Chicken Foot Dominoes Instructions

Discrimination silent

Thomas Ramey



On 17 November 2009 Andrea Tamaro public on Pot-pourri Article Shame Italy, which condemns the failure of a bill that would introduce penalties additional crimes related to homophobia. It 's a very bright tones article, which shows all the author's indignation in the face of what he sees as further evidence of indifference by the company about the problem of discrimination against homosexuals.

There are many insights offered by Andrew, including the backward Italy from a legal standpoint, the relationship between church and state and the need to ensure equal rights for all citizens, respect each of these themes Andrea expresses his opinion, an opinion that as such, may be questioned by those who are in disagreement with it or do not agree with certain aspects. But the article does not receive any response. In a commentary article by Lawrence of the Natural Dec. 2, 2009, Lisbon Treaty: the story of an oligarchy that has destroyed Europe , Andrea writes about his publication: ... I have been a major social issue and present (but that can "clash" with alleged religious and moral beliefs). No comment, silence dominates . These words thunder inside me like a serious accusation to those who have dropped into the empty words about a social issue, relevant and current : how can a blog that aims to establish dialogue between young people on issues of cultural, Andrea's article was not followed by any comments?

In an attempt to find an answer to this question, I begin with myself wondering why, after reading the article, does not express my opinion. Upon reading the article, Andrea has given me mixed feelings rationally agreed with what was written, but at the same time I felt a certain discomfort to the words that I could not feel my as if an unsuitable form had spoiled a good content. This feeling of discomfort, due to the clash between reason and instinctual drives, has led me not to comment on the article by Andrea: while some I would like to express its disapproval, the other ashamed to criticize a person who was committed to defending the rights of homosexuals.

I felt the same discomfort when a person who I knew to be gay hugged me: to instinctively repulsed by what I interpreted as a sign of sexual interest in me, was followed by the disgrace for refusing a gesture of affection from a person whom I respect and esteem to this day. This impulse that drives me, that moves us away from words, from the arms of gay people is nothing but the manifestation of the radical still inherent homophobia in society. Are in many (though not enough) to say they have no other injury related to sexual orientation, but very few, come into contact with a gay person, unable to free themselves from the dense mesh of stereotypes that society has woven around him.

An example of how words can be shown tolerance to simple hypocrisy is the following argument, moved frequently from right-thinking people: homosexuals have every right to have a different sexual orientation, but why show it so vulgar, tacky, tacky? First, it is questionable whether the manifestation of their heterosexuality is not often much more dramatic behavior of homosexuals. When a boy and girl exchange a kiss on the street, is criticized as perhaps their lewd gesture? In contrast, two guys can not even hold hands without this resulting in embarrassment, or more often the indignation of the bystanders. In addition, those who are seen as clear signs of homosexuality, often do not indicate more than the prejudices of the observer. A heterosexual person who dresses elegantly and maintains a calm tone of voice is in danger of being seen as gay as a gay man wearing a sweatshirt and has a deep voice is easily mistaken for a heterosexual.

E 'therefore clear that not infrequently the derogatory terms by which we refer to the manifestations of homosexuality depend on the subjective interpretation of heterosexual people, but not the criticism of the costumes, the most serious threat to the gay community, but the silence the denial of its existence. In a society that is fundamentally homophobic fears to even discuss homosexuality, it is much easier to turn away and consider the nature of the aberrations of the few cases that you have to see. We are so unable to suspend our assessment of heterosexuals to be considered an insult to a homosexual taunt his homosexuality, without realizing that it is the denial of sexual identity, not its affirmation to afflict a person.

not enough reason to get rid of prejudices so deeply rooted in society, you must open your eyes and look around, get to know homosexual persons to live with them and speak of homosexuality as long as it is not so natural you do not need any explanation: only then can drop a conscious and respectful silence.