Sadly yet another example of this appeared within hours when Evander Holyfield put forward the Christian perspective on same-sex attraction: Holyfield remarked that finding someone of the same-sex attractive was akin to having a birth defect that needed medical attention.
This is enough for anyone to recognise he hasn't a clue about the subject at hand. Sexuality is a complicated and fluid thing and the dangerous idea it needs to be policed when it harms none is one should be mocked and vigorously argued against. (And for those who would point out "Well it does harm people" I would ask them to explain in what way touching another member of the same-sex's genitals in a consensual setting could possibly harm another as a general rule [i.e. sexually transmitted diseases, not unique to same-sex couplings, don't quite cover it]).
All well and good so far, I'm fighting on the side of the "angels" (for which read the leftie, liberal progressive worldview).
But the reaction from Channel 5 and Ofcom, with dodgy wordings from Big Brother such as:
"While Big Brother understands these are the views you hold, they aren't the views that are held by a large section of society, and expressing these views will be extremely offensive to many people.
Do you understand why?"Exactly what point are they trying to get at? Homosexuality has, for a great deal of time, offended a large section of society. That didn't mean homosexuality was wrong. If I were to base my moral and ethical judgments on what a "large section of society" believes I think I would be far less moral and ethical than I currently am (for which see people who think boxing is a suitable sport to watch or participate in).
And Ofcom's suggestion that it might investigate Celebrity Big Brother over the remarks stinks of the sort moralistic mothering that crushed LGBT people's freedom of expression for years.
I hate to do this but I, for the most part, find myself agreeing with Brendan O'Neill (a man whose career is partially based on supporting every homophobic remark or campaign he comes across out of a sense of contrarianism) when he calls attitudes towards Holyfield "intolerant".
I wholeheartedly believe that Evander Holyfield is an idiot. I completely oppose his position that same-sex attraction is in any way worthy of shame or correction. But, just as when I've stated I'm not opposed to LGBT folk seeking ex-gay or ex-trans therapy regardless of its efficacy or lack thereof, I cannot see any reason (he makes no threat of violence nor demands action against others) to censure or censor his remarks officially.
Let the anti-LGBT folk hang themselves with their words. My office was filled with derisory laughter today over his remarks. They were hardly eloquent or thought-provoking enough to have engendered any other reaction from most reasonable people. We must argue forcefully against such people. But let's try to be the better people whilst doing it.