Can Homophobia Be Justified?

[Postauthoritarian America]

No. /thread

[Istoreya]

Free speech is not unlimited. See: harassment, threats of violence, defamation.

I am not talking about harassment or any of that I am talking about oppositions to gay marriage or just abstinence from gay sex

I don't know if you've ever been told this... But it's not homophobic to just... Not be gay...

[Daarwyrth]

The existence of homophobes is why I don't believe in the concept of "free speech".

I heartily agree. The existence of any kind of -phobes is exactly why I think it's wonderful there are limitations to free speech. Opinions that call for oppression, for the limitation of human rights, for the treatment of certain people as worse, those should rightfully be persecuted by the authorities. People need to be held accountable for spreading or promoting hatred, bigotry and discrimination. Too often people hide behind "freedom of speech" in order to avoid the consequences for their words, which is simply reprehensible to me. You don't get to say whatever you want if it is harmful, hurtful, inflammatory or bigoted in any way shape or form. Freedom of expression can't be and shouldn't be a free pass to spout hatred and division whenever and however you like.

[Daarwyrth]

Free speech is not unlimited. See: harassment, threats of violence, defamation.

I am not talking about harassment or any of that I am talking about oppositions to gay marriage or just abstinence from gay sex

Oh right, because it's so pleasant and nice to hear people say "you're sinful and need to be deprived of your basic human rights because I don't like human decency". You worry that people who express hateful and harmful views can't say what they want, but did you for a single moment consider how I, a gay man, might feel about the fact that those people express a view that literally could harm me? My rights? My human dignity?

Take the colour of your eyes, I don't know what it is but you'll know for yourself. Imagine now that some group of people got it in their heads that people with your colour of eyes are worse, are sinful, are somehow lesser beings. Now, imagine they start advocating those views, try to influence politicians to limit the rights of people with your colour of eyes. Those people literally approach you and tell you "why are you walking on this street, people like you shouldn't get to walk over this street like that because you're sinful!". How would that make you feel? Your eye colour is a characteristic about yourself that you cannot change. Sure, you can mask your eye colour by wearing coloured contacts, but would that make you happy? That you have to hide your true eye colour because there is a group of people that is actively working to oppress you? Would you still believe in freedom of speech if that very "right" is actively harming your existence and rights?

The same is with homosexuality. It is not a choice, it is not a preference, it is not a fancy. It is a characteristic that you are born with, that you can't change at a whim, that you can't choose to suddenly become. Your sexual orientation is determined from the moment you are in the womb. How on Earth then, can it be fair to say to someone who is gay "you should practice abstinence from gay sex"? That's like I would approach you and tell you "you can't have basic human rights like everyone else because your eye colour is sinful to me".

[Caraani]

Having bounced around the political spectrum like a pinball, I still don't understand where all this weird nonsense is coming from. Why must everything be so inflated out of proportion that it floats far away from reality? This stuff is like "slippery-slope" turned up to 11!

The slippery slope has been proven to be true in regards to LGBT stuff in the west tbh. Conservatives were right that it wouldn't stop with gay marriage, and I think that's played a large part in pushback against trans people.

I'm pretty sure at least I personally stopped at being allowed to hold hands with my boyfriend and potentially marrying him. I have yet to don myself in drag, or go around with cock-shaped lolipops wearing rainbow dresses and yelling "F*CK HETEROS, I LIKE C*CK"
But hey, maybe you're gay too and have gay friends and can tell me about your experience with all this exageration from our side.

[Istoreya]

The slippery slope has been proven to be true in regards to LGBT stuff in the west tbh. Conservatives were right that it wouldn't stop with gay marriage, and I think that's played a large part in pushback against trans people.

I'm pretty sure at least I personally stopped at being allowed to hold hands with my boyfriend and potentially marrying him. I have yet to don myself in drag, or go around with cock-shaped lolipops wearing rainbow dresses and yelling "F*CK HETEROS, I LIKE C*CK"
But hey, maybe you're gay too and have gay friends and can tell me about your experience with all this exageration from our side.

Perhaps the person who originally brought up the lollipops are confusing Pride Parades for Kanamara Matsuri. Then again, if you look it up, the top pictures on Google Images are all women, not men.

[Greater-Appalachia]

The existence of homophobes is why I don't believe in the concept of "free speech".

I heartily agree. The existence of any kind of -phobes is exactly why I think it's wonderful there are limitations to free speech. Opinions that call for oppression, for the limitation of human rights, for the treatment of certain people as worse, those should rightfully be persecuted by the authorities. People need to be held accountable for spreading or promoting hatred, bigotry and discrimination. Too often people hide behind "freedom of speech" in order to avoid the consequences for their words, which is simply reprehensible to me. You don't get to say whatever you want if it is harmful, hurtful, inflammatory or bigoted in any way shape or form. Freedom of expression can't be and shouldn't be a free pass to spout hatred and division whenever and however you like.

I wasn’t going to respond to this thread anymore because it wasn’t worth the effort, but what you just said really grinds my gears. Suppressing the people’s right to speak is a very slippery slope. You start suppressing only a certain type of speech based on your perception of a phobia, but what happens when the government says “government-phobes” are a thing and they start suppressing THAT type of speech? They say government phobia is discriminatory like homophobia is discriminatory, and anything criticizing the government is suddenly banned like your despised “hate speech” is banned. Then it keeps getting worse, they start persecuting these governmentphobes (anybody that criticizes the government), and then when you say “Hey government, you shouldn’t do that, it isn’t fair!”, you are the one behind bars. If you give the government an excuse or opportunity to increase its own power, then it most likely will.

And apart from that, not a lot of people like homophobes (no not religious people, actual homophobes) and other evil-doers, obviously, but it isn’t fair for everybody else to be able to speak our minds and them not. The way you described outlawed speech is anything “harmful, hurtful, inflammatory, or bigoted”. The word harmful is subjective, and that means I can say what YOU just said is harmful to ME and cause YOUR speech (which didn’t intend to harm me) to get YOU in trouble. Your own words described speech that shouldn’t be allowed as anything hurtful, so, if what you just said hurts my feelings, then that falls under the statement and now you need to be persecuted by the authorities, like you said! Guess you’re going to jail now!

[Istoreya]

I heartily agree. The existence of any kind of -phobes is exactly why I think it's wonderful there are limitations to free speech. Opinions that call for oppression, for the limitation of human rights, for the treatment of certain people as worse, those should rightfully be persecuted by the authorities. People need to be held accountable for spreading or promoting hatred, bigotry and discrimination. Too often people hide behind "freedom of speech" in order to avoid the consequences for their words, which is simply reprehensible to me. You don't get to say whatever you want if it is harmful, hurtful, inflammatory or bigoted in any way shape or form. Freedom of expression can't be and shouldn't be a free pass to spout hatred and division whenever and however you like.

I wasn’t going to respond to this thread anymore because it wasn’t worth the effort, but what you just said really grinds my gears. Suppressing the people’s right to speak is a very slippery slope. You start suppressing only a certain type of speech based on your perception of a phobia, but what happens when the government says “government-phobes” are a thing and they start suppressing THAT type of speech? They say government phobia is discriminatory like homophobia is discriminatory, and anything criticizing the government is suddenly banned like your despised “hate speech” is banned. Then it keeps getting worse, they start persecuting these governmentphobes (anybody that criticizes the government), and then when you say “Hey government, you shouldn’t do that, it isn’t fair!”, you are the one behind bars. If you give the government an excuse or opportunity to increase its own power, then it most likely will.

And apart from that, not a lot of people like homophobes (no not religious people, actual homophobes) and other evil-doers, obviously, but it isn’t fair for everybody else to be able to speak our minds and them not. The way you described outlawed speech is anything “harmful, hurtful, inflammatory, or bigoted”. The word harmful is subjective, and that means I can say what YOU just said is harmful to ME and cause YOUR speech (which didn’t intend to harm me) to get YOU in trouble. Your own words described speech that shouldn’t be allowed as anything hurtful, so, if what you just said hurts my feelings, then that falls under the statement and now you need to be persecuted by the authorities, like you said! Guess you’re going to jail now!

This may come as a shock - but saying something to hurt someone's feelings is not the same as calling for violence against a group of people.

[Engadine Mcdonalds 1997]

The existence of homophobes is why I don't believe in the concept of "free speech".

To use the most overused word on the internet and especially reddit: Based

[Daarwyrth]

I heartily agree. The existence of any kind of -phobes is exactly why I think it's wonderful there are limitations to free speech. Opinions that call for oppression, for the limitation of human rights, for the treatment of certain people as worse, those should rightfully be persecuted by the authorities. People need to be held accountable for spreading or promoting hatred, bigotry and discrimination. Too often people hide behind "freedom of speech" in order to avoid the consequences for their words, which is simply reprehensible to me. You don't get to say whatever you want if it is harmful, hurtful, inflammatory or bigoted in any way shape or form. Freedom of expression can't be and shouldn't be a free pass to spout hatred and division whenever and however you like.

I wasn’t going to respond to this thread anymore because it wasn’t worth the effort, but what you just said really grinds my gears. Suppressing the people’s right to speak is a very slippery slope. You start suppressing only a certain type of speech based on your perception of a phobia, but what happens when the government says “government-phobes” are a thing and they start suppressing THAT type of speech? They say government phobia is discriminatory like homophobia is discriminatory, and anything criticizing the government is suddenly banned like your despised “hate speech” is banned. Then it keeps getting worse, they start persecuting these governmentphobes (anybody that criticizes the government), and then when you say “Hey government, you shouldn’t do that, it isn’t fair!”, you are the one behind bars. If you give the government an excuse or opportunity to increase its own power, then it most likely will.

And apart from that, not a lot of people like homophobes (no not religious people, actual homophobes) and other evil-doers, obviously, but it isn’t fair for everybody else to be able to speak our minds and them not. The way you described outlawed speech is anything “harmful, hurtful, inflammatory, or bigoted”. The word harmful is subjective, and that means I can say what YOU just said is harmful to ME and cause YOUR speech (which didn’t intend to harm me) to get YOU in trouble. Your own words described speech that shouldn’t be allowed as anything hurtful, so, if what you just said hurts my feelings, then that falls under the statement and now you need to be persecuted by the authorities, like you said! Guess you’re going to jail now!

First of all, you completely gloss over the fact that there is a fundamental difference between saying "I don't like homosexuality" and "Homosexuals need to die". Obviously, the first phrase isn't pleasant to hear, but it's not immediately harmful. It doesn't affect me in my life, my rights, or my existence. The second phrase is quite harmful however, and can spark acts against gay people. The phrase threatens me, the phrase calls for my death, the phrase treats me as something lesser. This is something you completely failed to address, and I understand why you omitted this distinction. Because only if you leave out this crucial difference can you make the argument you just made in your post. As such, your argument is fundamentally flawed.

Second of all, the governmentophobe example is highly unlikely and improbable. Do you realise how many safeguards there are in various states across the globe against such a thing? There are conventions, treaties, constitutions, parliaments etc. etc. Of course, if a democracy is flawed from the start then those safeguards will be lacking, but the older democracies like in Europe and North America have plenty of safeguards against such an example as you provided. On top of that, those very safeguards (treaties, conventions, constitutions etc.) contain limitations and restrictions on the freedom of expression already. Let's take a look at the text of article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which is about freedom of expression:

Article 10 – Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Now take a close look at clause 2 of article 10. That there are literal limitations on freedom of expression that this convention imposes. Those restrictions include "for the protection of the reputation or rights of others", which means, for example, the right of gay people to freely exist and live their lives as they want. Through this convention, someone who calls for the exclusion of gay people from society or even their extermination, can be persecuted on the basis of clause 2 of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and rightfully so.

As you can see, there are already limitations on the freedom of expression, and somehow Europe hasn't become a tyrannical dictatorship where people are forbidden from expressing critiques on the government. And these limitations aren't only on the European level, but also national ones such as in the Dutch constitution. Here is the text of article 7, clause 1 of the Dutch constitution:

Article 7
1. No one shall require prior permission to publish thoughts or opinions through the press, without prejudice to the responsibility of every person under the law.

The crucial part of this is "without prejudice to the responsibility if every person under the law", which means that you can express your opinions, as long as they are in line with the law of the Netherlands, meaning the constitution, the penalty code, the civil code, everything. And guess what! Article 1 of the Dutch constitution prohibits discrimination on any grounds, and the penal code determines the punishment for breaking the law! As such, freedom of expression in the Netherlands has limits in line with what the European Convention imposes, and yet we still have protests against the government's handling of the coronavirus pandemic for example. We still have people freely calling our Prime Minister various things, and no one is being persecuted. But when someone starts calling for the exclusion or extermination of minorities, then the authorities will step in, then the law will step in.

As such, your concerns are based upon a fabricated scenario that is specifically catered to your argument and can easily be disproven with examples from the real world. People should have the right to freely express their opinions without the fear of being persecuted by the authorities, as long as those opinions don't infringe upon the human rights of others, the dignity of others, and as long as they are not harmful to others. And that is how various conventions and constitutions like the European Convention on Human Rights already function. So your concerns are for naught.

[Marxist Germany]

The existence of homophobes is why I don't believe in the concept of "free speech".

I heartily agree. The existence of any kind of -phobes is exactly why I think it's wonderful there are limitations to free speech. Opinions that call for oppression, for the limitation of human rights, for the treatment of certain people as worse, those should rightfully be persecuted by the authorities. People need to be held accountable for spreading or promoting hatred, bigotry and discrimination. Too often people hide behind "freedom of speech" in order to avoid the consequences for their words, which is simply reprehensible to me. You don't get to say whatever you want if it is harmful, hurtful, inflammatory or bigoted in any way shape or form. Freedom of expression can't be and shouldn't be a free pass to spout hatred and division whenever and however you like.

Who gets to decide what is hateful and what is not? Why should someone's speech be censored because you do not like it? Just as freedom of speech exists, the freedom to ignore speech, or to criticise it exists too.

[Marxist Germany]

I wasn’t going to respond to this thread anymore because it wasn’t worth the effort, but what you just said really grinds my gears. Suppressing the people’s right to speak is a very slippery slope. You start suppressing only a certain type of speech based on your perception of a phobia, but what happens when the government says “government-phobes” are a thing and they start suppressing THAT type of speech? They say government phobia is discriminatory like homophobia is discriminatory, and anything criticizing the government is suddenly banned like your despised “hate speech” is banned. Then it keeps getting worse, they start persecuting these governmentphobes (anybody that criticizes the government), and then when you say “Hey government, you shouldn’t do that, it isn’t fair!”, you are the one behind bars. If you give the government an excuse or opportunity to increase its own power, then it most likely will.

And apart from that, not a lot of people like homophobes (no not religious people, actual homophobes) and other evil-doers, obviously, but it isn’t fair for everybody else to be able to speak our minds and them not. The way you described outlawed speech is anything “harmful, hurtful, inflammatory, or bigoted”. The word harmful is subjective, and that means I can say what YOU just said is harmful to ME and cause YOUR speech (which didn’t intend to harm me) to get YOU in trouble. Your own words described speech that shouldn’t be allowed as anything hurtful, so, if what you just said hurts my feelings, then that falls under the statement and now you need to be persecuted by the authorities, like you said! Guess you’re going to jail now!

First of all, you completely gloss over the fact that there is a fundamental difference between saying "I don't like homosexuality" and "Homosexuals need to die". Obviously, the first phrase isn't pleasant to hear, but it's not immediately harmful. It doesn't affect me in my life, my rights, or my existence. The second phrase is quite harmful however, and can spark acts against gay people. The phrase threatens me, the phrase calls for my death, the phrase treats me as something lesser. This is something you completely failed to address, and I understand why you omitted this distinction. Because only if you leave out this crucial difference can you make the argument you just made in your post. As such, your argument is fundamentally flawed.

If people act upon their speech, the law exists to punish these acts. There is a reason the government does not punish people for telling others to jump in front off a bus or over a cliff. If you find the phrase offensive, ignore it. If someone threatens your life with actions, call the police. There is no imperative to arbitrarily designate certain types of speech as a pre-emptive measure to stop crime.

As such, your concerns are based upon a fabricated scenario that is specifically catered to your argument and can easily be disproven with examples from the real world. People should have the right to freely express their opinions without the fear of being persecuted by the authorities, as long as those opinions don't infringe upon the human rights of others, the dignity of others, and as long as they are not harmful to others. And that is how various conventions and constitutions like the European Convention on Human Rights already function. So your concerns are for naught.

When people get imprisoned in the UK for misgendering people on Twitter, or for training a pug to raise its right arm, this is tyranny. You have no right to stop someone from saying something because you do not like it, especially when "hate speech" is arbitrary, subjective, and can be easily abused.

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

When people get imprisoned in the UK for misgendering people on Twitter, or for training a pug to raise its right arm, this is tyranny.

This has never happened, for the record. If you want to make a point about UK hate speech legislation might be an overstep, at least know the details of the cases beyond what you think happened.

[Istoreya]

When people get imprisoned in the UK for misgendering people on Twitter, or for training a pug to raise its right arm, this is tyranny.

Lmao. If you're gonna make a ridiculous claim like that, you've gotta back it up. Show us where someone has been arrested for this. As a British (hobbyist) dog trainer, I especially look forward to your source for the second one.

[Polska Rzeczpospolita Robotnicza]

When people get imprisoned in the UK for misgendering people on Twitter, or for training a pug to raise its right arm, this is tyranny.

Lmao. If you're gonna make a ridiculous claim like that, you've gotta back it up. Show us where someone has been arrested for this. As a British (hobbyist) dog trainer, I especially look forward to your source for the second one.

He's referring to the Count Dankula dog Nazi salute thing that happened a while ago (2016).

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/c ... 17751.html

Not an imprisonment but he was still fined for it.

[Istoreya]

Lmao. If you're gonna make a ridiculous claim like that, you've gotta back it up. Show us where someone has been arrested for this. As a British (hobbyist) dog trainer, I especially look forward to your source for the second one.

He's referring to the Count Dankula dog Nazi salute thing that happened a while ago (2016).

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/c ... 17751.html

Not an imprisonment but he was still fined for it.

Hmmm. Maybe it was less to do with the fact the dog was raising its paw and more to do with the fact he was calling for the murder of Jews in the video?

[Novokria]

When people get imprisoned in the UK for misgendering people on Twitter, or for training a pug to raise its right arm, this is tyranny.

Lmao. If you're gonna make a ridiculous claim like that, you've gotta back it up. Show us where someone has been arrested for this. As a British (hobbyist) dog trainer, I especially look forward to your source for the second one.

UK teacher Joshua Sutcliffe was fired after accidentally misgendering a student and if you have your way Joshua Sutcliffe would be in a Gulag by now

[Istoreya]

Lmao. If you're gonna make a ridiculous claim like that, you've gotta back it up. Show us where someone has been arrested for this. As a British (hobbyist) dog trainer, I especially look forward to your source for the second one.

UK teacher Joshua Sutcliffe was fired after accidentally misgendering a student and if you have your way Joshua Sutcliffe would be in a Gulag by now

Sauce please.

[Polska Rzeczpospolita Robotnicza]

He's referring to the Count Dankula dog Nazi salute thing that happened a while ago (2016).

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/c ... 17751.html

Not an imprisonment but he was still fined for it.

Hmmm. Maybe it was less to do with the fact the dog was raising its paw and more to do with the fact he was calling for the murder of Jews in the video?

Yeah the prosecution was more to do with the Nazi joke part and isn't just "man arrested because dog raised arm". Though people do find it simpler and more headline bait-able to say "wow man arrested for making his dog raise it's paw literally 8419".

[Saint Arsenio]

Lmao. If you're gonna make a ridiculous claim like that, you've gotta back it up. Show us where someone has been arrested for this. As a British (hobbyist) dog trainer, I especially look forward to your source for the second one.

UK teacher Joshua Sutcliffe was fired after accidentally misgendering a student and if you have your way Joshua Sutcliffe would be in a Gulag by now

I'm not so sure he did it accidentally. Here's a quote (from him) that I found in an article: "He said said he had no regrets over his comments and "in both cases" had been "punished" for being "vocal about my Christian position".

Also, being fired isn't imprisonment.

[The Alma Mater]

UK teacher Joshua Sutcliffe was fired after accidentally misgendering a student and if you have your way Joshua Sutcliffe would be in a Gulag by now

Sauce please.

Google confirms. And that he was fired from a second school for saying things about Mohamed.

It is unclear if he misgendered accidentally or on purpose. He says accidentally but also that he does not believe in transgenders and that people should be referred to by their birthsex. The fact that the school only fired him after an extensive investigation does imply it was not an isolated incident - but since they do not share said info with the media we will never know.

[Istoreya]

Hmmm. Maybe it was less to do with the fact the dog was raising its paw and more to do with the fact he was calling for the murder of Jews in the video?

Yeah the prosecution was more to do with the Nazi joke part and isn't just "man arrested because dog raised arm". Though people do find it simpler and more headline bait-able to say "wow man arrested for making his dog raise it's paw literally 8419".

True, although it does completely disprove the idea of "being imprisoned for teaching a dog tricks" when what actually happened was "being fined for calling for murder of a whole religious group, whether it was a joke or not". I must say, his defense of "it was a private joke meant for my girlfriend" does not go down very well when it gets uploaded to the internet.

[Novokria]

UK teacher Joshua Sutcliffe was fired after accidentally misgendering a student and if you have your way Joshua Sutcliffe would be in a Gulag by now

I'm not so sure he did it accidentally. Here's a quote (from him) that I found in an article: "He said said he had no regrets over his comments and "in both cases" had been "punished" for being "vocal about my Christian position".

Also, being fired isn't imprisonment.

It starts with people being fired and it ends with people in camps

[Istoreya]

Sauce please.

Google confirms. And that he was fired from a second school for saying things about Mohamed.

It is unclear if he misgendered accidentally or on purpose. He says accidentally but also that he does not believe in transgenders and that people should be referred to by their birthsex. The fact that the school only fired him after an extensive investigation does imply it was not an isolated incident - but since they do not share said info with the media we will never know.

So, just like the case with the dog, a man used hateful speech and faced consequences that were not being put in jail? Yes, clearly the UK is a tyrannical cesspit of political correctness.

[Saint Arsenio]

I'm not so sure he did it accidentally. Here's a quote (from him) that I found in an article: "He said said he had no regrets over his comments and "in both cases" had been "punished" for being "vocal about my Christian position".

Also, being fired isn't imprisonment.

It starts with people being fired and it ends with people in camps

You're exaggerating now. If he knew what the student identified as but purposefully misgendered him, there's a problem there. It would have been different had he not known and apologized, but he said himself that he had no regrets.