Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Colleague said something homophobic watch

Announcements
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    ya know i was going to reply a bit indepth

    but i really cant be bothered with such over the top melodrama. If your going to get offended over that and come running to TSR, your in for a lot of problems in life.

    Btw offensive is entirely subjective not to mention it cant be given, it only be taken.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by )
    I'm sorry but you are the stupidest person i have ever seen.

    Complex explanations such as whatever an animal does must be okay? No that's what is stupid. Please refer to my previous comment.

    Please enlighten me to where you found that mental capacity and homophobia correlate and is a proof of causation.

    Recommending Physical Abuse and Violence; seems you have great intellect.

    Where the hell do you find that racism and homophobia come together? No, i think you are just very ignorant and closed minded to consider that maybe things in which society have been made to think is right isn't in fact right!
    another vile homophobe on my ignore list.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Treeroy)
    she was talking about celebrities and she asked me who I thought is hot.

    I have red hair too, stop telling me to "just accept it". For a long time I did just try to ignore homophobia. Now it really ****s me off and I want to hurt anyone who is homophobic to me.
    Who is winning if you are angry and upset about what some ass said to you? It's not you because you are feeling bad. If she didn't know you were gay then she was merely expressing an unpopular opinion. If she did know you were gay then it was a stupid move on her part tbf to you. By all means report it your boss if you think anything would happen and you have good means to believe it was a personal attack on you but remember an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Nothing may come of it. Don't let anger ruin your life.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by driftawaay)
    another vile homophobe on my ignore list.
    Cool i guess your moral principles merely contain ignorance.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Veggiechic6)
    That's different. People can't control the colour of their skin, that's obvious. Whether or not people can control their sexuality... well the jury is out on that. I've never come across any evidence or studies to prove people can be born gay. I'm not going to get into the whole debate, I'm just making the point that it's not as clear cut as race.
    That's an arbitrary distinction to justify your double standards in considering "it's just wrong to be gay" more acceptable than "it's just wrong to be black" and somehow not homophobic, but the latter racist.

    People can't control their race but they can control the colour of their skin, quite easily in fact.

    They jury is not out on whether people can control their sexuality. The jury is out on whether sexuality is genetic, environmental or both.

    What bothers me so much is how quickly people have labelled this as a 'homophobic' incident and even worse, assuming this unknown balloon lady is discriminating against gay people even though there was nothing to suggest that. If this lady is treating gay people differently because they're gay, then yes I agree that's wrong but it's perfectly possible to not agree with what someone does/how someone lives their lives and treat them like anyone else. Some people don't seem to accept that. They think 'oh, that person is saying being gay is wrong therefore she must hate all gay people.' There are millions of people in this world who will hold the same opinion as this lady, just like there are millions who won't.
    I can't take your arguments seriously when you refuse to apply the above to "it's just wrong to be black".

    Discriminatory remarks are unacceptable in the workplace, not least because people are forced to attend a workplace to pay their rent and should not have to hear people making such remarks.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by )
    Cool i guess your moral principles merely contain ignorance.
    Just ignore her, I got added to the list a few pages back for daring to disagree with her definition of homophobia. It must be a very long list...

    OP can report this lady, but I'm not sure what good it would do. Someone once tried to get me into trouble because they didn't agree with an opinion I voiced (nothing to do with homosexuality). All it did was kill our friendship stone dead and make me think she's a complete b***h and ignore her ever since. It didn't change my opinion one iota, in fact it strengthened my beliefs to have someone try to scare me into silence.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    That's an arbitrary distinction to justify your double standards in considering "it's just wrong to be gay" more acceptable than "it's just wrong to be black" and somehow not homophobic, but the latter racist.

    People can't control their race but they can control the colour of their skin, quite easily in fact.

    They jury is not out on whether people can control their sexuality. The jury is out on whether sexuality is genetic, environmental or both.



    I can't take your arguments seriously when you refuse to apply the above to "it's just wrong to be black".

    Discriminatory remarks are unacceptable in the workplace, not least because people are forced to attend a workplace to pay their rent and should not have to hear people making such remarks.
    PRSOM
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by )
    Aaaah because if an animal does it it must not be wrong.
    I guess because pigs watch their partners mate with other pigs that's okay for me to allow my wife to walk in on me 'mating' with her sister or i guess because many animals are polygamous its okay for me to get a load of women pregnant and leave.

    You cannot compare a humans morals to the morals and actions of animals.
    You have, probably unknowingly, totally misinterpreted by argument.

    I am not saying "if animals do X then it is OK for humans to do it" where X is an arbitrary action. Otherwise I would be in favour of murder because lions kill gazelles.

    I brought up the animal point specifically for homosexuality.

    Now, let's examine why exactly people tend to think homosexuality is wrong. There is really only one main answer to this: because it is unnatural/against the natural order as set down by God.

    A smaller minority may argue the risk of sexual infections case but this argument is clearly void because heterosexual sex is just as likely to give you an STD.

    Therefore the main reason for people thinking homosexuality is wrong (it's innatural) is refuted by it being observed in animals.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    That's an arbitrary distinction to justify your double standards in considering "it's just wrong to be gay" more acceptable than "it's just wrong to be black" and somehow not homophobic, but the latter racist.

    People can't control their race but they can control the colour of their skin, quite easily in fact.

    They jury is not out on whether people can control their sexuality. The jury is out on whether sexuality is genetic, environmental or both.



    I can't take your arguments seriously when you refuse to apply the above to "it's just wrong to be black".

    Discriminatory remarks are unacceptable in the workplace, not least because people are forced to attend a workplace to pay their rent and should not have to hear people making such remarks.
    You're the one who tried to compare apples with oranges, talking about something that had nothing to do with homosexuality. So you're saying white-born people can make themselves look like a black person and vice versa? Interesting, I've never come across that before.

    Right, so if there is an environmental aspect, you can't prove people are born gay. Therefore it's not the same as race/colour which is definitely a born-with trait. You've just agreed with my argument.

    Yes, discriminatory remarks are unacceptable in the workplace. But nobody made them in this situation.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iamthetruth)
    People should have the freedom to say that at work I thought this is a free country. So now we can't say certain things because we are afraid of what people might think? What's even worse is that some people would want you fired for saying that. They want to deny you the chance to provide for your family. The hypocrisy is that they are allowed to talk about their sexuality and how gay they are but if we say we are against it then we are told to shut up. If that's the case then they shouldn't be allowed to publicize their sexuality.
    No, if it's the case that this is a private company then they have every right to penalise or fire people who are going to hurt their brand (homophobes, racists, misogynists, etc). No, you can voice your bigoted opinion when you're not at work. Of course people will want you fired for saying something like that, I'm black and if someone said "I think black people are inferior" at work, I would be up HR's ass until they got rid of that person. Sure it's your opinion, but fortunately we're a progressive country that doesn't tolerate ridiculous ideals. If you want to voice your bigoted opinions in the work place without any repercussions perhaps you should move to a country that supports your views.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    You have, probably unknowingly, totally misinterpreted by argument.

    I am not saying "if animals do X then it is OK for humans to do it" where X is an arbitrary action. Otherwise I would be in favour of murder because lions kill gazelles.

    I brought up the animal point specifically for homosexuality.

    Now, let's examine why exactly people tend to think homosexuality is wrong. There is really only one main answer to this: because it is unnatural/against the natural order as set down by God.

    A smaller minority may argue the risk of sexual infections case but this argument is clearly void because heterosexual sex is just as likely to give you an STD.

    Therefore the main reason for people thinking homosexuality is wrong (it's innatural) is refuted by it being observed in animals.
    I accept homosexuality, but this argument is invalid.

    The logic behind the argument of homosexuality being natural because animals do it is that if animals do something- it must be natural.

    Of course this is false because animals do a lot of questionable things.

    So it's as simple as that, animals doing something does not make it natural. You can't just use that line of reasoning for the instance of homosexuality without using it for every instance, it just doesn't make sense.

    There are many other arguments that can be used to justify homosexuality, however (including the one that it doesn't need to be justified). So I suggest you destroy homophobes with those instead
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iamthetruth)
    I don't care about homosexuality I don't even think about it unless they are the ones speaking about it to me. If they have a right to publicize their sexuality then we have a right to speak our mind on it. That is my opinion.
    You're creating a "them and us" scenario, instead of considering homosexuals as just people. (Though of course people with the sole sexual attraction to the same sex.)

    Why would they specifically talk about homosexuality to you? I can imagine the scenario of talking about someone of the same sex they've had relations with, and if you gave them confused glances, they'd clarify, but it really isn't the typical for them to shout it out, instead of maybe to just say it in an off-hand manner.

    Stop making generalisations from the subsection of homosexuals that do it; it's unbecoming of a human being, or one with intelligence anyway (though I don't think you have that anyway.)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by okey)
    I accept homosexuality, but this argument is invalid.

    The logic behind the argument of homosexuality being natural because animals do it is that if animals do something- it must be natural.

    Of course this is false because animals do a lot of questionable things.

    So it's as simple as that, animals doing something does not make it natural. You can't just use that line of reasoning for the instance of homosexuality without using it for every instance, it just doesn't make sense.

    There are many other arguments that can be used to justify homosexuality, however (including the one that it doesn't need to be justified). So I suggest you destroy homophobes with those instead
    It is perfectly valid. Questionable does not mean unnatural. Hundreds of animal species engage in homosexual behaviour, it isn't a phenomenon limited to one species or something and is thus totally natural.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Treeroy)
    she was talking about celebrities and she asked me who I thought is hot.
    I see.

    Her: "So, which celebrity do you think is hot"
    You: "I'm really into Jo Brand - she makes me so wet"
    Her: "But she's a woman"
    You "Yes, I'm gay"
    Her: "That's just wrong"

    Sorry, but I don't really see the homophobia in this. She's still only voicing an opinion. Moderately upsetting I'd agree but as a gay person you're just going to have to grow a much thicker skin because you'll hear a lot worse than that. You should have just told her to F off and move on.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Akamega)
    No, if it's the case that this is a private company then they have every right to penalise or fire people who are going to hurt their brand (homophobes, racists, misogynists, etc). No, you can voice your bigoted opinion when you're not at work. Of course people will want you fired for saying something like that, I'm black and if someone said "I think black people are inferior" at work, I would be up HR's ass until they got rid of that person. Sure it's your opinion, but fortunately we're a progressive country that doesn't tolerate ridiculous ideals. If you want to voice your bigoted opinions in the work place without any repercussions perhaps you should move to a country that supports your views.
    PRSOM
    Marry me
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    It is perfectly valid. Questionable does not mean unnatural. Hundreds of animal species engage in homosexual behaviour, it isn't a phenomenon limited to one species or something and is thus totally natural.
    I said questionable because they obviously do a lot of things that we know are morally wrong. As I said before, using that argument would mean that anything animals do is "natural". So if an animal commits incest, that is natural. No, it isn't.

    Now I know that you don't actually think that anything an animal does is natural, but that's why your argument says. Therefore (unless you actually do believe that those things are natural) that particular argument is logically invalid.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Veggiechic6)
    You're the one who tried to compare apples with oranges, talking about something that had nothing to do with homosexuality.
    It's a valid analogy to test whether your argument is weakened by double standards.

    So you're saying white-born people can make themselves look like a black person and vice versa? Interesting, I've never come across that before.
    Of course they can. Tanning? Michael Jackson? Perhaps you should have used "race" instead of "colour".

    Right, so if there is an environmental aspect, you can't prove people are born gay. Therefore it's not the same as race/colour which is definitely a born-with trait. You've just agreed with my argument.
    This sounds confused. You said it's okay to say "it's just wrong to be gay" but not "it's just wrong to be black" because you cannot control the latter. You said nothing about "because you are born black but you are not born gay". Even if you are not born gay, which I don't believe, it's still very much established that sexuality is not a choice or something you can inherently control.

    Yes, discriminatory remarks are unacceptable in the workplace. But nobody made them in this situation.
    But saying "it's just wrong to be black" is?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by okey)
    I said questionable because they obviously do a lot of things that we know are morally wrong. As I said before, using that argument would mean that anything animals do is "natural". So if an animal commits incest, that is natural. No, it isn't.

    Now I know that you don't actually think that anything an animal does is natural, but that's why your argument says. Therefore (unless you actually do believe that those things are natural) that particular argument is logically invalid.
    No, you have misinterpreted by argument once again. Reread my reply to the apple guy, I explained it all there.
    • Community Assistant
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Very Important Poster
    I'm not sure it was homophobic.

    I suppose I'd be somewhat offended in that circumstance. I'd either defend my position or leave it. It's too late to do something about it now.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Akamega)
    If you want to voice your bigoted opinions in the work place without any repercussions perhaps you should move to a country that supports your views.
    So when gay marriage was illegal here, should it have been unacceptable for someone to voice support for its legalisation? And instead of voicing support for its legalisation, that person should just have moved to a different country where gay marriage was already legal?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources
AtCTs

Ask the Community Team

Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

Welcome Lounge

Welcome Lounge

We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.