Personally I think (don't know of course) that Harry is a right plonker.
Really? I didn't see much negative press for Harry or Markle myself. Personally, if I were British, I would be enthusiastic about there suddenly being one less leech on the public payroll.
Have a look at recent articles. The most recent, from an hour ago, talks about them moving to LA where Meghan's mum is, and also where they have a network of Hollywood agents. The title is that Meghan says she's glad to leave the claustrophobic UK behind and North America is where she wants to be. Another talks about her "forbidding" Harry to see his dad. What the media says, and how it's said, tells you a lot about what they think the readership expects. Though there is of course much banal gossiping. Like whether Meghan will win an Oscar for her disney work.
I'd hazard that the public don't care hugely about the money. They care about the snub, the rejection, the capitalist urge. And they care that the nation's darling is being led by the nose.
Also about the hypocrisy. In the aftermath, FB was flooded with pictures of the pair in front of council homes, caravans, etc. The royal pair realising their dream of being independent, if only in a ficticious meme.
A conservative politician votes down a bill letting lesbians adopt children, citing the importance of the traditional family model in the raising of a child. He is a homophobe.
That is quite literally the basis of homophobia, the assumption that there's a significant difference between straight people and non-straight people, especially without years of studies and evidence. Any legal barriers between the treatment of straight and gay people is the exact stuff that the LGBT community have been struggling against for decades.
Same with the feminist, handicapped equality and racial equality movements. The point is that there should be no substantial difference in legal rights or opportunities to people regardless of any biological properties they were born with, be they sexuality, sex, gender, race or health.
The politician is a problematic example. I won't pretend to know whether there is unanimous scientific agreement that lesbian relationships don't damage family values. But let's imagine there is, in which case the politician is likely motivated by disgust with homosexuality - making him a homophobe. The example given is of a man deeply concerned with family values, and barring misinformation he would act upon this committment. So a poor example. If, on the other hand, there WAS evidence that lesbian parentage damaged family values, his action, based on this information, would not be homophobia.
The priest is a better illustrative example. He will not perform a gay marriage because he has, as he perceives it, evidence that God would not want it. He may love homosexuals as he doth his neighbour, but he won't perform a marriage because he does not believe LGBT religious dogma that God wouldn't mind. He thinks God would.
I suppose my argument is that homophobia lies in the intent, not the action. A civil servant who refuses to give a pair a civil partnership is homophobic, because unlike the priest she has no reason to other than a dislike or prejudice towards gay people.
Author
Topic: Things that made you mildly upset today thread (Read 1225445 times)