AT HETEROSEPARATIST.COM, Mantronikk, a blogger who says he rejects all hatred for and from homosexual activists, defines his terms. Heteroseparatist:

a: A person who wishes to separate [himself] from homosexual acts and stand apart from those who engage in such acts.

b: A person who rejects homofascism, homosexuality, and homophobia.

 c: A person, entity, or organization that respectfully declines to associate with any or all divisions of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender community, but does not hate, fear, or persecute people that are GLBT.

 d: A person who quietly shuns people and environments that are anti-hetero.

— Comments —

David S. writes:

Okay, so if an employer is a heteroseparatist, would that employer be inclined to refuse to hire any homosexual, or to fire someone if discovered to be homosexual?

If so, then that person imposes the same kind of chilling effect that Laura complains about in “More on the Homecoming Kiss” when she says “However, in modern America, dissenters who speak out only risk losing their careers…. It is potentially to lose everything and inhabit a psychological Siberia.”

So, is psychological Siberia ok for homosexuals but not for those who speak out against homosexuality? Or not ok for either?

Laura writes:

You go from asking a question, “Should homosexuals be fired for being homosexuals?”, to accusing me of having said that they should. I have never said that and I highly doubt Heteroseparatist.com has advocated employment discrimination against homosexuals. (I do think it is fair to fire a homosexual whose open homosexuality interferes with the job – a health club may not want an overtly homosexual male to work as a masseuse for its male customers – or who is bullying or harassing heterosexuals on the job.)

 Homosexuals should inhabit something of a social Siberia out of concern for others and for the greater good of society in the sense that they should not feel free to exhibit homosexual behavior in public.

David responds:

I actually meant it as a genuine question, not an accusation. It does appear to me that the original blogger would want to argue that an employer could fire someone for being a homosexual (and not just in cases where the open homosexuality directly interferes with the job in the ways you mention), because of parts a and c; I would think that gainfully employing someone would count as associating with them. But I’m not sure; that’s why I posed the question.

As for that last part, I think we can agree that that kind of social Siberia is different from the kind where you can’t get a job anywhere, just because of either homosexuality on the one hand, or opinions against homosexuality on the other.

I also think you know full well that most open homosexuals don’t accept the premise that exhibiting homosexual behavior is bad for the greater good of society, at least assuming you mean behavior parallel to the acceptable types of public heterosexual behavior. Therefore they are unlikely to agree to that kind of social Siberia either.

Laura writes:

Okay, your question was sincere. The issue of firing and hiring homosexuals would not be significant if homosexuals confined their behavior to private as they did not all that long ago. It’s very easy to conceal the fact that one engages in homosexual acts. Job discrimination against homosexuals only became a major issue once the social taboos against open homosexual behavior were removed.

Heteroseparatist.com refers to “standing apart from those who engage in such acts.” I imagine he means acts of homosexuality that are publicly known and is not advocating the investigation of possible homosexual behavior. But you might ask the question of him.

Yes, most homosexuals today don’t accept that premise of public discretion, but that has not always been the case.

David writes:

I might ask the question of him, but it looks like you need a google account to comment there.

Anyway, it is not easy to conceal the fact that one engages in homosexual acts. Especially if you factor in another truth: it is not easy to conceal the fact that one does not engage in heterosexual acts. People ask, ask if you are married, ask if you have a girlfriend/boyfriend (if you are male or female respectively), ask about your last relationship… if you are silent on any of these, people get suspicious.

This is to say nothing to about people who actually live with a longterm partner in a homosexual relationship, which is obviously also quite hard to conceal.

Laura writes:

You are forgetting that most employers want employees for the work that they do. Most employers are in the business of making money. The average employer does not feel the need to snoop into his employee’s private life provided it is not interfering with the job.

That is not to say that there wouldn’t be cases of discrimination if there were no laws against it. But the overwhelming majority of employers do not care what their employees do in private as long as it does not affect their performance.

As it is, homosexuals are having no special problem finding jobs. But people who object to homosexuality stand a very strong risk of losing their jobs in corporate America. People have lost businesses and jobs after expressing the belief that homosexuality is wrong. Does this discrimination concern you?

David writes:

In principle, yes, discrimination based on political beliefs is wrong, no matter what the political beliefs, as long as they don’t interfere with their performance of the job or create a hostile work environment with their coworkers. So, in my opinion, if someone is against homosexuality, they must still be able to work with homosexual coworkers in a respectful manner; failure to do that would be grounds for just dismissal, but not simply the views.

Laura writes:

No, no. You’ve changed my meaning. I was talking about employees who are not openly homosexual. There is no need for workers to be respectful of  homosexuality as long as homosexual employees keep their sexual perversion private. Once they openly exhibit it, they put other employees in the uncomfortable position of having to react to homosexuality and approve or disapprove of it. An employer should be free to fire or refuse to hire someone for flagrant homosexuality. I don’t believe there should be any laws, however, either for or against the hiring of homosexuals. Those are private business decisions.

Josey Montana writes:

David writes:

So, is psychological Siberia ok for homosexuals but not for those who speak out against homosexuality? Or not ok for either?

Dear David S.,

Um, yes.

Sincerely,

Charles Darwin, FRS

On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859)
The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871)

Michael S. writes:

It is entirely possible that David S. is ordained by God to attain a higher degree of glory in heaven than you and me put together.

If so, it is clear that he needs a little help getting on with it.

Mantronikk, from Heteroseparatist.com, writes:

I want to respond to David S. concerning a heteroseparatist’s viewpoint on hiring a homosexual. I covered the subject towards the end of my manifesto but I don’t think he read it.

Please follow and like us: