12
   

What constitutes discrimination against homosexuals?

 
 
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2014 09:07 am
In recent times, voicing anti-gay views has been incredibly controversal and unpopular, as we have seen regularly in the media. Some popular websites have redirected users of the Mozilla Firefox browser to an awareness page warning them of Mozilla's new CEO's anti-gay views, and encouraging them to use another browser, unless Mozilla appoints another CEO.

Questions raised:
1) Should people be disgraced for not agreeing with homosexuality? i.e. Should those with the opinion it is acceptable be treated differently to those who believe it is wrong? Please explain.
2) Does claiming that homosexuality is wrong constitute discrimination against homosexuals? i.e. Is it the equivalent of discriminating against a group of a certain race, age or gender?
3) Should the religious and racial hatred act in the UK be extended to protect those for hatred against their sexuality?

This is an open discussion.
Please share your views as politely and concisely as you can.

Thanks Smile

NOTE: I can assure you this is not my homework. I am a computer science university student, but I am personally interested in politics, and would like to hear everyone answer the questions I raised Razz.
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2014 09:35 am
My opinion is that opposition to homosexuality is incredibly stupid, but that so long as one does not take active, discriminatory measures against homosexuals, there is not a problem. I know nothing about the Mozilla brouhaha to which you refer. I don't care what the opinions of bigoted persons are, so long as they don't act on them in public accommodation. If the CEO of Mozilla were shown to actively discriminate against homosexuals in hiring, for example, then those bigoted opinions become intolerable, because hiring by a corporation is a form of public accommodation. Otherwise, said individual is entitled to whatever opinions please him or her, and to express them.
Dissily
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2014 04:25 am
@Setanta,
When thinking about discrimination we need to be very careful with our definitions. What does it mean to assert scripture proves homosexuality to be the work of Satan? What constitutes 'proof' in this context? Why should we be gagged by political correctness from drawing attention to the many contradictions, mistranslations and opportunistic re-writing of so called Holy Books?
Surely to enforce such 'political correctness' is in itself a form of discrimination.
On the surface these issues appear to be nothing more than arguing about rules a debating society would put in place. The reality is restricting free expression can be the first warning sign we on the slippery slope to a totalitarian society such as today's Iran or Europe under the Roman church's tyranny during the dark ages.
Any Christian fundamentalist brave enough to read this far might (for the first time?) come closer to the truth hidden under the absurd distortions inflicted on the New and Old Testament by reading Bishop John Shelby Spong's 'The Sins of Scripture'.

The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies. Psalm 58: V 3.

And now for some theological subtlety. For arguments sake let us assume man is made in the image of God. Why then is the male 'G-spot', the prostate gland, situated just inside the anus?
Genesis Ch 1 :V 26.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2014 04:34 am
@Dissily,
Before you can make such an assumption, you have to assume that there is a god. I see no reason to make such an assumption. The rest of that is a tour de force in typical Christian hatefulness. No one is infringing your right to hold and express an opinion. No one is burdening you with political rectitude. You simply cannot discriminate in public accommodation. That applies to everyone, regardless of what they belive.

Christians really make me ill when they begin spouting their hatefulness with a full measure of their smarmy, phony protestations of love.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  4  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2014 07:47 am
@able to ask,
Quote:
1) Should people be disgraced for not agreeing with homosexuality? i.e. Should those with the opinion it is acceptable be treated differently to those who believe it is wrong?


First, disagreeing with homosexuality is like disagreeing with blue eyes or red hair. You might disagree with allowing same gender marriage or allowing homosexuals in the military but homosexuality exists and is part of the human makeup. Disagreeing with someone's private consensual sexual practices seems silly. It might not be for you, but it's really not your concern either. Imagine how people would look at you if you went around saying you disapprove of people being left handed. I think the response would be 1) that's silly and 2) why do you care?

You ask should those of different opinions be treated differently. If that opinion results in active discrimination, then yes. No one should be denied a job because they hold a questionable belief as long as it doesn't impact their job performance but if those beliefs prevent appropriate performance of their job, that situation needs to be addressed. This is not just restricted to gay rights. If someone has a problem with other religions, with other nationalities, etc you have the same issue. When I was in the military the rule was to stay away from sex, politics and religion in the workplace and you would be fine.

There is a special caveat here for people with extreme amounts of authority and power. Politicians and business leaders typically fall under this situation. Because of the power they wield if they are seen to hold prejudicies that people feel will cause them to do their jobs unfairly, there will usually be a backlash even if there is no evidence that they are not acting in a fair manner. The Mozilla CEO (who donated thousands of dollars to prevent homosexual marriage in California) is one example and it is an interesting one. He was not forced out by activists or the governement, he was basically forced out by his own employees who felt he did not represent them, that his views would taint Mozilla and compromise its ability to succeed. The recent case of a basketball team owner who made racist comments is another example. I don't know that you could say how his beliefs have negatively impacted the Clippers but now that they are widely known, they clearly taint the entire organization. Note that the backlash can go both ways. Replacements Limited took a strong stand against a gay marriage ban and was pummelled by the public.
Quote:
2) Does claiming that homosexuality is wrong constitute discrimination against homosexuals? i.e. Is it the equivalent of discriminating against a group of a certain race, age or gender?

Maybe and Yes. Clearly when the President of Russia says homosexuality is wrong, people feel empowered to beat them in the streets. It's not hard to see the correlation between authority figures who publicly speak out against homosexuals (or minorities) and violence against them. They are entitled to their opinions, but their opinions also tacitly condone discrimination by the wider population. As for an individual, claiming homosexuality is wrong doesn't on it's face constitute discrimination but certainly leads people to wonder and business owners using that position to deny services to people they would otherwise do business with is clear discrimination. Is it equivalent to other forms of discrimination? Of course.

Quote:
3) Should the religious and racial hatred act in the UK be extended to protect those for hatred against their sexuality?

Not being from the UK I really can't answer that but if a law prevents discrimination against religion or race, I can't see why sexual preference is any different. Those who would claim otherwise see sexual preference as a choice, something that has been repeatedly refuted. You can choose to refuse service to someone who does not meet your dress code. They can always choose to dress appropriately. Sexual orientation is not something someone can don or doff like a sports coat.
0 Replies
 
Buttermilk
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2014 08:01 am
@able to ask,
The following is to answer your questions in order

1) No. I believe we are all entitled to our opinion(s) regardless whether they are for or against the status quo. whether popular or unpopular, I believe we can share different views on a wide variety of subjects but in this case no. However I think the chastisement comes from how one articulates their views accordingly.

2)No. Because one can disagree with a thing, and despite that disagreement, does not act out discriminatory behavior.

3) I'm not English, but I think question 3 is a slippery slope. As one who belongs to the group of people who are of color, I believe it should because any actys of violence or any criminal activity in conjunction to someone's gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation ought to be met with equitable justice. However, I firmly believe given the long history of racial discrimination and injustice that the plight of the homosexual and the subsequent issues are slightly different than those of persons of color.
NSFW (view)
Wilso
 
  3  
Reply Wed 8 Jul, 2015 05:11 am
@homovirusisabug,
And yet, you're living proof that conception can occur during anal sex.
momoends
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Mar, 2016 02:14 am
@Buttermilk,
1) discriminating actitudes and on line movements that goes agaisn´t the rights of a certain group of society should be disaproved and not tolerated in any kind of media resource. browsers are a private company property and therefore, can react agaisn´t or banned any user who goes agaisnt it´s policy. if you say i don´t like homosexuals, nothing is gonna happen but if you say homosexuals are pederasts and should be eliminated all over the world, you should be shut out of the net and not allowed ever again.
2) i feel perfectly ok with people thinking my sexuality is wrong. I consider catholic way of life wrong but i don´t manifest myself to get then legally inferior or consider them a threat to my way of life
3) any minority being the object of radical organizations or bigotry or haters attacks should be included in whatever plan, support system or organitation available at the moment.
homosexuals have been among us as long as black people and women... considering one of them have been suffering the longest and therefore deserves more or has the right to asked for more its just nosense
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 5 Mar, 2016 09:12 pm
@Wilso,
Quote:
And yet, you're living proof that conception can occur during anal sex.


I assume you learned this from your mother and father.
Wilso
 
  2  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2016 03:28 am
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

Quote:
And yet, you're living proof that conception can occur during anal sex.


I assume you learned this from your mother and father.


What a comeback. I'm totally put in my place. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
momoends
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2016 02:29 am
@homovirusisabug,
considering lesbians are homosexuals and we don´t prenetrate each other anally nor feed sperm at all, care to explain about the virus again?
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2016 04:39 am
Any form of differentiation is already naturally descriminating. But it is justified. What is not justified is to push further from natural differentiation in order to ostracise a different group. It destroys the very idea and necessity of State/Governement. Groups ought to respect differences and be able to cooperate within natural limits.
momoends
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Mar, 2016 05:40 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
more so, when they forget about that natural differentiation argument when talking about medical treatment, monogamous relationship, disproportional reproduction behaviors, celibate and isolated from the world individuals seen as community advisors....... all that is not natural at all but... hey, that´s just bad when talking about homosexuality
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What constitutes discrimination against homosexuals?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 06/17/2019 at 01:11:16