that matter, a bigot. That's not to say that arguing against gay marriage is homophobic. There are legitimate legal reasons to argue against it, for example. (Although the law could just be changed.)

But no, I think the advert the Christian group is trying to get un-banned could be fairly offensive and is not at all helpful.

[sp1814]

AOG

A homophobic bigot is absolutely the correct term to describe someone who has an issue with someone who is gay based solely on the fact that they are gay.

If you attack a gay person, for no other reason that they ar gay, they you are homophobic. This has nothing to do with fair criticism. It's to do with bigotry and hatred.

Whether its a label which you think is too freely assigned to people is not the issue. It's the fact that you think that no-one should be referred to as a homophobic bigot, even if they hate gay people for no other reason than that they are gay.

You wrote, "Homosexuals are no different from Heterosexuals who are also not beyond being criticized if the need arises."

If someone physically or verbally attacks a straight person for no other reason than that they are straight, they could be called a heterophobic bigot.

The reason this phrase has not found currency, is because gay people don't attack straight people solely because they are straight.

There is no 'level playi png field' here.

And with regards to 'offensive terms' - do you think that straight people have pretty much the monopoly in that with regards to gay people?

[ludwig]

I'm starting my own poster campaign next month.
It's going to say 'Do shut up all of you with your silly posters. We couldn't give a sh1t. Get over it'.

[anotheoldgit]

doctordb

/// aog, do you really find the words ///GET OVER IT/// aggressive? ///

/// I never realised what a delicate flower you are. ///

Yes it is, it is 'ORDERING' someone to dismiss something on which they may have certain views about.

[emmie]

the first time i saw one of these posters on a London bus, which was some time back now, i wondered why it was necessary, i haven't changed my mind since then. There is certainly homophobia, as there is sexism, ageism, but if all the groups who stand up for these rights were to put posters up on all public transport would it really change peoples minds, i very much doubt it.

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

You are conveniently turning things around to suit your own agenda.

I have never said that it is perfectly in order for gays to be attacked verbally or physically just because they are gay, or anything else you may be suggesting.

I was merely pointing out that gays do not hold the sole right not to be criticized if the need arises, not because of their sexuality but because of certain attitudes they wish to hold.

And one particular attitude that annoys me is the fact that they are forever advertising their sexuality, whether it is is in gay pride marches or signs on the sides of buses.

[jim360]

Well yes it's odd perhaps to trumpet your sexuality so loudly since no-one who is straight tends to make a big deal of it. But after centuries of persecution, being called immoral, locked up, forced to change, etc., is it really so surprising that now coming out as being gay is making a statement that you reject the past humiliation? For now I think you should just accept that gay people have every reason to celebrate the fact that they are no longer, or at least should no longer be, afraid of themselves. Nor should society be afraid of them. I think this is something you should just put up with for now, until gay people are finally accepted as equals. And it doesn't look like that'll be happening any time soon.

[jake-the-peg]

// until gay people are finally accepted as equals. And it doesn't look like that'll be happening any time soon. //

I disagree - I think there has been a remarkable change in attitudes.

The National survey in sexual attitudes and lifestyles showed this change markedly even amoungst Christian groups

http://www.brin.ac.uk/figures/attitudes-towards-gay-rights/

If you want a less academic demonstration look at the outrage to Jan Moir's article in the Mail about Stephen Gately's death.

Attitudes have shifted dramatically when you consider that being gay was effectively a crime in England little more than 50 years ago

[emmie]

and still there are some religious groups who despise, hate gays how do we change that attitude, and i am not pointing fingers at any specific religion.

[sp1814]

AOG

Perhaps you should re-read what I have previously said on this thread, because you have misinterpreted my point.

I did not say that you said "that it is perfectly in order for gays to be attacked verbally or physically just because they are gay".

I said that if someone physically or verbally attacks someone simply because they are gay, then it's appropriate for them to be labelled a homophobic bigot.

Do you disagree with that?

[sp1814]

And who said that only gays think that they have the sole right to stand up for themselves?

This goes to the core of my point.

Also, 'get over it' is perfectly acceptable, because if someone has an issue with homosexuality (as opposed to marriage equality, or gay adoption or whether the ban on gays in the US scout movement should be lifted), then they are a bigot.

You can argue the merits of other issues, but if someone has an issue with homosexuality for no other then they are a bigot.

Same way that if someone hates someone else because of their race, with no other factors taken into consideration, then they are racist.

[Davethedog]

Get over it is an order? Since when?

Homophobic bigotry is a fact of life, I don't think it overstates a case to point out that some people are gay and a bigot should realise that, that isn't changing.

So we have a factual poster, that points out the obivious v a poster that is inaccurate in everyway. The only people who think theres a "cure" for being gay are the religious right, who label being gay, a life choice?? There is no scientific basis for this, none at all unless you count anecdotal tales.

By stating such lies, you promote the idea that people don't need to be gay, and this just fuels the bigots.

As others have stated, straight people aren't attacked for there sexuality, and if people choose to try and educate the bigots any attempt to "muddy the waters" should be quashed.

The entire argument comes down to this.

You are trying to stop our freedom of speech , so leave us alone, while we do our best to stop yours.

[jim360]

@jake if I'm being unfairly pessimistic then that's only good news. Attitudes are clearly shifting but probably there's still some way to go.

[andy-hughes]

I was all set to launch in with my rebuttal - but sp1814 has already argued my views succinctly and intelligently - i can add nothing to his argument exept my praise and admiration for his ability to put forward and defend his point of view as well as always.

[sp1814]

Thank you A-H.

Very kind.