Musical Homophobia - or The Homophobia Histories

[Boilk]

What did you think of this one?

Any more 'helpful' than mine?

Whether one thinks of homosexuality as "normal", and indeed the very use of the word "normal" in this kind of context, will depend very much on one's political outlook of course, even if one claims to be "politically neutral" which is itself a political outlook. If it's not "normal" to be gay then presumably by the same token it's not "normal" to be Jewish. Substitute "Jewish" for "gay" in some of the rhetoric of this thread and see if you're happy about the way you sound.

Equally as unhelpful. RB concedes that:

...the very use of the word "normal" in this kind of context, will depend very much on one's political outlook...

Saying for example "It's normal to be gay" might be interpreted in multiple ways. Such lazy language ideally requires the word 'normal' to be qualified, as it could mean any of the following:

"It's now socially acceptable in our society to be gay", or
"It's hardly against our laws to be gay", or
"It's nothing I object to, to be gay", etc.

But when not lazily substituting a meaningful phrase with the word 'normal', what is 'normal' can only be determined by determining how common a trait is within a defined population... so it still comes down to statistics!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Saying for example "It's normal to be gay" might be interpreted in multiple ways. Such lazy language ideally requires the word 'normal' to be qualified, as it could mean any of the following:

"It's now socially acceptable in our society to be gay", or
"It's hardly against our laws to be gay", or
"It's nothing wrong to be gay" etc.

But, Boilk, if its use incorporates all these meanings (as well as one that you do not include: "There is nothing abnormal about being Gay"), then it's a perfectly appropriate word to use?

[Padraig]

Anna, I hope you realise I was being ironic in message 164.

[Mr Pee]

When I was about 15, a bunch of us were watching two male skylarks singing, higher and higher against the blue and white of a spring sky. Down they floated, arriving fairly close to each other on the field. One approached the other and mounted him sexually. Most of the kids just fell about, giggling uncontrollably! I remember feeling amazed and delighted - and realising that the others there could not even begin to accept the significance of what they'd seen...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/borderglider/5285463334/

I must say, for a bunch of 15 year olds you were all remarkably good at ornithology. Or more likely your touching little tale is based on a case of mistaken identity, and they were in fact a male and female, as nature intended.

[scottycelt]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/borderglider/5285463334/

I must say, for a bunch of 15 year olds you were all remarkably good at ornithology. Or more likely your touching little tale is based on a case of mistaken identity, and they were in fact a male and female, as nature intended.

:biggrin:

And the fact that they are 'normally' (oops) observed from a distance and are not much bigger than a sparrow?

Not that I doubt the incontrovertible accuracy of the reported sighting, of course ... good heavens, no.

Though I do think it is just possible that the very traditional male skylark was actually seen chasing his disobedient partner to her rightful home in the kitchen/bedroom on the ground? :devil:

Right, best dash!

[Richard Barrett]

I don't think any of the above actually answers the question I asked

Hoist by your own petard, eh?

But you didn't actually ask a question in the post I was quoting from. I was just musing on Dawkins, the idea of a genetic basis to human sexuality, and the use of the word "normal". I said nothing about who had or hadn't been using the word "normal". This thread isn't all about you, you know.

[Boilk]

But, Boilk, if its use incorporates all these meanings (as well as one that you do not include: "There is nothing abnormal about being Gay"), then it's a perfectly appropriate word to use?

I haven't said it incorporates all those meanings, but potentially any one of them. That's why the word is so inappropriate when used at the outset in isolation, context has to be established first to ascertain what the norm has been determined against!

(as well as one that you do not include: "There is nothing abnormal about being Gay")

I was substituting ambiguous uses of the single word 'normal' with phrases that offer clarity as to a possible meaning, where no prior context has been established. Your chosen phrase "There is nothing abnormal about being Gay" cannot fit into the template of "It's _______ to be gay" :smiley:

[jayne lee wilson]

:biggrin:

And the fact that they are 'normally' (oops) observed from a distance and are not much bigger than a sparrow?

Not that I doubt the incontrovertible accuracy of the reported sighting, of course ... good heavens, no.

Though I do think it is just possible that the very traditional male skylark was actually seen chasing his disobedient partner to her rightful home in the kitchen/bedroom on the ground? :devil:

Right, best dash!

Missing the Point is becoming a high art with these two, isn't it?

[ahinton]

a) Alien to the Russian people ... or at least the overwhelming majority (according to all polls)

Ah, polls! I wonder how many of the results of these that you'd willingly believe...

b) Well, that's more or less what I've been asking!

Good - but what's your conclusion on this?

c) 1) Humans who live in Russia ... 2) No

Fine.

d) I've never said ALL Russians ... see a)

So who, then? Which ones? What proportion of the Russian population?

Well you might be well advised to immediately cease to be so easily offended because it was you that uttered these absurd and unfounded words not me!

On the contrary, it was your words to which I responded and, in so doing, I did not say that I personally was offended; please re-read what I wrote.

I have simply asked a few pertinent questions whether it is right for the liberal West to dictate to Russia ... where tradition values are much stronger ... what sort of society it should build for the future. It might be anathema to you but not everyone there shares your view that homosexual practice should be on the same par as its vastly more common heterosexual counterpart. That seems to me to be a perfectly valid and fair question no matter which side of the argument one happens to be on. Are you saying that the overwhelming view of the humans who live in Russia should be ignored and that the minority view should triumph simply because some in the West say it should?

Not at all. What I would instead say is that such issues go far beyond "Russians", "the West" and the rest because they are vastly more fundamental than such implied parochiality is able to suggest; these are not "Russian" issues per se but basic essential human ones that transcend and are accordingly not limited to opinions or legislation in a single nation, even one as large as Russia. On top of that, has the possibility that propaganda - even in Russia(!) - might have had some input into the advertised "majority" opinion there about such issues ever occurred to you?

Can you confirm (in plain English) that's what you mean?

I've just confirmed as best I can my responses to your observations various in plain Scottish that everyone here can probably understand.

[JimD]

It will I hope be remembered that Richard Dawkins's life's work has not in the first instance been concerned not with religion but with genetics, in which scientific discipline he is one of the handful of most important thinkers there's ever been. I say that because his scientific work is not concerned with "arguing points" but with the logical construction of theories and the experimental/observational means to test them.

Well Dawkins' Simonyi Chair was ostensibly not in genetics or religion but in the Public Understanding of Science. Given that its aims were and are...

'...to communicate science to the public without, in doing so, losing those elements of scholarship which constitute the essence of true understanding.'

...if I had been Charles Simonyi I might eventually have been tempted to ask for my money back. Maybe he did. Dawkins' successor observed: 'My focus is going to be very much on the science and less on religion.'

[ahinton]

Missing the Point is becoming a high art with these two, isn't it?

I'd be loath to flatter any of it with the descriptor "high", still less that of "art", but your own point is well made nevertheless! Whether Pee favours Sky more than scotty favours larks (con)descending might remain open to question but not the kind of question that I would even choose to ask, still less care about the answer thereto...

[Richard Barrett]

...if I had been Charles Simonyi I might eventually have been tempted to ask for my money back.

Quite. My point was that he did brilliant work in evolutionary biology, whereas his pronouncements on religion are IMO far from brilliant.

[Mr Pee]

Missing the Point is becoming a high art with these two, isn't it?

Your "point" being that you and a bunch of 15 years olds correctly identified homosexual behaviour amongst Skylarks from some distance when the male and female of the species are virtually identical, even to Bill Oddie.

My point being that I think you have- shall we say- "elaborated" :erm: your story somewhat, to suit your argument.

[Richard Barrett]

My point being that I think you have- shall we say- "elaborated" :erm: your story somewhat, to suit your argument.

I never had you down as the last of the old romantics but I see I was wrong.

[Stillhomewardbound]

My point being that I think you have- shall we say- "elaborated" :erm: your story somewhat, to suit your argument.

Oh pee off, Mr.Pee. You are simply a bore who has no interest in accepting the other side of the debate. When someone makes a very viable point about same sex activity among the animal kingdom you belittle them as re-inventing their formative years to make a point.

To accuse you of missing the point is entirely legitimate. I would have gone on to say ................................ Oh, give me strength!