James

That's just what I was thinking Sean! I think lots of people assume that being gay is easier because you can just hide it where necessary. But the problem is that we become invisible, and if we become invisible it's harder to fight homophobia. People like Chis Moyles get away with using 'gay' as a derogotary term unchecked and it spreads because nobody is willing to stick their head above the pulpit. Hence the need to keep reminding people we exist with events like Pride. The problem is that it's very hard for (some) straight people to understand what it's like to be brought up with the belief that what you are is wrong and bad and that you should somehow choose not to be like that. Like many gay people, I went through self-denial and tried to be straight for years because society was giving me the message, loud and clear, that being gay was not normal or desirable. It upsets me that kids are still being brought up to believe this. It is terrible and wrong and causes untold misery.

>>At the very least gay people have a choice about the ways in which, and the extent to which they express their sexuality in their everyday lives, and how and to whom they reveal it, and thereby expose themselves to prejudice Ah, fantastic! So we should just shut up, stop being so annoyingly vocal about our sexuality (which, unlike religion, we can just sort of choose anyway) and keep quiet. If you don't want to be prejudiced against, just shut up and pretend to be/"choose" to be straight. Firstly, gay people have had to hide their sexuality for years, and it has caused many years of misery. If children are not brought up knowing it's ok to be gay they will either hate themselves if they have gay feelings or bully others who express them. You might find this acceptable but I do not. Secondly, I cannot believe that in 2008 I have to explain that you cannot choose your sexuality. When exactly did you "choose" to be straight? When did you choose to be aroused by women? Why not, as an experiment, "choose" to be aroused by men?

RosieH, try rereading DaveR's posts replacing "gay" with "black" and you will see how homophobic it is. I'm finding all this quite depressing really. Reminds me of the things people said about black people who complained about racism in the 80s.

The comparison with racism is entirely relevant. It is another form of discrimination which we're further along the tracks at tackling. It's not a competition; it shows what can and should be done to address the situation. >>You believe this, and so do I, but many observant muslims (and christians for that matter) believe, entirely sincerely, both that homosexuality is a sin, and that the liberal media/establishment ignore them and/or belittle and mock their beliefs. That's the problem with comparative bigotry/tolerance - whatever you decide is 'bad' or 'worse' there will be many others who disagree. This does not make sense because being gay is not a religion! It is not a lifestyle choice. It's sad that people like you haven't grasped such a basic truth! The point Diane Abbott made so well is that there simply does not have to be a conflict between people's beliefs and protecting minority groups. Everyone is free to believe whatever they like (and hold whatever prejudices they like - you can't police people's thoughts!) but institutions and the media must respect all groups if we are to have a fair and tolerant society. Nobody needs to preach hate! Similarly I do not believe in the Bible, Creationism and the Muslim faith. That does not mean that I should be able to stand in a town square telling people that Christians are a disgrace and should be killed! The law should protect us all against this sort of thing. Btw the Attitude website does not carry the stories so I will leave it to everyone reading this to decide whether I made them all up! Alternatively, look in this month's magazine where they are. It's strange that you don't seem to believe that homophobic bullying exists. If someone complained of racially motivated bullying would you refuse to believe it and insist on evidence? You prove my point, yet again - and the validity of my comparison.

I'm wondering whether to reply as you seem like a wind-up merchant! But I will give you the benefit of the doubt... >>You think that discrimination against muslims is equally wrong - but do they? If muslims complained to you that gay people get to march through london shouting out their beliefs, but when they do it they get arrested, what would you say? Particualrly if what they wanted to shout was "homosexualtity is abhorrent to God!" What exactly are these "gay beliefs" you're talking about? The right to be gay and gay equality is enshrined in British law by the legal age of consent. Are you living in the 1950s? The rest of us have moved on. If you are a homophobe I suggest you emigrate somewhere more intolerant as things are not about to go backwards! Gay people exist, Dave, I'm sorry if that upsets you (obviously it does) but we're not going away so you will have to learn to deal with us. And a gay pride march is obviosuly not the same as a march by religious fanatics preaching hate and intolerance. I can't believe that you could equate the two. As for evidence that low-level homophobia is ruining people's lives, this month's Attitude magazine is full of heart-breaking stories about kids bullied at school for being gay. The very lack of coverage on the Liverpool gay murder compared to London gang-related stabbings shows that it's not a priority for the media. But to be honest I'm sure all of this will mean nothing to you as you are clearly homophobic. I wonder where your fear and ignorance comes from? I take comfort in the fact that people like you are part of a dwindling minority these days. As the saying goes, gay people exist. You really need to get over it Dave.

Dave R, your attitude kind of proves the point. It's sad really. My initial point was that we are a bit further along in combatting racism than homophobia, an opinion I was pleased to find endorsed by a black female MP. How saying this is making it a competition I don't understand, I think you have missed the point completely! Subtle, low-level homophobia is still ruining people's lives and it's not right. Of course prejudice against disabled people and muslims is equally wrong! It's just that you don't hear the word "muslim" used to describe something "sh*t" the way the word "gay" is. And judging by the decision to allow the marriage registrar to discriminate against gays, we are not giving gay people the same protection as other minorities. Also, what has the fact that some Muslims don't approve of gays got to do with it? Some white people think blacks are inferior but that doesn't mean we should allow such prejudice to go unquestioned. Your last remark is particularly sad, especially when I think of that teenage boy murdered in Liverpool for being gay. Shame on you.

Yes, it is. It's mainly among teenagers and a minority of people old enough to know better (like Chris Moyles) trying to sound cool. I think it's really damaging as any kid who's unsure of his sexuality - not to mention bullies with impressionable minds - will get the idea that being gay is something negative and shameful.

I wish more straight people realized this Sean (although I do know many who do).

It's the use of the word "gay" to mean "sh*t" basically. Surely you've heard this? And no, I don't think it is acceptable, any more than it would be to use a word pertaining to someone's race to describe something rubbish!

It's incredible, sin't it? I also fear for gay youngsters attending some of the government's beloved faith schools. It got me thinking how there's been virually zero media coverage of the recent homophobic murder of a teenager in Liverpool, while stabbings in London hog the front pages. The likes of Chris Moyles continue to use the word "gay" as an insult on radio while films like Guy Ritchie's latest pitiful effort Rocknrolla are laced with casual homophobia. Perhaps I'm being paranoid but it seems as if homophobia isn't being confronted as much as it should.

I am paraphrasing a bit (I can't remember it word-for-word!) but that is pretty close to what she said. I thought it was brave and principled of her to say such a thing - not in the least bit opportunistic. She was actually condemning the ruling whereby a marriage registrar was recently allowed to opt out of performing civil partnerships for "reasons of conscience." Her point was that basically this woman is employed by the state - not the church - and strangely seemed to have no objection to performing non-religious weddings (also contravening Bible teachings). Yet for some reasons she only chooses to object to the same-sex ones... She got all this across fantastically well - much better than I have here - and I was really impressed with her principled stance. It would probably have been more opportunistic of her to agree with the ruling and claim some support from the religious fanatics. I found it quite refreshing compared to the mindless trotting out of the party line you get from robots like Hazel Blears.

Interesting to read Diane Abbott's view in this month's Attitude magazine. I have always liked her & what she said confirmed this. Basically, she said that there's still masses to do to confront homophobia in society, in schools especially; that we're some way behind compared with racism. She singled out the use of the word "gay" as a slur - the fact that this has been deemed by the BBC and others as acceptable (if it was a racist term of abuse it would not be tolerated). Coming from a black woman MP I found this interesting, especially givan the debate about racism and homophobia which took place on this forum some time ago.

Very telling that the "local estate agent" liked it so much (even if the tone of his post suggested he knew the staff already)

Villages are so early noughties. Hamlets are what it's all about.

Unfortunately this place looks destined to attract even more mindless suburbanites with thumb rings and gelled hair from places like Bromley. Ugh. It's not a patch on Inside 72

Threshers is pikey chavtastic

Ugh that disgusting dirty restaurant. Good riddance. Hope the new one's an improvement

Can someone tell me what a 'decent' person is? As opposed to, say, an indecent person?

Totally agree with you MM. I am not advocating vigilante behaviour. The security guard should not have used excessive force. We all must accept the due process of the law. What worries me is the signal that all this concern for the shoplifter sends out. He/she will walk about feeling victorious, thinking "I know my rights" and so on. Perhaps he/she will feel emboldened to do it again - maybe trying to spark a confrontation. He knows that, whilst he can always cry injustice or excessive force or whatever (and be heard!) the system must be seen to be fair. Hence it is tipped in his favour. I wonder how those who have posted in defence of the shoplifter would feel if he stole their wallet? Or burgled their house? Would they be so concerned for his welfare?

I think everyone's being a bit hard on Louisa. Perhaps she went a bit far (as she often does) but I do think it's depressing how people seem to take such self-righteous pleasure in finding a person in authority who's abusing it. Never mind the criminal (we feel guilty about condemning him/her). Focus on the one in authority. It's a distinctly middle-class indulgence. We do it and feel oh so politically correct and smug. Like we're defending the little guy. Unfortunately the overall effect is to give the impression that the security guard is somehow worse than the shoplifter. This is dangerous. I believe it's undermining some people's sense of personal responibility for their actions. Recently my partner was a victim of assault by a person known to the police. We had to take it to court, and we have done everything by the book. The justice system as a whole has been utterly, utterly HOPELESS so far. There is so much emphasis on protecting his rights and giving him a fair hearing that the case has virtually collapsed. This is despite the fact that we have an independent witness! The perpetrator must be laughing his head off. I'm sorry but the thought of some nasty thug like him getting some rough justice at the hands of a security guard is, in my opinion, a good thing! Incidentally, I am not some rightwing reactionary who wants hanging brought back. I just down't want to live in a society that, when confronted with criminals, turns a blind eye and starts wringing its hands out of some weird misplaced sense of guilt.

I think they were public schoolboys... maybe that's what it was

While I was at University a straight mate (who was actually quite homophobic at times) would often want to kiss me when he was drunk (with tongues!) I always refused... mainly because I didn't fancy him. I was a bit confused by it all. I also recall a party where I didn't know anyone. The (straight) blokes played a game that involved taking turns to whack each other on the bottom as hard as they could. They also went into the bathroom to 'compare dicks.' Again, I thought this was all extremely weird and sat it out! Can any straight blokes shed any light on this? I am still a bit baffled by it all...

James Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- I know straight men who > flirt shamelessly with gay men for example! Why the exclamation mark? I dunno, maybe I was feeling a bit flamboyant? Where were all the straight men with bisexual tendencies when I needed them!? Life is so unfair...

Wow. Am always fascinated about women who tell me their boyfriends have dated men or have gay porn... I have never met a bloke like this! The complex thing about sexuality for me is that whilst I believe 100% that it is something that we're born with there's also a spectrum AND I think there is a certain degree of fluidity to it. It's interesting that you think men are more likely to swing BB - I've always thhought the opposite. Mainly because women have traditionally been more objectified and beautified in society whereas the idea of a man as a passive object to be admired was not acceptable. Moreover - two women kissing was seen as titillating where as two men kissing was somehow threatening and scary to straight men. Now that men are being objectified more and more I think things are shifting. I know straight men who flirt shamelessly with gay men for example!

I dunno Rico - know what you mean (the unions had to be crushed) but I think he is a lot harder on, say, Scargill than the likes of Norman Tebbit - in my opinion an equally odious and extremist man!