Musical Homophobia - or The Homophobia Histories

[Mr Pee]

Did you ever go on a Gay Pride march during the repressive Thatcher years or before, Mr Pee? Did Rod Little? I did. That's why in my view you're an arm-chair commentator.

Golly, if you took that to its logical conclusion there would be very little for journalists to write about, let alone comment on.

[scottycelt]

Did you ever go on a Gay Pride march ....

I think it's silly that anyone should be 'proud' of their sexuality/sexual behaviour and even more silly that they take to the streets about it as if anyone else is particularly interested. It's also outrageously discriminatory, heterosexuals being automatically excluded from any 'pride'.

I'm no more 'proud' of my sexuality any more than I am of my nose.

[french frank]

I'm no more 'proud' of my sexuality any more than I am of my nose.

It may be that you've never been persecuted for either. I think of 'pride' as having overtones of 'defiance', which might have been taken as too belligerent.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I think of 'pride' as having overtones of 'defiance', which might have been taken as too belligerent.

I am not Gay, but took part in a Gay Pride March through London in the Summer of 1985 - no "beligerence" involved; it was all good humoured a public declaration that everybody taking part had no truck with the prevailing attitude that Gays and Lesbians should be ashamed of themselves (or, as one elderly lady watching the march declared to a policeman "We don't want these people on our streets.")

André Previn conducting the RPO in Brahms' Requiem at the Festival Hall, and a very pleasant curry to follow. Lovely day.

[ahinton]

I've only just seen this but have now signed it too, adding a comment along the lines that this law does neither Russia nor humanity any favours; I've also supported Stephen Fry's recent campaign.

I, too, am not gay, but I never cease to be appalled, disgusted and thoroughly ashamed at the widespread mistreatment of and profound disrespect displayed towards gay people and women.

[ahinton]

I'm no more 'proud' of my sexuality any more than I am of my nose.

That's your prerogative, of course but, never having seen your nose or experienced your sexuality in practice, I feel able only to respond that you can blow your nose, whereas...

[ahinton]

And I am sure that the next time Vladimir Putin checks into these messageboards he will be equally hearetened.

Whatever (if indeed anything at all) "hearetened" might mean, Putin will be gone in a matter of time; some might nevertheless opine that his demise in his current rôle cannot come soon enough...

[Pabmusic]

I think it's silly that anyone should be 'proud' of their sexuality/sexual behaviour and even more silly that they take to the streets about it as if anyone else is particularly interested. It's also outrageously discriminatory, heterosexuals being automatically excluded from any 'pride'.

I'm no more 'proud' of my sexuality any more than I am of my nose.

Hello, Scotty. Might it not - just mightn't it - be an understandable reaction to decades of being told by those who know best that they should be ashamed of their sexuality?

[Ferretfancy]

I am neither proud nor ashamed of being gay, but I am proud of the courageous people who have battled over many years to make this country a better place for minorities. I had first hand experience during the AIDS crisis to see the way that my friends and I did our best to support other sick friends at a time of fear and public ignorance. I still shudder when I remember some of the sights I witnessed.

So, it's hardly surprising that I feel disgust at the snide deliberate and hugely unfunny ignorance still expressed by the Mr Pees of this world.

[jayne lee wilson]

I think it's silly that anyone should be 'proud' of their sexuality/sexual behaviour and even more silly that they take to the streets about it as if anyone else is particularly interested. It's also outrageously discriminatory, heterosexuals being automatically excluded from any 'pride'.

I'm no more 'proud' of my sexuality any more than I am of my nose.

Anyone who thinks Gay Pride discriminates against hetros is either stupid or a troll.

Pee and Scotty, come out from behind your shallow evasions and own up to your prejudices - either you agree that I'm BORN THIS WAY and you hate me because I'm not like you, or your dislike is driven by misguided religious or anthropological certainties - "it's ungodly, not normal, it's unnatural, the animals don't do it" etc.
It won't do to say that you've nothing against gays, you just wish we'd shut up about it: we'll shut up about it when the macho posturing Putins, the repressed Tory ladies wittering on about holy sacraments and "think of the children" on Newsnight, various Ignoble Archprelates from Nigeria to the USA and all the pees, scotties and other anonymous online casual labourers in the cause of hatred and hostility shut up about what we can and can't do in schools, libraries, town halls, the street or in bed.

[Pabmusic]

Anyone who thinks Gay Pride discriminates against hetros is either stupid or a troll.

Pee and Scotty, come out from behind your shallow evasions and own up to your prejudices - either you agree that I'm BORN THIS WAY and you hate me because I'm not like you, or your dislike is driven by misguided religious or anthropological certainties - "it's ungodly, not normal, it's unnatural, the animals don't do it" etc.
It won't do to say that you've nothing against gays, you just wish we'd shut up about it: we'll shut up about it when the macho posturing Putins, the repressed Tory ladies wittering on about holy sacraments and "think of the children" on Newsnight, various Ignoble Archprelates from Nigeria to the USA and all the pees, scotties and other anonymous online casual labourers in the cause of hatred and hostility shut up about what we can and can't do in schools, libraries, town halls, the street or in bed.

Yes, but what do you really feel...? :whistle:

A very good post that highlights the mistake of assuming that all is either black or white, one thing or the other (and what Richard Dawkins calls the tyranny of the discontinuous mind). We seem to think that most things are immutable - hence we find it 'counter-intuitive' to accept that most natural things, including humans, lie somewhere along a spectrum. It is useful for us to label things as different from each other because it helps us make sense of our medium-sized world to do so. But they're only labels that we give things. I am a (very) distant cousin of the mango tree I can see from my study window. We share a certain amount of our DNA because we came from common ancestors. Most of the time that means little to me, and I like mango. But it is nevertheless true.

It's the same with sex. We call things male or female because we are a sexual species - but there are many that do not reproduce sexually (famously the bdelloid rotifers, but also stick insects, not to mention bacteria), but even sexual species have their moments, with many species occasionally giving birth asexually (there was a case ar Chester Zoo a couple of years ago, involving a komodo dragon. Mammals tend not to, though that doesn't mean it's impossible, just very rare indeed.

When it comes to sexuality, people also lie along a spectrum. If you want to be crude about it, the proportion of 'female' to 'male' any person contains varies from one individual to the next (though 'male' and 'female' are rather artificial labels in the first place) - the whole would be best represented by a bell curve of some sort. People are born with whatever their parents' genetics pass on (and their parents' genetics, and their parents' genetics...). Of course we are sentient beings with the notable advantage of homo sapiens - big brains - so we can contemplate these things. Chimpanzees - our nearest cousins - may not do (at least not in such depth) - much less bdelloid rotifers. But chimpanzees demonstrate gay behaviour (banobos - pigmy chimps, who are our equidistant cousins with chimps - especially so, since they use sex as a means of communication) as do many other species.

That's why the simplistic comments of the Russian athlete are objectionable - they bear no relation to reality, just to a pretend world we have constructed because it makes many people feel good to do so.

[scottycelt]

Anyone who thinks Gay Pride discriminates against hetros is either stupid or a troll.

Pee and Scotty, come out from behind your shallow evasions and own up to your prejudices - either you agree that I'm BORN THIS WAY and you hate me because I'm not like you, or your dislike is driven by misguided religious or anthropological certainties - "it's ungodly, not normal, it's unnatural, the animals don't do it" etc.
It won't do to say that you've nothing against gays, you just wish we'd shut up about it: we'll shut up about it when the macho posturing Putins, the repressed Tory ladies wittering on about holy sacraments and "think of the children" on Newsnight, various Ignoble Archprelates from Nigeria to the USA and all the pees, scotties and other anonymous online casual labourers in the cause of hatred and hostility shut up about what we can and can't do in schools, libraries, town halls, the street or in bed.

What I actually said was that the term Gay Pride discriminates against heterosexuals because they cannot possibly share in that 'pride'. They were born that way too! One doesn't have to be 'a troll or stupid' to understand that. Furthermore, I wonder if we'll now have Member A. N. Other suddenly appearing lecturing you on the House Rules!

I'm sorry you have such an intense hatred of all those you mention merely because they do not share your view of the world and have the outrageous temerity to say so. Don't worry, I won't say again that I don't 'hate' gays. You are obviously not interested in whether I do or not you simply want to propagate the lie that I do, as it nicely fits your agenda. Such fair-minded 'liberal' tolerance ... and oh that typically haughty, superior-than-thou tone!

I have no sympathy with vicious thugs who attack homosexuals or anyone else for that matter. Indeed I remember posting on this very forum my shock, outrage and horror at a random killing of an innocent homosexual man in Trafalgar Square.

I won't go over the the same old pointless arguments with those who are determined to portray others in the uncharitable way that they do. Opinion polls show that, rightly or wrongly, the overwhelming majority of Russians support Putin. Maybe they have seen what has happened in the 'liberal' West and simply prefer to retain their traditional values. Frankly, I do have some sympathy with them in that regard. Sorry if that offends you and Mr Stephen Fry, but that's my honest view, and much more importantly the views of most Russians.

Meanwhile, Christians and others are being persecuted and slaughtered in the Middle East ...

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I have no difficulty in sharing the pride of my gay and lesbian friends in their courage at defying the prejudices of those who would repress their sexuality. Perhaps the problem that others seem to have in believing that heterosexuals cannot share such pride is that some religions preach that Pride itself is a "deadly sin"?

[Mary Chambers]

Opinion polls show that, rightly or wrongly, the overwhelming majority of Russians support Putin. Maybe they have seen what has happened in the 'liberal' West and simply prefer to retain their traditional values...

And maybe they are brainwashed and ignorant. A 'traditional value' of intolerance is something to be challenged, surely?

I agree with those who feel that many, or even most people are not divided rigidly into gay and straight. There is, as has been said, a spectrum. Many people who are basically straight, like me, have felt passing attractions to people of their own sex - I certainly have, when I was younger. From an early age it has seemed obvious to me that anyone can fall in love with anyone, and I can't understand why there have to be rules about it.

It makes me very angry that for so long homosexual emotions had to be expressed by composers and writers in some sort of code, or not at all. How outrageously limiting this was for the arts. Think of Oscar Wilde, E. M. Forster, Housman, Tchaikovsky, Britten. Didn't Forster stop writing novels for that very reason? Of course, we got some great works of art using these codes, but think what we might have had without them. What a waste. Thank heavens things are improving, even if not yet enough.

Sorry, I've messed up the quotes a bit. I was quoting Scottycelt.

[teamsaint]

Yes, but what do you really feel...? :whistle:

A very good post that highlights the mistake of assuming that all is either black or white, one thing or the other (and what Richard Dawkins calls the tyranny of the discontinuous mind). We seem to think that most things are immutable - hence we find it 'counter-intuitive' to accept that most natural things, including humans, lie somewhere along a spectrum. It is useful for us to label things as different from each other because it helps us make sense of our medium-sized world to do so. But they're only labels that we give things. I am a (very) distant cousin of the mango tree I can see from my study window. We share a certain amount of our DNA because we came from common ancestors. Most of the time that means little to me, and I like mango. But it is nevertheless true.

It's the same with sex. We call things male or female because we are a sexual species - but there are many that do not reproduce sexually (famously the bdelloid rotifers, but also stick insects, not to mention bacteria), but even sexual species have their moments, with many species occasionally giving birth asexually (there was a case ar Chester Zoo a couple of years ago, involving a komodo dragon. Mammals tend not to, though that doesn't mean it's impossible, just very rare indeed.

When it comes to sexuality, people also lie along a spectrum. If you want to be crude about it, the proportion of 'female' to 'male' any person contains varies from one individual to the next (though 'male' and 'female' are rather artificial labels in the first place) - the whole would be best represented by a bell curve of some sort. People are born with whatever their parents' genetics pass on (and their parents' genetics, and their parents' genetics...). Of course we are sentient beings with the notable advantage of homo sapiens - big brains - so we can contemplate these things. Chimpanzees - our nearest cousins - may not do (at least not in such depth) - much less bdelloid rotifers. But chimpanzees demonstrate gay behaviour (banobos - pigmy chimps, who are our equidistant cousins with chimps - especially so, since they use sex as a means of communication) as do many other species.

That's why the simplistic comments of the Russian athlete are objectionable - they bear no relation to reality, just to a pretend world we have constructed because it makes many people feel good to do so.

Interesting post Pabs.
I wonder if you have any thoughts about some of the physical behaviours associated with male sport, EG Intense goals celebrations, pretty close physical contacts, displays of and appreciation of beautiful movement by men for(predominantly) men, even closer than usual physicality in general, (even in the stands), and how this all sits with the inability of the game to accept openly gay players?
I think this is a least tangental to some of your points.

Sorry if this is OT, or inappropriate. Its not meant to be..the original post was about a sports person after all..:smiley: