We're talking about the UK here, where there is not such "terror" with the exception of individual cases (something that will always be there and upon which arguments cannot be based).
The rest of the world falls under my human rights protection. Therefore I do not agree with it, but I respect countries autonomy to develop themselves. Don't make me sound like a colonist.
From what I can gather gay people pick up on a general sense of homophobia, they internalise this feeling and hate themselves as a result. Hence all the associated metal issues.
It is a non issue in a secular society.
Isn't that always going to be the case though? (outing only when successful)
If you had to pick a group of 10 people to represent 1000 other people, with 960 of one particular distinction and 40 of another, do you you not see the benefit in 'over-representing' the minority and picking 1 of those 10 from that 40? For me this is just a means to try and generally do things in a more inclusive way, and drawing on diversity as a strength. I don't think you want to actively discriminate against minorities, and one way of ensuring that is making a special effort to ensure they have a voice. There is very little chance that the majority will somehow go unheard.
Fine, but the introduction of even basic rights i.e. legality of homosexual relations is something only fully established within the UK in the last 35 years. Civil partnerships are not even 10 years old. The first same sex marriages will take place in a few months time. I'd say this isn't quite 'established and empowered'. See above for comments regarding over-representation.
I think 'overwhelming majority' is a false claim. The issue is particularly difficult as homophobia comes in pockets - certain geographical areas, industries, groups of whatever nature - and as such people in and around those pockets suffer unduly. I went to school in the last decade, and homophobia was rife - perhaps not unsurprisingly as it was quite a bad school in a poor working class area. 'Being gay' was the worst thing imaginable. People were absolutely villainised if they displayed any hint of it. I personally suffered homophobic bullying, even though I didn't really feel 'gay' at the time, and didn't particularly act or behave in a stereotypically gay manner. Here's a recent and tragic example - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...r-death-of-son-ayden-keenanolson-8943190.html - of a 14 year old committing suicide because of homophobic and racist bullying. The idea that we in the UK have done everything that needs to be done to ensure the equality, acceptance and tolerance of minority groups is sadly untrue.
It's not beyond the realms that they are going to be perceived differently, no. That doesn't mean it's good and jolly for it to be perceived negatively. I think something is not going well if whether someone has deep green eyes or sleeps with members of their own sex are to be frowned upon. There's absolutely no rational reason to do so. We all have traits and attributes that make us a little different from one another. I think it'd be pretty boring if were all clones.
I think you are making very large sweeping statements without fully thinking them through. I struggle to believe you genuinely feel that homosexuals want friction and an argument about sexuality. For homosexual people it is innately a non-issue - there's no evidence to suggest anything different is felt by a homosexual than a heterosexual during love or sex or whatever. It is the existence of a society where the majority could ride roughshod over the minority that has ultimately led to it being an issue.
Big C or little c? I have a badge of shame
As I said, there are lots of rational and logical reasons to over represent minorities. It's not a homosexuality point - it's a general point.
