Musical Homophobia - or The Homophobia Histories

[amateur51]

Last paragraph:-

Secretary-general of the European Jewish Congress Serge Cwajgenbaum also expressed his “deep concern and shock” at the incident, though he cautioned that he would “reserve comment while we await the results of the police investigation.”


Perhaps you should do the same. What this has to do with the issue under discussion, I haven't the faintest idea. There is no indication in the article that this Rabbi was gay.

No indeed, you're right Mr Pee, which is why I did not say or imply that he was.

What I did was to highlight this murder of a Jew that relates to what Stephen Fry said about this anti-les/gay law that Putin has passed. Fry is saying that the Nazis killed Jews because they were Jews and gay men because they were gay; and when a society like Russia passes an anti-gay law like this it can create an environment in which killing gay men is seen by some elements as acceptable. He's warning us - who is next? Can you not see the potential link?

[scottycelt]

Only in that is singularly exclusive and rather puts the 'others' in the shade, in terms of balance.

I take your point, amsey! :ok:

With our sudden shared interest regarding 'balance' I'm sure you'll never, ever again mention 'gays and lesbians' by name but will instead simply refer to 'others' when highlighting persecution and discrimination.

In turn I promise I shall never, ever mention 'Christians' by name in a similar context.

Deal?

[scottycelt]

I think you've completely missed the point, scotty - which is that all those things really did happen to gay people before there were any 'Pride' marches.

I'm sure some awful things did happen to some gay people though I don't personally know of any and I've met and worked perfectly happily with quite a few who were alleged to be gays but I never got around to asking them because quite frankly I wasn't interested whether they were gay or not. They didn't seem particularly anxious to discuss my sexuality either. We simply enjoyed working together and we had some great times and laughs.

So why the 'Gay Pride' marches ... ?

There are gays who are vehemently opposed to the whole silly, divisive idea as well ...

http://pfox.org/Homosexuals_Opposed_to_Pride_Extremism.html

Homophobic bigots! :grr:

[Mr Pee]

There are gays who are vehemently opposed to the whole silly, divisive idea as well ...

http://pfox.org/Homosexuals_Opposed_to_Pride_Extremism.html

How refreshing. There are some voices of reason out there after all. :ok:

[Serial_Apologist]

How refreshing. There are some voices of reason out there after all. :ok:

My first thoughts on reading that article were that, like bourgeois feminists, he was a beneficiary of the activism that allowed him to be gay making a case for raising the drawbridge, but reading on he makes a very revealing comment on heterosexuals being inevitably in the majority because it all comes down to reproduction. Which counts me out purely on a matter of choice and remaining childless, straight as I happen to be. Surprise, surprise!

[jean]

He makes quite a few revealing comments, of which this is one of the most revealing:

"It was strictly politics and nary a speck of science that motivated the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder."

[Stillhomewardbound]

I have recently undergone one of those programmes of hypnotherapy. You might know the kind, where you can find out if, in a previous life you were, say, a cow chewing grass in Missouri, or a prostitute working the Bristol Docks.

Anyway, it turns out that in one of my previous existences I was an Edwardian gentleman (recently returned from the Punjab where I'd been with the Army & Navy) in London at the peak of the activities of the Suffragette movement and the hypnotherapist was able to record my reactions from that time.

"Well, I couldn't understand it at all. I knew a lot of women at that time. My mother and aunts were women and I wasn't about to stop them being women. If they wanted to be women that was entirely their affair. I couldn't see what was in it myself, but, each to their own peculiarities I say. Still, I just never understood why they had to keep on banging on about it the whole bloody time. I mean, they were going around causing the most ungodly upset, breaking windows and chipping the paintwork on some of Pall Mall's finest railings by chaining themselves to them.

I'm sure some awful things may have happened to them of a friday night when the husband came home, but that's how it is with the working classes, isn't it? Now of this class of woman I am not personally acquainted with any. However, I've met and worked perfectly happily with quite a few but I never got around to asking them because quite frankly I wasn't interested whether they were women or not. They didn't seem particularly anxious to discuss my sexuality either. We simply enjoyed working together and we had some great times and laughs and there were plenty who were willing to confide in me and admit they had simpler lives when they settled down and kept out of a chaps way. As one said to me, 'Eees not a bad man, Mr.Stillhomewardbound. The problem is though when I do be antagonising 'im, see. Well, I mean, like me burning me bra the other night. He didn't 'arf get the 'ump abaht that, and ee were right you know. Well, it were three guineas from them Penn & Teller, weren't it?!'

So there you have it; and as for this other lot. I mean in the old days if a chap were that way inclined then he simply got himself into the Foreign Office, or if he was especially light on his feet, the theatre.

So there they were, what they were, and there was I, what I was. Now, if I'm not speaking with the voice of reason, then I'm not the type of chap who has his manservant pop into bed of a winter's night to keep his mesahib warm.

No, absolutely nothing queer about that."

[jayne lee wilson]

I'm sure some awful things did happen to some gay people though I don't personally know of any and I've met and worked perfectly happily with quite a few who were alleged to be gays but I never got around to asking them because quite frankly I wasn't interested whether they were gay or not. They didn't seem particularly anxious to discuss my sexuality either. We simply enjoyed working together and we had some great times and laughs.

So why the 'Gay Pride' marches ... ?

There are gays who are vehemently opposed to the whole silly, divisive idea as well ...

http://pfox.org/Homosexuals_Opposed_to_Pride_Extremism.html

Homophobic bigots! :grr:

No-one who reads that article with an open mind can be anything but horrified at the sheer sexual disgust, self-deceit and smouldering anger just below its sweepingly rationalising surface. Sorry, P and SC, but you've given us a classic example of selective quotation.

"If counselling can allow a gay man to respond sexually to women it should be applauded" he says, but also "sexuality is highly fluid". Well if the latter is true why would anyone need counselling, and why should he worry about it?

Of COURSE there are many people who have felt sexual attraction to both sexes (but almost certainly not an equal magnetism...), and had affairs with both. This doesn't need agonising over, but doesn't mean any gay or straight person can therefore declare someone with only a same-sex attraction to be selfdeceiving, inauthentic or invalid. They should simply respect what they are and how they live.

So what about "choice"? If you hold that a gay person "chooses" to be gay, you will have to elaborate an etiology about how and when it happens, and to what extent you blame the gay person for it. Supposing, theoretically, it isn't "innate", most of us would not be able to remember when a "choice" occurred, only when we recognised the reality of our feelings. In which case, how could you blame anyone or want them to change?

I've often admired the beauty of a good-looking man, enjoyed a cuddle (or a bearhug...); but I never feel the blood pumping, have never sexually fantasised or dreamt about men, and when I first kissed a man I felt repelled. It was just plain wrong, chemically and emotionally. For me, that's a constant. The idea of seeking counselling to achieve - what, exactly? The joys of normalcy and the chance to make babies? - is just bizarre to me.

If you accept the idea of fluidity in sexual orientation or habits, you will still have to accept the right of anyone along that continuum of response and self-identification to live as they wish, freely and openly, and express themselves about it as and when they like.

(***LATE EDITION... just googled on John McKellar and HOPE. GOOD Grief. I suggest you do the same P and SC, try "Henry Makow John McKellar". You may be less keen to evoke his support afterwards...)

[Hornspieler]

No-one who reads that article with an open mind can be anything but horrified at the sheer sexual disgust, self-deceit and smouldering anger just below its sweepingly rationalising surface. Sorry, P and SC, but you've given us a classic example of selective quotation.

"If counselling can allow a gay man to respond sexually to women it should be applauded" he says, but also "sexuality is highly fluid". Well if the latter is true why would anyone need counselling, and why should he worry about it?

Of COURSE there are many people who have felt sexual attraction to both sexes (but almost certainly not an equal magnetism...), and had affairs with both. This doesn't need agonising over, but doesn't mean any gay or straight person can therefore declare someone with only a same-sex attraction to be selfdeceiving, inauthentic or invalid. They should simply respect what they are and how they live.

So what about "choice"? If you hold that a gay person "chooses" to be gay, you will have to elaborate an etiology about how and when it happens, and to what extent you blame the gay person for it. Supposing, theoretically, it isn't "innate", most of us would not be able to remember when a "choice" occurred, only when we recognised the reality of our feelings. In which case, how could you blame anyone or want them to change?

I've often admired the beauty of a good-looking man, enjoyed a cuddle (or a bearhug...); but I never feel the blood pumping, have never sexually fantasised or dreamt about men, and when I first kissed a man I felt repelled. It was just plain wrong, chemically and emotionally. For me, that's a constant. The idea of seeking counselling to achieve - what, exactly? The joys of normalcy and the chance to make babies? - is just bizarre to me.

If you accept the idea of fluidity in sexual orientation or habits, you will still have to accept the right of anyone along that continuum of response and self-identification to live as they wish, freely and openly, and express themselves about it as and when they like.

(***LATE EDITION... just googled on John McKellar and HOPE. GOOD Grief. I suggest you do the same P and SC, try "Henry Makow John McKellar". You may be less keen to evoke his support afterwards...)

I have no objection to same sex relationships. Many of my valued friends are of that persuasion, but I do object to the misappropriation of the word "Gay".

What should we heterosexuals be called then?

Drabs? Les Miserables? Misfits?

Carry on the way your inclinations lead - but what do you hope to gain by advertising? More recruits? Special priviledges?

98 posts so far and counting.

Surely we can expect what our Transatlantic cousins call "closure" on this topic?

HS:yawn:

[Richard Barrett]

What should we heterosexuals be called then?

Drabs? Les Miserables? Misfits?

Words change their meaning, do they not. The word "silly", for example, used to mean something more like "humble", whereas now it would apply to your anything-but-humble post. The idea that "gay" is a "misappropriation" is itself evidence that, although you "have no objection to same sex relationships" (millions breathe a sigh of relief!), the increasingly visible effects on society of people who have them, including - heaven forfend! - effects on English usage, are somehow wrong. Sorry but that's a form of homophobia too.

Gay Pride isn't about saying gays are superior, it's about asserting a right to equality, which historically has been denied and (as the thread subject still shows) frequently still is, in many parts of the world, and (much closer to home) among those who seem to think everything about society should have been petrified in some fondly-imagined state at some moment of their own choosing.

[amateur51]

Words change their meaning, do they not. The word "silly", for example, used to mean something more like "humble", whereas now it would apply to your anything-but-humble post. The idea that "gay" is a "misappropriation" is itself evidence that, although you "have no objection to same sex relationships" (millions breathe a sigh of relief!), the increasingly visible effects on society of people who have them, including - heaven forfend! - effects on English usage, are somehow wrong. Sorry but that's a form of homophobia too.

Gay Pride isn't about saying gays are superior, it's about asserting a right to equality, which historically has been denied and (as the thread subject still shows) frequently still is, in many parts of the world, and (much closer to home) among those who seem to think everything about society should have been petrified in some fondly-imagined state at some moment of their own choosing.

Thanks for bring us back to the OP :ok::biggrin:

[JimD]

Since we're doing the linguistic rounds, I'm surprised no observation has yet been made on the etymological monstrosity 'homophobia'. I know Wittgenstein wrote that (mostly) '...the meaning of a word is its use in the language game.' But surely there ought to be limits to semantic mangling?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I do object to the misappropriation of the word "Gay".

There are probably many breeds of cattle that quietly object to the misappropriation of the word "horn" to denote instruments that aren't even made of bone. Others, with a more philosophical outlook just accept it as part of the unstoppable and wonderful current of language evolution. Besides, which would you prefer: "queer", "faggot", "bugger", "homo", "puff", "bent", "pervert", "shirt-tail-lifter", "invert", "deviant", "sodomite" ...

Carry on the way your inclinations lead - but what do you hope to gain by advertising? More recruits? Special priviledges[sic?

In Europe and the United States, Gay Pride events are a way of celebrating Gay culture, in the same way that the Notting Hill Carnival is a way for those of a Black persuasion celebrate theirs, or the Kumbh Mela a way for those of an Asian persuasion to celebrate theirs, or the Proms a way for those of a Middle Aged, Middle Class, European persuasion to celebrate theirs.
No doubt there are Gays who find the Gay Pride events "silly and embarrassing", just as there are Middle Aged, Middle Class Europeans who find the Proms so. This is no "reason" to stop such events any more than the fact that there are Catholics who find processions that re-create Christ's progression to the Cross silly and embarrassing.

But this Thread is primarily to raise awareness of, and perhaps provoke activities that will earn for Gay people in Russia the "special privileges" not to be arrested, harrassed, bullied, sacked, beaten up, tortured and murdered with the approval of those in power.

98 posts so far and counting.

Surely we can expect what our Transatlantic cousins call "closure" on this topic?

HS:yawn:

Sorry to bore you, but, until there is "closure" for the victims of homophobia, this one will run and run. I'll let you get back to your sleep now.

[amateur51]

Since we're doing the linguistic rounds, I'm surprised no observation has yet been made on the etymological monstrosity 'homophobia'. I know Wittgenstein wrote that (mostly) '...the meaning of a word is its use in the language game.' But surely there ought to be limits to semantic mangling?

I tend to agree with you but I think you've got the cart before the horse - let's tackle the monstrosity (lovely word) that is 'homosexual' first - one part Greek, the other Latin, much to the confusion of those who wish to pronounce it correctly.

[amateur51]

There are probably many breeds of cattle that quietly object to the misappropriation of the word "horn" to denote instruments that aren't even made of bone. Others, with a more philosophical outlook just accept it as part of the unstoppable and wonderful current of language evolution. Besides, which would you prefer: "queer", "faggot", "bugger", "homo", "puff", "bent", "pervert", "shirt-tail-lifter", "invert", "deviant", "sodomite" ...


In Europe and the United States, Gay Pride events are a way of celebrating Gay culture, in the same way that the Notting Hill Carnival is a way for those of a Black persuasion celebrate theirs, or the Kumbh Mela a way for those of an Asian persuasion to celebrate theirs, or the Proms a way for those of a Middle Aged, Middle Class, European persuasion to celebrate theirs.
No doubt there are Gays who find the Gay Pride events "silly and embarrassing", just as there are Middle Aged, Middle Class Europeans who find the Proms so. This is no "reason" to stop such events any more than the fact that there are Catholics who find processions that re-create Christ's progression to the Cross silly and embarrassing.

But this Thread is primarily to raise awareness of, and perhaps provoke activities that will earn for Gay people in Russia the "special privileges" not to be arrested, harrassed, bullied, sacked, beaten up, tortured and murdered with the approval of those in power.


Sorry to bore you, but, until there is "closure" for the victims of homophobia, this one will run and run. I'll let you get back to your sleep now.

Quite brilliant ferney - many thanks!