The same goes for homosexuality. It is not for everyone but no-one is being forced to watch, take part or pay for it. Besides, what is unnatural about two men or women wanting to spend their lives togther? As for gay sex, it is an act that can be carried out without any “unnatural” help and is, therefore, natural. We’re not born with a manual saying where we can and can’t put parts of our body, except the law which controls issues of consent which is a good thing. I know a lot of people quote the story of Sodom to say God hates homosexuals but Sodom can be interpreted in many ways, including the condoning of child rape and incest.

I’d suggest, tsuchan, you go read the article again. As Flapjack correctly pointed out, the tone was decidedly homophobic… context is more important than the words she used, her semantics are not in question here. If you can’t see that, then I can’t help you see it I’m afraid. But the general opinion is that most people took this article to patronising, demeaning and homophobic, so you’re on your own if you think otherwise.

“If we can agree that uttering a word is not of itself homophobic”

No? The word itself is derogatory. It implies a weakness being gay. It also implies begin gay is an insult. Its context may be varied, but its meaning is still utterly offensive, and I do not think turning a blind eye to its use in the public sphere is acceptable.

“You’ve not tried to defend the Dannii Minogue persecution”

I’m not here to condone Ms. Minogue, we’re taking about Ms. Moir and her indefensible article. Ms. Moir has demonstrated a lack of subtitle and tack at the very least, but more to the point, why does she she the unfortunate death of someone as a means to make a global and generalist sweep at all gay people and gay relationships? And to do so with evidence that is noting more then conjecture and unfounded rumour? I find that offensive, and quite frankly stupid. Journalists have a duty to report, not make up crap to suit their own bigotry or titillate its brain-dead readers.

I’m not denying her right to write it, but I am defending the right of people to be appalled by it and to make a complaint. That’s my right. I have every right to attack and demean that article, and to say its homophobic…. which only you and a few football hooligans seem to think it isn’t.

Quite right flapjack…. the gay version is usually “I’m not a homophone, I have loads of gay friends, but….”

Ironically Mr. Rourke also used that one.

. . . in a river of D – nile

To be fair, you gave a glib reply, which is why you got back the answer I gave. (^_^)

Will said: “For example, if Mr. Rourke said “nig**r” instead of faggot, even though he has “black friends”?”

Yes, if his assurances and the evidence was that he was not racist, then his use of a particular word wouldn’t make him racist. That doesn’t make it appropriate.

But context and intention are always important. There’s no suggestion that the journalist was gay, that Rourke knew his sexuality or was even referring to it; and moreover we know his motivation was that he had become riled by an article written by the journalist which he was aggressively rejecting. It’s fatuous to say that he used the word “faggot”, thus he is a homophobe.

Motive and context is important: you have used the words “faggot” and “nig**r” in your comment, but the context was not homophobic or racist. If we can agree that uttering a word is not of itself homophobic, but the way and the context in which it is used, it should be a small step to acquit Rourke of homophobia.

In Moir’s case, she didn’t even mention a “homophobic word” as far as I can make out. She suggested his death was unnatural and sleazy, and perhaps implied that civil partnerships were no more a guarantee of fidelity than heterosexual marriage”.

On the latter point, hardly a surprise. On the former point, how do you make Moir’s distasteful comments (coming, as they did, after the sudden, unexpected death of a young celebrity and before the post mortem) more distasteful than Pink News reporting speculation that he’d suffocated on his own vomit after drinking heavily? Strangely enough, nobody complained about Pink News, but I can’t interpret it as any less offensive.

You’ve not tried to defend the Dannii Minogue persecution; but 1,000 people took the trouble to complain that she was a homophobe/homophobic. Numbers become meaningless if the complaints behind them are utter tripe coming from people climbing on a bandwagon.

But it doesn’t stop Pink News from climbing on a band-wagon and giving headlines like “21,000 complaints over Jan Moir’s piece…”. And it’s not Pink News that’s out of touch or sleazy, any more than Jan Moir or the Daily Mail or out of touch or sleazy… both exist to report in a style their readers want to hear, and I’m afraid sometimes that will be unfair, unjustified, un-respectful and offensive – particularly to another audience.

http://www.oldfirmforums.co.uk/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=26339

Sites like this should be shut down. Be like me and lodge a complaint to the host.

You asked, I gave you the help you needed. No need to get snotty. If you have a point to make, then make it, but don;t patronise us.

But I’m confused. Would you be so keen to allow the same for racism?

For example, if Mr. Rourke said “nig**r” instead of faggot, even though he has “black friends”?

What about making racist jokes, is this acceptable too?

And Mr. Moir, despite protestation to the contrary, clearly does not support civil partnerships. Its hard to justify her so called “article” as anything but gutter trash homophobia, no matter what defination you use.

I’m not disagreeing with you entirely, but free speech is all well and good, but not if it advocates persecution, or murder. Then it stops becoming free speech, it becomes oppression, and it needs to be challenged. Every time.

Very fine, if that’s the best reply you can come up with. Chambers dictionary definition:
homophobe noun a person with a strong aversion to or hatred of homosexuals. homophobia noun. homophobic adj.

Then it’s ridiculous to suggest that Dannii Minogue is a homophobe noun or homophobic adj. It completely beggers belief that this word is applied to her, and yet 4,000 people complained about her.

These days I keep remembering a quote from Dr Who (of all programmes):
“I gave them the wrong warning. I should have told them to run, as fast as they can. Run and hide, because the monsters are coming – the human race.”

This is how we are going to be perceived. Nobody will want anything to do with us, nobody will ever speak of us. Sure, nobody will ever share a gay joke because they will fear their reputation and perhaps careers will be over. Those who were our friends will run and hide!

We have this really powerful word “homophobia” which encapsulates the motivation for bullying, stabbing, torture, murdering of gay people; driving them to suicide. Persecution by bigots, by states and by religions who want to expunge homosexuality from the earth.

“People with a strong aversion or hatred“, the definition says. How can that apply to Mickey Rourke when he’s happy to have dozens of gay friends? How can that apply to Jan Moir (a woman who supports civil partnerships) for suggesting a sleaze involvement in Steve Gately’s death.

I do not complain about the inappropriate use of “homophobe” and “homophobia” because I don’t care about it. I complain because I’m passionate about ending homophobia. I’ve spent thousands of pounds of my own cash getting “End Homophobia” wristbands made, and journeyed across the country giving them out – often by myself and in inclement weather because nobody else has been interested to help. Because I hate homophobia. But what gay people are doing these days is rendering the word meaningless, alienating our advocates, behaving as if we are some kind of holy species. This is not fighting homophobia… this is empowering homophobia! Please think about it.

Perhaps use a dictionary.

http://www.dailyquail.org/2009/10/jan-moir-why-theres-nothing-natural.html

Are you playing devil’s advocate, or did you have something to say? If so, then go ahead and say it.

Perhaps some readers of Pink News would like to explain to me (dispassionately) what a homophobe is. I’d be fascinated to hear the definitions.

No matter how it’s said, any definition of homophobia is pretty much the same thing: fear of or contempt for homosexuals or homosexuality. It’s a pretty self-explanatory term.

I, for one, have not been ‘orchetrated’ to protest – which has included a complaint on the Mail’s own website – and it may come as a surprise to the old media that new media – twitter, email, Facebook etc -is a powerful democratic and open platform for the exchange of views and complaints. Long may it continue that individual reclaim their opinions for themselves.

My sympathy goes to Stephen’s family and husband.