Thomas Hitzlsperger announces he is gay

CSF

COYVB wrote: »

You can express opinion without inciting hatred. If I said I believed homosexuality to be wrong (which I don't) there's nothing wrong with that. If walk around with signs that say "burn in hell fags" I'm inciting hatred. There's a definite difference both legally and in reality.

Everyone is entitled to any opinion on anything, because opinions are personally held things. Once it doesn't go beyond that it's perfectly fine legally to believe that gays aren't the devil, black's are for the white man to subjegate and the Irish are good for nothing drunks

It isn't the holding of these beliefs, it is the expression (particularly publicly where you're going to be expressing them to people who are alot less likely to just accept them) of them which is inciting hatred.

Saying being a homosexual is wrong is pretty much the same as saying being black is wrong. Both of these things are what somebody was born as, not by choice. People who hold these beliefs need to be locked up, people who express them, Jesus I just don't know.

dreamers75

CSF wrote: »

Saying being a homosexual is wrong is pretty much the same as saying being black is wrong.

Quoted for truth.

cathalio11

CSF wrote: »

People who hold these beliefs need to be locked up, people who express them, Jesus I just don't know.

I have a friend who is uneasy around gay people. He has always been like this and he just doesn't think that being gay is right. However, he keeps it a secret to most people and he has never treated a gay person any differently.

And I certainly don't think that he should be "locked up" and I actually find your comment so baffling that I assume it was just hyperbole.

efb

cathalio11 wrote: »

I have a friend who is uneasy around gay people. He has always been like this and he just doesn't think that being gay is right. However, he keeps it a secret to most people and he has never treated a gay person any differently.

And I certainly don't think that he should be "locked up" and I actually find your comment so baffling that I assume it was just hyperbole.

we all have a friend

COYVB

CSF wrote: »

It isn't the holding of these beliefs, it is the expression (particularly publicly where you're going to be expressing them to people who are alot less likely to just accept them) of them which is inciting hatred.

Saying being a homosexual is wrong is pretty much the same as saying being black is wrong. Both of these things are what somebody was born as, not by choice. People who hold these beliefs need to be locked up, people who express them, Jesus I just don't know.

You're completely misunderstanding what inciting hated means legally. Saying you believe homosexuality to be wrong is NOT legally inciting hated. Calling for gays to be beaten in the streets is

cathalio11

COYVB wrote: »

You're completely misunderstanding what inciting hated means legally. Saying you believe homosexuality to be wrong is NOT legally inciting hated. Calling for gays to be beaten in the streets is

This really couldn't be more true.

Neil3030

Ive had a look back through the thread. The original general consensus was that Alex was a complete moron for holding such bigoted beliefs. Nobody challenged his right to hold them.

This legal sidebar then needlessly started when a few posters curiously decided to wade in and point out that Alex was entitled to his opinion. The fact that nobody was previously claiming otherwise has me questioning their motives, tbh.

LiamoSail

Neil3030 wrote: »

Ive had a look back through the thread. The original general consensus was that Alex was a complete moron for holding such bigoted beliefs. Nobody challenged his right to hold them.

This legal sidebar then needlessly started when a few posters curiously decided to wade in and point out that Alex was entitled to his opinion. The fact that nobody was previously claiming otherwise has me questioning their motives, tbh.

This is the second post you've of yours on the subject of the legality of Alex's views. The first you began by countering an argument nobody made, and the second you've implied that those arguing for Alex's right have ulterior motives, the obvious implication being agreement with such views.

Nobody condoned Alex's views, there was however plenty saying they such views are illegal, as with racist views. This is the point that was disputed, the below being examples of such

efb wrote: »

People have a right to be racist?

Dempsey wrote: »

Thats not the case in places like the UK

JPA wrote: »

Holding a belief is one thing but expressing a homophobic or racist belief is illegal.

CSF wrote: »

But it isn't a right to a degree, it isn't a right at all. Expressing bigoted beliefs is considered incitement of hatred, not an entitlement to an opinion. Rightly so too.

You're clutching at straws here in your crusade to find something to be offended by, to take the moral high ground over. I resent the implication that in discussing a point about a persons right to hold a view, you have baselessly implied an agreement with such views.

Cienciano

dreamers75 wrote: »

repost for anyone who missed it

http://reflectionsasia.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/graeme-le-saux-how-gay-slurs-almost-wrecked-my-career/

Good article.
Fowler doesn't come out of it looking good. He says he's not surprised with Savage, I remember a few journalists interviewed on Off The Ball said Savage was not a very niceman. That's as good as you can go without getting a ban!
But they said he was genuinely a nasty personality.

Neil3030

LiamoSail wrote: »

This is the second post you've of yours on the subject of the legality of Alex's views. The first you began by countering an argument nobody made, and the second you've implied that those arguing for Alex's right have ulterior motives, the obvious implication being agreement with such views.

That was my second post in this thread, neither of which specifically addressed the legality of Alex's views ()

In my first post, I perhaps jumped the gun, in an effort to make clear that I will not tolerate any argument grounded in the flawed logic of reverse discrimination. But you actually claimed that the censoring of religiously grounded homophobia is discrimination against his religion. So having reread, I did put some words in your mouth regarding reverse discrimination, and I withdraw them, provided you were not suggesting a moral equivalence between censoring such views and the discrimination suffered by gay people.

Nobody condoned Alex's views, there was however plenty saying they such views are illegal, as with racist views. This is the point that was disputed, the below being examples of such

<quotes>

There were indeed many posts wrongfully claiming his views were illegal, but none of the posts you quote preceded the following:

golfball37 wrote: »

Is Alex not entitled to his opinion the same as all the new age PC people who think being gay is ok? If he's not that Facism ladies and gents.

LiamoSail wrote: »

Yes it is discriminatory opinion, but that doesn't take away from his right to hold it

Prior to this, nobody questioned the legality of Alex's statement. My second post makes this exact point, that the legal sidebar stemmed from the curious arrival of posters keen to support Alex's right to express his views. And many reasons may explain the motives of these posters - boredom, the thrill of playing raconteur, trolling, unyielding devotion to the 2nd amendment of the US constitution, etc. I was keen not to specify, as there's no way of knowing. You claimed agreement with his position, but those are your words, not mine.

You're clutching at straws here in your crusade to find something to be offended by, to take the moral high ground over. I resent the implication that in discussing a point about a persons right to hold a view, you have baselessly implied an agreement with such views.

So two posts on an Internet forum is a crusade now? And where on earth does it suggest that I am either (a) offended or (b) trying to take the moral high ground?

LiamoSail

Neil3030 wrote: »

That was my second post in this thread, neither of which specifically addressed the legality of Alex's views ()

Both addressed the discussion on Alex's views, and in both cases you inferred I was in agreement with his views. I have stated on numerous occasions that I do not agree with them.

Neil3030 wrote: »

In my first post, I perhaps jumped the gun, in an effort to make clear that I will not tolerate any argument grounded in the flawed logic of reverse discrimination. But you actually claimed that the censoring of religiously grounded homophobia is discrimination against his religion. So having reread, I did put some words in your mouth regarding reverse discrimination, and I withdraw them, provided you were not suggesting a moral equivalence between censoring such views and the discrimination suffered by gay people.

That certainly wasn't what I was suggesting. I agreed with your points on the subject, my issue was that it was in response to a point I hadn't made.

Neil3030 wrote: »

There were indeed many posts wrongfully claiming his views were illegal, but none of the posts you quote preceded the following:

There was (though I didn't quote it), you may have missed it but my first post on the topic, which you have quoted, was disagreeing with the notion he had a right to his views. Prior to me posing anything on the topic, two posters (golfball37 & efb) were discussing whether or not he was entitled to his opinion, and each had opposing views.

Neil3030 wrote: »

Prior to this, nobody questioned the legality of Alex's statement. My second post makes this exact point, that the legal sidebar stemmed from the curious arrival of posters keen to support Alex's right to express his views. And many reasons may explain the motives of these posters - boredom, the thrill of playing raconteur, trolling, unyielding devotion to the 2nd amendment of the US constitution, etc. I was keen not to specify, as there's no way of knowing. You claimed agreement with his position, but those are your words, not mine.

As I said, his right to his views was questioned prior to me posting anything on the topic. I quoted said post when I made my first point on the topic.

I don't know is that a typo you've made, but I certainly never claimed agreement with his position as you state. On numerous occasions I stated the opposite.

As for the rationale, it's something I've been reading a lot about recently, all stemming from the "offensive behaviour at football" bill in Scotland. I follow a few Celtic forums, and its a closely related topic - that is, a persons right to hold a certain political view. Obviously its quiet relevant to Celtic with the Green Brigade & Irish republicanism

Neil3030 wrote: »

So two posts on an Internet forum is a crusade now? And where on earth does it suggest that I am either (a) offended or (b) trying to take the moral high ground?

A crusade was clearly too strong. My issue was that you misrepresented my view, and baselessly implied I initiated a discussion on the legality of Alex's views as I agreed with them.

As I said, it was being discussed and it's a discussion related to another that at present is quiet prominent. To make implications as you have done is both wrong & unnecessary

CSF

cathalio11 wrote: »

I have a friend who is uneasy around gay people. He has always been like this and he just doesn't think that being gay is right. However, he keeps it a secret to most people and he has never treated a gay person any differently.

And I certainly don't think that he should be "locked up" and I actually find your comment so baffling that I assume it was just hyperbole.

Ok. I think your friend is a bad person and should be locked up.