To feel sympathy to the National Trust volunteers at Felbrigg Hall?

*But in this scenario you are saying "if you don't support gay rights in the manner we say you have to, you are a bigot", which is outrageous.

I support gay rights fully, but if you told me I had to wear a badge saying so I'd tell you to go fuck yourself.*

I don't know how many more times I have to say I don't give a shit about the badges

That's just nonsense Karlos.

Lots of houses celebrate, in one way or another, heterosexuality. There are displays, etc. about heterosexual marriage and love affairs and how couples were matched in renaissance times. The homosexual affairs that went on are often hidden (partly because of bigotry by the organization in the past, not wanting to upset their members who disapproved of homosexual relationships and partly because of the secretive nature of such activity at the time). The NT are using this particular house to highlight this aspect of one of its residence, presumably in part because they actually have quite a lot of material they can use, which is often absent from other houses. But it isn't the only thing they talk about. There's plenty more history there.

That a good point.

I think it's the NT behaving in a bigoted way here. So this house was owned by a man who was gay and hid it. Why suddenly do he and his house become all about that? No one thinks straight people and their lives and homes are defined by their sexuality. Why should gay people be?

I have lots of sympathy for them and tbh it's put me right off the National Trust. It shouldn't be political.

I don't care what someone's sexuality is but I certainly wouldn't wear one of those badges. It's no-one's business what you personally agree with and certainly not when you are working or volunteering.

Some of the comments here seem a bit 1984 where we should all have group think about the matter, with no room for personal interpretation or dissent.

My parents are homophobic and fairly racist ( at least DF is). They are also fairly elderly. I don't share or condone them, but I'm not going to change their views, particularly as when they were younger, those views were considered acceptable.

It would be very sad if some NT volunteers with similar private views have stopped doing the thing that brings them joy and a sense of fulfillment in their later years. I hardly imagine that they're spouting anti-gay sentiment out loud whilst volunteering. We should just be pleased that we've grown up in a more enlightened era.

I have lots of sympathy for them and tbh it's put me right off the National Trust. It shouldn't be political.

I don't care what someone's sexuality is but I certainly wouldn't wear one of those badges. It's no-one's business what you personally agree with and certainly not when you are working or volunteering.

Not as simple as not supporting gay rights, as some have said some gay ppl don't think the LGBT rainbow represents them anymore and don't agree with extreme transgender activists views being rammed down our throats. Why should somebody wear a symbol of an ideology they don't agree with.

I'm talking about the wider idea suggested on this thread that it's fine to not support gay rights

It is fine. Because people are allowed to have their own opinions no matter what we think about them.
And many people are simply fairly neutral, they don't care much about the issue either way. That's allowed too.

Yes, yet - it's something I think is really disturbing. People are so keen to believe that someone from the past would love their modern enlightened terminology. But you have to think that, in 100 years time, there will be new people who will want to slap their labels on us!

:) I wonder what some of the suffragettes would think about third (or even second) wave feminism. :). I think I have always separated out the suffrage ribbon from the second wave women's symbol and seen them as two different things standing for two very differnt historical periods and belief systems.

If you do not support gay rights, you are advocating discrimination

But in this scenario you are saying "if you don't support gay rights in the manner we say you have to, you are a bigot", which is outrageous.

I support gay rights fully, but if you told me I had to wear a badge saying so I'd tell you to go fuck yourself.

They can wear them or not, people will draw their own conclusions based on who is wearing them and who isn't.
ObefoeB, can I ask what badges you are wearing at this precise moment?

I'm talking about the wider idea suggested on this thread that it's fine to not support gay rights.
Nobody has said that. That is your wilful misreading of the thread.

And you still haven't told us what you want to see done with the 'bigotted' volunteers. Public shaming?

No-one's asked me what I want done with the volunteers but anyway I think the issue is bigger than a few people refusing to wear badges and lanyards. They can wear them or not, people will draw their own conclusions based on who is wearing them and who isn't.

I'm not talking about the badges now anyway, I'm talking about the wider idea suggested on this thread that it's fine to not support gay rights.

We have no idea if he'd have liked to be seen as 'gay' even if he had lived to see it legalised. He might have found the term itself offensive and insulting. We've no right to put labels on people who can't speak back. Yes.
On here we read time and time again from posters who described themselves as a 'very private person'. The former owner of the hall did not seem to be an extrovert. Maybe he would have hated all this hooha. We don't know.

The NT volunteers have chosen to be volunteers for reasons other than showing solidarity for the LGBT community. It has nothing to do with their job and wearing a badge should be optional so thank goodness they've seen sense. If that had been part of the ethos and the uniform when they started volunteering, then fair enough, they have a choice to take it or leave it, but you can't force anyone, much less a volunteer, to do anything they don't want to.

Yes, yet - it's something I think is really disturbing. People are so keen to believe that someone from the past would love their modern enlightened terminology. But you have to think that, in 100 years time, there will be new people who will want to slap their labels on us!

"If someone talks about marriage, I always assume a man and a woman" - is a traditional view. But it isn't bigoted.

I've never seen people say that; only "Marriage is between a man and a woman", which is bigoted.

but the point is, they are NOT advocating discrimination

If you do not support gay rights, you are advocating discrimination.

"Traditional" and "bigoted" are not words that can be used interchangeably. It's time we start moving away from "Oh they're just traditional" when what we mean is racist/homophobic/sexist

Indeed they are not. "Traditional" means long established or habitually occurring. "Bigoted" means intolerant to the views of others. So:

"If someone talks about marriage, I always assume a man and a woman" - is a traditional view. But it isn't bigoted.
"I can see no arguments in favour of gay marriage and it shouldn't be allowed" - is a bigoted view
"I am a committed Roman Catholic and, while I respect the rights of others as equal to my own, I believe that homosexuality is a mortal sin" - is not a bigoted view. It is one you may not agree with if you are not also a Catholic, but it is not a bigoted view. It is a traditional view within a particular religious group.
"Gay rights is a hugely important cause and anyone who disagrees shouldn't be allowed to work for the National Trust" - is another bigoted view.

There are generally bigots to be found on all sides of debates these days, I find....

We have no idea if he'd have liked to be seen as 'gay' even if he had lived to see it legalised. He might have found the term itself offensive and insulting. We've no right to put labels on people who can't speak back

Yes, and we don't know a lot about what his attitudes towards the modern LGBT movement might have been. Wasn't that Foucault's point about homosexuality, taken up by a host of scholars (wasn't Halperin one???) that what counted as homosexuality in different historical periods was quite different?

There are very, very few badges I would wear.

Doesn't mean I'm anti-everything else.

so what if they're not as supportive of gay rights as you would like?

This is what I mean. Gay rights shouldn't be something that you can shrug your shoulders and say "ah well, some people support it, some people don't". It's the same with women's rights and the rights of people of colour and the rights of people of any age.

If you advocate for discrimination against people for their sexuality, race, age, sex, disability or any other protected characteristic, you deserve to be called out on it.

On the other, I think it's only a badge and a lanyard and I do wonder about the motives of some of those who were making an issue out of it.

That is really dangerous thinking. It's not only a badge at all. And deciding peoples thoughts because they won't go along with what someone else has decided they have to support is seriously bad.