By Julian Ware-Lane / @warelane
I have never suffered homophobia. This is hardly surprising because I am heterosexual. But that does not mean I believe it doesn't exist; nor does it prevent me from condemning it. Anything that can be construed as prejudice must be combated.
I understand that homosexuality makes some people uncomfortable. My heterosexuality, it is possible, may have that effect with some gays. But being uncomfortable or even condemning a lifestyle choice is some way away from being prejudice.
Prejudice is to actively discriminate. All people should be treated equally and this means that discrimination must be stamped out.
This view is not shared by everyone, and certainly not by Conservative MEP Roger Helmer, who says homophobia doesn't exist and that it is a propaganda device.
The Conservatives in Europe now have links with people whose views can most kindly be described as questionable. This latest statement will not dispel the impression of a lurch to the right. I hope that David Cameron will condemn Mr Helmer and his ill-conceived outburst.
Perhaps someone ought to point out to him that to have an opinion, however objectionable, is allowed; actively pursuing a course of action that means one's treatment depends on one's sexual orientation is not.
I am also wondering what he means by a "conventional opinion" – it strikes me that it is Mr Helmer who holds the unconventional opinions.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Like all prejudices it should be deplored.
However I note a deep prejudice among the comments against bisexuals.
Whether from straights or gays.
I deplore that too.
In my everyday life I see significant homophobia, especially in the pub.
That doesn't make me sick in any way.
Crikey - you might not agree with one or two of those nice ministers who want to bring in ID cards. And you wouldn't want to name-call them freedom-hating Stalinists or Fascists now would you?
Don't you really know what he means by a 'conventional opinion? During the election campaign you might, just might, find that canvassing on the doorstep will give you the chance to ask electors what they think about a 'conventional opinion'. You might learn something. Or not.
Keep us posted.
The Tories in the European Parliament must be the biggest bunch of fruitcakes gathered in one place, since the Mr. Kipling centenary celebratory convention.
I think that homophobia does exist, and of course it will be used to fight one'[s political corner in terms of providing evidence. I don't particularly like the word but its moved into common parlance and I think we are stuck with it.
However, I think it describes Helmer pretty well.
"If I give her the wool would she make me one too?"
Thanks - I'll be here all week.
This link was all we needed to make up our own minds whether the fellow is good/bad/mad/sad/right/wrong.
Why the page from the Pink Times? I can work out an opinion of him from what he's written, as I an sure can most other LL readers.
Thought Police, anyone?
Is that what you're pretending to be? Sounds like it to me, if your trying to spin Helmer's comments away from something which clearly was homophobic and ignorant.
Read my comments and tell me where the spin comes in? I invite others to read the entire article and make up their own mind.
You have managed to spin that with a suggestion that I am somehow in support of RH.
An alarm clock would clearly be wasted on you.
I fully agree with Bill Dewison's analysis:
"Totally disagree with the MEP that homophobia doesn't exist, but at the same time I do see the point about it being used as a propaganda device.
There is no faster way it seems to discredit someone in office, or even in the street, by labelling them with a number of different names. It even happens here on the LL...."
What we are missing and need, I believe, is a commonly accepted term to indicate an opinion, honestly and legally held, that indicates that the holder has moral difficulties in supporting something, but also respects the rights of others to support it. For example, I feel that homosexuality is "wrong" in the sense of being "against natural order", but I also feel that does not give me any right at all to judge homosexuals, alter my behaviour, give homosexuals any less respect than I would any other human being. There are many areas of my own life that are also against "natural order": I work for perfection, but see too little of my family, I ignore my own medical knowledge and judgement by smoking, once when I was younger I self-harmed. We are none of us perfect.
I have struggled for many years with the dichotomy in feeling something is morally wrong, and also feeling that it would be equally wrong of me to try to stop it. In the end, the accomodation I make in my own mind is that the law must be a guide, alloyed with a view as to whether it damages children, or those not capable of forming proper judgements. After all, the law is most often right, and if it isn't, should not be held as a moral arbiter. Thus, I keep quiet about homosexuality, but would not do nothing about paedophilia, incest, or the abuse of mentally vulnerable adults if I knew about it. The law is quite clear on the latter examples.
It's a confusing world we live in, but it's not helped when the multiple shades of grey that is our humanity gets reduced to black and white, binary categories. Perhaps that's the unfortunate result of the confluence of 24/7 rolling opinion and judgement on multiple media sources, a general trend in society to reduce ranges of opinions to logical absurdities, and (dare I say it?) a general dumbing down of debate and intellectual argument in the mass of the population.
I'm guessing you're conservative-minded, so I could just as easily accuse you of following an agenda, like you accuse 'PinkNews'.
Homosexuality is not against the 'natural order', and it demonstrates your ignorance if you believe it is. Homosexuality occurs in hundreds of animal species and has occurred in human beings since the dawn of mankind. Those are facts, not something you can express an opinion about.
Don't get me wrong, I've made my personal views very clear on homosexuality and it would seem to be at odds with what Jaime holds as personal views, but better he says what he thinks, explains that whatever he feels it doesn't give him the right to judge and I personally don't think it makes him homophobic. He doesn't agree with homosexuality but as I understand it he is not afraid of gay people, he would not interfere with their lives or persecute them. He holds his views for the most part to himself by the sounds of it.
I'd be far more concerned with the people we regularly see commenting who claim not to have a problem with homosexuality but come out with the most homophobic claptrap I've ever had the displeasure to here on the internet or anywhere else. They are the people to challenge and question because they are the people who actively discriminate on something that really should be none of their concern.
Could be wrong as I fully appreciate I am not gay and I have no idea how I would react to some of the comments made here if I was.
Being gay is not a lifestyle choice.
Most medical research indicates that adults of both sexes fall somewhere along a range of sexuality: anywhere from exclusively heterosexual, to exclusively homosexual, with many many points in between. With age, from puberty to old age, a person's current point on the range can also change. It is well documented that many people experiment with homosexuality in early post-pubescence before stabilising as a heterosexual as a mature adult. Less documented, but equally true is the fact that a small proportion of people are more attracted to homosexuality after heterosexual reproduction.
For people who inhabit the middle ground - neither wholly hetero or homosexual - the society in which they live has an influence on how they choose to live. Where that society is accepting of publically declared homosexuality, then choosing to be identified as a homosexual or a heterosexual is, in my opinion, a positive lifestyle choice. If they live in a society where homosexuality is repressed or even illegal, then choosing to publically identify with heterosexuality even though privately that may not reflect the reality for that individual is also a lifestyle choice, albeit I would argue a negative lifestyle choice.
Well I'm not sure if I believe you. I know I couldn't possibly have changed my sexual orientation during any part of my post-pubescent life, and I suspect neither can most.
But even if what you write is true, that still shows that a person cannot determine their own sexual orientation. It is something they cannot choose, whether it stays the same throughout their life, or changes over time. Therefore it is inaccurate to ever call homosexuality a 'lifestyle choice'. It's no more a lifestyle choice than one's skin colour or age.
But for most of us, there's absolutely no element of "lifestyle choice" about being gay - only the extent to which we choose to embrace and value that aspect of ourselves as against attempting to repress it. Other than that, the choices are pretty much the same lifestyle choices as face heterosexuals: monogamy, promiscuity or celibacy? spendthrift or saver? kids or no kids? drugs or not drugs? all the usual stuff, in fact.
As long as some of the Conservative Party's members keep peddling the sort of view expressed by Rodger Helmer MEP, the more they succeed in sending the party's recent progress back 20 years. Thanks for the ammunition though Roger, much appreciated.
However if you don't like the Tory MEPs, and I know you don't like the BNP MEPs, the solution is simple - leave the EU.
Well, holding hands with a boyfriend is a pretty good indicator ... which I suppose I probably should have known better than to do in the Mile End Road in the 1980s. But the guy that put me in hospital for a couple of days certainly qualified as "actively homophobic". As did the pair of bikers that just assumed I was gay and assisted me with loosing a couple of teeth at the start of the '90s ... though the reason I had my arm round another guy was actually that his girlfriend had broken off their engagement, and as his prospective Best Man I was quite literally being a shoulder to cry on.
It doesn't matter to a homophobe if a person is actually gay - the damage is done if they think you are!
I don't understand how they can be either, Tory Troll, but I guess that's not what you mean, is it?
How about David Copeland, who blew up the Admiral Duncan pub? Not actively homophobic?
How about Thomas Pickford and Scott Walker, who killed a stranger in a park because they thought he was gay? Not actively homophobic?
How about James O'Connor, who murdered Michael Causer for being gay? Not actively homophobic?
And not that I'm comparing the level of bigotry to those above, but how about a certain other member of this site's Tory-minded, who won't allow gays near his children and who disowned a friend when he discovered he was gay. Not actively homophobic?
People in positions of responsibility like Helmer should be more careful not to be so divisive, so ignorant.
There is no faster way it seems to discredit someone in office, or even in the street, by labelling them with a number of different names. It even happens here on the LL. People try to speak out about how they feel on issues such as immigration and they are branded a racist. Air your views on the environment, you're a denier. Disagree with a female politician and you're a sexist, or indeed a gay politician and you're homophobic.
It is unfortunate, but the misuse of these labels to try and embaress politicians and the electorate into conforming is now percieved as political correctness gone mad. It was only a matter of time until someone began to say things as this Conservative MEP has. He's wrong, but then in a scary way he's also right.
The same situation applies to racism, some use the race agenda to promote their own cause. This is down to tribalist human nature.
I sometimes think that you cannot discuss issues that involve race for the fear of being branded a racist. The ultimate example being Powell who was branded a racist for talking about it, but was he? He pointed out that British society was going to change markedley and he was right. I dont know enough about him to know if he was a racist or not.
One thing is true, if you keep using "them and us" language, then we will serve to divide.
Regarding Enoch Powell and, "The ultimate example being Powell who was branded a racist for talking about it, but was he? .... I don't know enough about him to know if he was a racist or not."
This is what Mr Powell said to the Annual Conference of the Rotary Club of London, 16 November, 1968 and published in 'Reflections of a Statesman' in 1991 :
"The resettlement of a substantial proportion of the Commonwealth immigrants in Britain is not beyond the resources and abilities of this country, if it is undertaken as a national duty, in the successful discharge of which the interests of both the immigrants themselves and of the countries from which they came are engaged. It ought to be, and could be, organised on the scale which the urgency of the situation demands, preferably under a special Ministry of Repatriation ....
At present large numbers of the offspring of immigrants, even those born here in Britain, remain integrated in the immigrant community which links them with their homeland overseas .... The West Indian or Asian does not, by being born in England, become an Englishman. In law, he becomes a United Kingdom citizen by birth ; in fact, he is a West Indian or Asian still."
Perhaps, this will help you to decide on whether Mr Powell was a racist. Personally, I think that that the kindest thing that you could say about him is that he was a single-issue fanatic.
And yes, he unquestionably was a racist.