Musical Homophobia - or The Homophobia Histories

[jean]

Well they may well [need protecting] from 'gay activists'.

You're not equating 'gay activists' with paedophiles, are you?

And if you aren't, can you say what it is that the 'gay activists' might do that the minors might need protecting from?

[jean]

On May 10th, Vladislav Tornovsky was innocuously tortured to death by his friends after telling them that he was Gay.

We know of cases where employees have been sacked or demoted in the UK for opposing 'Gay Marriage'. So what's the difference?

Well, in the case of the person demoted (only one, I think) it was later acknowledged that it shouldn't have happened. I believe he received compensation.

For the man who was tortured to death, any apology, any compensation after the event (even supposing it were forthcoming) would have come too late.

That a big enough difference for you?

I share your horror at unprovoked attacks on gays, atheists, jews, catholics, protestants, moslems or anybody else for that matter. Are you saying such attacks on gays will suddenly cease if the Russian laws are dropped.

Not suddenly, perhaps. But there's a far better chance that attitudes will soften in the absence of such a law.

[scottycelt]

You're not equating 'gay activists' with paedophiles, are you?

And if you aren't, can you say what it is that the 'gay activists' might do that the minors might need protecting from?

a) No, why should I? What on earth gave you that impression? I've never mentioned paedophilia. It's you, not me, who has ever suggested such a preposterous thing.

b) Maybe the same as some parents in the UK wouldn't want Gay Pride posters put up in libraries and schools? It's their kids, after all. I believe Russian parents have the right to decide what's best for their own children.

Don't you ... ?

[jean]

a) No, why should I? What on earth gave you that impression? I've never mentioned paedophilia. It's you, not me, who has ever suggested such a preposterous thing.

Not just me, unfortunately; it's often suggested.

I am glad you don't make that equation, and I apologise for thinking that you might.

But then, I am even more puzzled as to what damage you think the gay activists might do, even with their Gay Pride posters.

[scottycelt]

Not just me, unfortunately; it's often suggested.

I am glad you don't make that equation, and I apologise for thinking that you might.

But then, I am even more puzzled as to what damage you think the gay activists might do, even with their Gay Pride posters.

No need to apologise, Jean, I'm not easily offended ...

I can't really add to what I've already said which is probably much more than enough!

[ahinton]

I can't really add to what I've already said which is probably much more than enough!

I think that this may well be another of those rare instances where you and I can agree and others here might also feel able to do so.

[jean]

I can't really add to what I've already said which is probably much more than enough!

On the contrary; you always slide out of answering the really important questions!

[scottycelt]

On the contrary; you always slide out of answering the really important questions!

'Sliding out' ... ? ... Moi ... ?!!

I fear the trouble is that you simply don't accept my answers. That's a quite different thing! My answers are here in black and white. To say these don't exist is clearly false and rather silly especially as you otherwise spend no little some time saying my answers are wrong.

Others here have helpfully advised that my answers are 'repetitive' which, based on forum evidence, is one charge that might credibly stick.

However, if you (and others) keep asking the same old questions you (and others) are somewhat in danger of receiving the same old answers.

I am hardly likely to 'slide in' with an answer which totally contradicts the one I gave before for the sole reason that you might then finally decide to recognise it as an 'answer'!

[Mr Pee]

'Sliding out' ... ? ... Moi ... ?!!

I fear the trouble is that you simply don't accept my answers. That's a quite different thing! My answers are here in black and white. To say these don't exist is clearly false and rather silly especially as you otherwise spend no little some time saying my answers are wrong.

Others here have helpfully advised that my answers are 'repetitive' which, based on forum evidence, is one charge that might credibly stick.

However, if you (and others) keep asking the same old questions you (and others) are somewhat in danger of receiving the same old answers.

I am hardly likely to 'slide in' with an answer which totally contradicts the one I gave before for the sole reason that you might then finally decide to recognise it as an 'answer'!

You're right scotty, I mentioned a while ago that some people don't seem to recognise an answer unless it is the answer they want to get.

Most odd.

[Ferretfancy]

You're right scotty, I mentioned a while ago that some people don't seem to recognise an answer unless it is the answer they want to get.

Most odd.

Mr Pee

There's a wide difference between recognising an answer and totally rejecting the opinion behind it, as I do most of the time with you.

[ahinton]

You're right scotty, I mentioned a while ago that some people don't seem to recognise an answer unless it is the answer they want to get.

I cannot speak for others here but I feel confident that I am not the only member here for whom the only desired answers to questions are honest ones, whether or not I might agree with them; the problem with scotty's tends from time to time to be that his responses to questions are not answers at all but avoidance of answers (or is it evasion? - I'm never quite sure, although, as we know, avoidance is legal if not necessarily always moral whereas evasion is illegal). He doesn't always do this but, when he does, there is a big difference between that approach and actually giving straight (sorry!) answers and it is that which exercises some members here, not whether or not they like what's being written in the guise of answers.

[scottycelt]

I cannot speak for others here but I fell confident that I am not the only member here for whom the only desired answers to questions are honest ones, whether or not I might agree with them; the problem with scotty's tends from time to time to be that his responses to questions are not answers at all but avoidance of answers (or is it evasion? - I'm never quite sure, although, as we know, avoidance is legal if not necessarily always moral whereas evasion is illegal). He doesn't always do this but, when he does, there is a big difference between that approach and actually giving straight (sorry!) answers and it is that which exercises some members here, not whether or not they like what's being written in the guise of answers.

Ahinton, may I be so bold as to ask you a very honest and straightforward question then ... ?

When do you actually do any music composition or have you given that up in favour of incomprehensible verbal construction?

[jean]

'Sliding out' ... ? ... Moi ... ?!!

I fear the trouble is that you simply don't accept my answers!

That's because they are not answers to the questions I've asked.

I wanted to trace the sequence of the argument that ends with you sliding out, as I put it, but it will take ages and I lose the quotes I've got when I leave the page to find another one.

For the moment, ponder this: when I ask exactly what it is that gay activists might do that minors need protecting from, you coyly reply:

Maybe the same as some parents in the UK wouldn't want Gay Pride posters put up in libraries and schools?

But what is it that could be transmitted by these posters (which are, remember, the only example of 'literature' that might fall foul of a prohibition on promoting homosexuality that you've been able to come up with)?

What exactly is it that the Catholic parent fears?

[ahinton]

Ahinton, may I be so bold as to ask you a very honest and straightforward question then ... ?

You may indeed (though boldness is not required) - and I will do my best to answer it!

When do you actually do any music composition or have you given that up in favour of incomprehensible verbal construction?

That's two questions actually, scotty! Anyway, to answer the first I would have first to ask you if you really want to have a detailed timetable of my hours spent in such activity and over how long a period; the answer to the second is "no", wisely followed by "why do you think that I might wish to do that?"...

[ahinton]

That's because they are not answers to the questions I've asked.

I wanted to trace the sequence of the argument that ends with you sliding out, as I put it, but it will take ages and I lose the quotes I've got when I leave the page to find another one.

For the moment, ponder this: when I ask exactly what it is that gay activists might do that minors need protecting from, you coyly reply:

But what is it that could be transmitted by these posters (which are, remember, the only example of 'literature' that might fall foul of a prohibition on promoting homosexuality that you've been able to come up with?)

What exactly is it that the Catholic parent fears?

And, for that matter, whilst the question is yours and not mine, I would add "why only Catholic parents? - do they, or are they supposed to, harbour different fears to those of other parents?"...