More Great Publicity For The Island....

[Slim]

Who says I do?

 

Me. Even in your response you talk more about PR than the discrimination issue itself. I don't think any country is short of religious nutters, but I don't think any country is judged purly on that minority. Better to focus on fixing the problem than worrying about the negative press imho.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Surely the landlord and anyone else who is anti-gay is entitled to their opinion, and entitled to steer clear of any dealings with gays and lesbians.

They increasingly insist on normal members of society accepting them openly. That will never happen.

Why not just stay in the cupboard like years ago?

Unlike Manannan, I know you're not a troll. You genuinely are homophobic. How sad. If I was going to enter into any debate with a knucke-dragger like you the question would be "Why should we stay in the cupboard?" But considering what you're saying I don't rate your intelligence highly - I mean, it should be obvious that an opinion is different to denying a service.

 

And though many fellow gays do insist on being normal, very many don't. I don't. Normal is just the majority, it is just straight people.

I am not straight so talk of normal is pointless and meaningless.

[ACLDM]

I too, like Mannanan, was brought up to believe that same sex relationships are wrong - and I have to admit I still believe that. However, it doesn't make me hate homosexuals or want to call them abusive names, and I have several gay friends. I suppose my outlook now is "live and let live", even if somebody's lifestayle choice isn't something I necessarily agree with. If I was a landlord I wouldn't stop a couple renting my property because they were in a same-sex relationship, I would judge their suitability to live in my property by trying to establish whether or not they were going to look after it (we have two rental properties, so know first hand what damage some people can do!). But I still think that the landlord is perfectly entitled to deny the rental of his property to this particular couple if he feels it is against his belief and his morals. Surely that's his basic human right? There's plenty of landlords that would happily rent a property out to them and make them feel welcome, so why insist on making this landlord have to go against what he believes in?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I am not a fan of homosexuality,

 

it is my opinion that at an animal level we have 2 sexes to propagate the human race, although I do understand that the mind is a ridiculously complicated thing and people will be as they are; live and let live.

Well that's a stupid thing to say for starters. Do you realise what a tit you sound with mention of that - especially with the live and let live at the end. Not a fan? What is that supposed to mean? Does it mean you don't like it?

 

It is homophobic to make comments on disliking homosexuality because any sort of liking or disliking are based on value judgements that really have no place in the topic of sexuality.

 

Mention of biology and procreation is completely irrelevant.

 

By all means demonstrate why you think that your dislike is based on the question of propagation. But I doubt you can do so.

[manxman1980]

 

In this free society, every gay so desperately wants, people who do not find homosexuality acceptable or desirable should also be able to express their negative outlook on homosexuals, or else you have a situation where being gay is perfectly normal, and nobody is allowed to say otherwise.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this free, tolerant society that gay people want, simply would not be free and tolerant if people who express the different, and in my opinion correct view, that homosexuality is wrong and were forced to believe otherwise, forced to accept homosexuals and, in the case of the landlord, forced to trade with people who they do not find desirable individuals.

 

Excellent summary.

All you hugapuff / muncharug supporters should wind your necks in a bit and study the above statements - they are simple and so very true.

 

Congratulations Domino by using such endearing terms you just undermined your point and showed a massive lack of tolerance.

 

I am not against freedom of speech and I understand the point Manannan is trying to make in the above statement. Freedom of speech in my view must be balanced with not being offensive (which the use of biggoted language was) and the person giving their views should be willing to explain their views and the reasons for it. They should also be open to having that view challenged in a similar manner otherwise we undermine the whole idea in my opinion.

 

Manannan says he was brought up to believe that being gay was wrong and that is the basis for his belief. I can understand this, however, I do not think it is right. It is only through opening our mind to new ideas and ways of doing things that society can develop and maybe one day address some of the mistakes that have been made.

 

What is being demonstrated here is that some people cannot take the blinkers off and are so blinded by their convictions that they fail to recognise any counter views or listen to a reasoned argument.

 

And if by chance I have offended, think of this and all will be mended, we might as well be 10 pages back, for all the chance that you'll change your mind....

(misquote of Tim Minchin.)

[manxman1980]

 

I am not a fan of homosexuality,

 

it is my opinion that at an animal level we have 2 sexes to propagate the human race, although I do understand that the mind is a ridiculously complicated thing and people will be as they are; live and let live.

Well that's a stupid thing to say for starters. Do you realise what a tit you sound with mention of that - especially with the live and let live at the end. Not a fan? What is that supposed to mean? Does it mean you don't like it?

 

It is homophobic to make comments on disliking homosexuality because any sort of liking or disliking are based on value judgements that really have no place in the topic of sexuality.

 

Mention of biology and procreation is completely irrelevant.

 

By all means demonstrate why you think that your dislike is based on the question of propagation. But I doubt you can do so.

 

Agreed! I am sure you can find a number of homosexual couples who are parents... Granted it might be with the help of medical science rather than the "normal" way but it does happen.

[Blade Runner]

 

 

Let's see how many more news outlets will carry it, but the damage is already done.

 

Why do you appear to care more about the negative news aspect vs the issue itself?

 

Who says I do? I care about the issue but the fact remains that one single religious....let's be polite and call him....'individual' has just done a tremendous amount of damage to the island. IOMG should have people on the ball in their PR department to limit the damage and react, for example by liaising with UK and other media when they contact them to check on existing legislation. I'm not being negative or concentrating on the negative - I'm being a realist looking at the facts. Damage limitation is now the name of the game.

 

You could tell Bell is really pissed off about this in the interview on manx.net. Let's hope this helps to push the legislation through fast. People who believe in religious fairy tales interfering with the real world in such manner is something I thought we had long left behind - but it seems some areas of Ramsey are still living in the dark ages.

 

Isle of Man..where you can....discriminate as much as you want!

 

Trouble is things like this make our current slogan "Where You Can" ring a bit hollow and people will fall back to the old stereotypes they think about the island from the past.

 

This "We're From The Isle Of Man" from the Fast Show will be how people see us now again...........................

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UX8Dg4nW7lU

 

This clip includes "Deviants" and could have been written today about this sorry situation that is all over the national media.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I too, like Mannanan, was brought up to believe that same sex relationships are wrong - and I have to admit I still believe that. However, it doesn't make me hate homosexuals or want to call them abusive names, and I have several gay friends. I suppose my outlook now is "live and let live", even if somebody's lifestayle choice isn't something I necessarily agree with. If I was a landlord I wouldn't stop a couple renting my property because they were in a same-sex relationship, I would judge their suitability to live in my property by trying to establish whether or not they were going to look after it (we have two rental properties, so know first hand what damage some people can do!). But I still think that the landlord is perfectly entitled to deny the rental of his property to this particular couple if he feels it is against his belief and his morals. Surely that's his basic human right? There's plenty of landlords that would happily rent a property out to them and make them feel welcome, so why insist on making this landlord have to go against what he believes in?

Mannanan is just a troll.

 

If you still believe such relationships are wrong then your belief is no doubt formed on bad thinking. Framing relationships as wrong or right is part of the heterosexual cultures need to sustain itself when it doesn't make sense itself. Heterosexuality, as an identity and culture is wrong. It's neurotic and dysfunctional - it tries to create the idea of there being a correct and proper sexuality (it's own) and that requires people to have only attractions to opposite sexes and follow strict gender behaviours. It's nonsense. It's not the way people are. And it creates this bad thinking that you have.

 

The landlord isn't perfectly entitled. The reason why is that were such things to be allowed you could (and even would) have situations with gay couples would be denied all sorts of service offered by private business, which would effectively marginalise gay people even further. Imagine this were to happen more commonly and with food as well, the basics of life.

Compare the situation to that in American in the early half of the twentieth century when they were segregated and couldn't access the best services - because they were owned and controlled by the richer whites. No difference here.

 

Of course, in 2013 far fewer people would go as far as denying others these things, but homophobia is still here with - there's plenty of it on this thread. It isn't hard for things to roll back as people stop being mindful of their prejudices and ignorant thinking.

[woolley]

What strikes me about this thread is the the massive change over the last 50 years in the average person's view. Then, the majority would have been with the landlord and the disgust would have been with the homosexuals. Now it is totally the reverse and this illustrates the power of societal conditioning. The danger is that now, we seem to have almost a gestapo of "liberal" intolerance.

[Lonan3]

I was brought up in a society in which homosexuals were mocked, derided and often made the objects of disgust. Most of my generation were taught to think that way.

The thing is, though, that many of us reached a stage where we actually began to think for ourselves. Attitudes may have changed slowly - the 'disgust' was probably the first thing to disappear, followed by the derision. The mockery took longer - and I honestly think that's not a bad thing because there really shouldn't be anything that can't be made the subject of mockery at times but, having said that, there is often a very fine line between a joke and an offensive comment that tips over into discrimination - and most of us have been guilty of that at times.

The sheer hatred shown to some elements of society on the grounds of sexual orientation, or colour, age or physical appearance, is something that, by a read through this thread, is shown to be still present. That is something I find sad, but the fact that the majority are willing to condemn such bigotry is, perhaps, a sign that society and its attitudes have changed and continue to do so.

Progress may be slow and there are bound to be setbacks, but it is a continual process that, hopefully, may one day reach a point where we're able to simply accept people for what they are rather than what our induced stereotypes proclaim them to be.

Yet again, however, it can be seen that ingrained religious dogma is probably the most ever-present hindrance to a fair, just and tolerant society.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Free speech is what a modern society should be all about....and everyone is entitled to their opinion...and rent their properties to who they choose....however freedom of speech doesn't include verbally abusing people!!

 

Perhaps we should just take it one stage further and stone the faggots/lezzers and be done with it!! Jeeeeeze.........

Erm...that's not free speech, unless you're just trying to squeeze that in to make it seem acceptable.

 

People can either rent their property or not rent, full stop. But not choose on the basis on race or sexuality, as mentioned above, in a capitalist society this leads to marginalisation of certain people.

[woolley]

If you still believe such relationships are wrong then your belief is no doubt formed on bad thinking. Framing relationships as wrong or right is part of the heterosexual cultures need to sustain itself when it doesn't make sense itself. Heterosexuality, as an identity and culture is wrong. It's neurotic and dysfunctional - it tries to create the idea of there being a correct and proper sexuality (it's own) and that requires people to have only attractions to opposite sexes and follow strict gender behaviours. It's nonsense. It's not the way people are. And it creates this bad thinking that you have.

 

I think heterosexuality's need to sustain itself has done pretty well throughout history. Possibly too well. Surely heterosexuality IS the correct sexuality and homosexuality, although natural, like any other physical condition is certainly not. You seem to have the bad thinking.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Liberal intolerance? People's speech and their views can enter public discourse, such as on a place like this. But some things are not to be tolerated. Can you be more specific?

[woolley]

Yes. If it doesn't conform to the current establishment PC agenda then it is taboo.

[John Wright]

Problem is that we cannot be sure that this was homophobic discrimination. The thing most likely uppermost in the mind of anyone from a minority group, or a member of a diverse group is that if something goes wrong its about their difference. It may not be.

 

Anti discrimination legislation is an incredibly blunt tool, but until we have everyone educated, accepting of differences and including those who are not the same, which is the only real way, legislation cases resentments, legislation is needed.

 

Why we have fallen behind I do not know

 

I have delivered inclusion and diversity training to about 140 members of the police force over the last 4 months. They have worked well and the policing style and agenda is so different and amenable to out more cosmopolitan open society than in the pasty

 

But I am trying to get, along with others, some anti bullying work into schools next year linked with diversity and inclusion, to educate including kick it out, anti gay discrimination in football/sports, level playing field, disability access to sport, show racism the red card, obvious really, and pink triangle theatre and Cando co dance.

 

Schools wont have the pink triangle or kick it out in the premises. How do we educate. Clause 28 is long gone.