Musical Homophobia - or The Homophobia Histories

[Beef Oven!]

I find the sentiments here rather depressing. The arguments in this Thread are complex and demand serious analysis if the "argument" is to be given the respect it deserves. Concision and pithiness in this case can lead to oversimplifications and poorly thought-out, glib assertions. ahinton's posts have the advantage of expressing his considerations with clarity; there is none of the ambiguity that can lead others to say "but you haven't thought of ,,, ": the caveats and parentheses of his comments are already there; thought-out and clearly presented. The frequent attacks on ahinton's considered prose (most frequent from those whose pithy statements revel in oversimplistic lack of insight) suggest the malign influence of the "soundbite" culture, in which a glib aphorism is given greater credit than a carefully composed argument - a very sad state of affairs.

Alternatively, the subject might be really straight-forward and simple. Perhaps the complication comes in when the desire to make people agree with something they don't believe in becomes the operating principle.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Alternatively, the subject might be really straight-forward and simple.

Perhaps - is it so here? The topic began with a "straightforward and simple" account of homophobic legislation in Putin's Russia. It became a discussion when the suggestion was made that this "was none of our business", that "we could/should do nothing about" it, and that maybe the Russians had a point because look what happened here when we "let" Gays take over. That was when more complex argument had to be brought into play - along with some considerable invective on both sides (which nonetheless had the advantage of being concise and "pithy").

Perhaps the complication comes in when the desire to make people agree with something they don't believe in becomes the operating principle.

I agree that ahinton's posts are often "complex": but they are rarely "complicated". I think you're right here, BeefO: when people see a complex sequence of points with which they disagree, they decide that it's "complicated" (or "impenetrably verbose") and decide not to bother reading (or "wading through") it. On both sides - I still haven't got past page one of the document you posted yesterday; my apologies.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I find the sentiments here rather depressing. The arguments in this Thread are complex and demand serious analysis if the "argument" is to be given the respect it deserves. Concision and pithiness in this case can lead to oversimplifications and poorly thought-out, glib assertions. ahinton's posts have the advantage of expressing his considerations with clarity; there is none of the ambiguity that can lead others to say "but you haven't thought of ,,, ": the caveats and parentheses of his comments are already there; thought-out and clearly presented. The frequent attacks on ahinton's considered prose (most frequent from those whose pithy statements revel in oversimplistic lack of insight) suggest the malign influence of the "soundbite" culture, in which a glib aphorism is given greater credit than a carefully composed argument - a very sad state of affairs.

Utter piffle

hinton's

Whether or not it will do so or indeed whether or not it might even need to do so will inevitably have to remain debatable for the time being but, in the meantime, I very much appreciate your drawing my (and others) attention to what already looks, on even the briefest of skim reads of the surface matter, a fascinating document which will obviously require a good deal of reading time that I cannot devote to it all immediately; that said, I maintain in the interim that I have understood nothing about the new legislation that was ever intended to undermine - or could undermine, still less has undermined - marriage as it has been understood up to the time of its passage and I fail to see how it could do so in any case against the wishes, desires and motivations of heterosexual couples who wish to marry, whether or not they are able or wish to have children thereafter. Laws are, after all, made not just by but for people and, if swathes of people feel undermined by any new ones, they will likely and understandably speak out and/or defy them, yet here there seems to be nothing to speak out against or defy.

can be rewritten as

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I’ve skimmed through it and it looks very interesting but I haven’t got time to read it carefully at the moment. Meanwhile, I see nothing in the new legislation that in any way undermines the institution of marriage. And I cannot see how any legislation could do so against the wishes, desires and motivations of heterosexual couples, whether or not they wish to have children. Laws are made by the people for the people. People will resist changes they do not like, but I see nothing to defy here.

with no loss of content.

[scottycelt]

I can assure you that my marriage is NOT "gender-neutral" at all
(or wasn't the last time I looked anyway .............)
the religionists can go and have their own thing if they want and feel so strongly about it
THAT'S fine by me
but what's not fine is for them to dictate to the rest of us , or assume that they somehow have the right to

Don't give us that nonsense again, Mr GG!

It's the 'gender-neutralists' (what a truly nightmarish Orwellian vision :smile:) who are dictating to not just 'religionists' but all the atheists who believe that marriage is a heterosexual institution like a carrot is a carrot and a banana is a banana!

If heterosexuals have no legal right to get involved in Civil Partnerships (a comparatively new homosexual institution) then if you and your like-minded friends really believed in 'equality' you would support the same right for heterosexuals to retain their very own centuries-old institution. The current system is already fair and equal. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals have the same rights in law.

Furthermore, who's dictating to nearly 90% of the Russian people on how they should run their internal affairs ... ?

Far too many glaring examples of double-standards permeate debates such as these.

[ahinton]

Alternatively, the subject might be really straight-forward and simple. Perhaps the complication comes in when the desire to make people agree with something they don't believe in becomes the operating principle.

Whether or not one believes in something has no influential impact on its inherent simplicity or complexity. Furthermore, I have no desire to make anyone agree with anything about this issue but, again, that fact has no impact on the subject matter itself. The fact that you persist in arguing that the same sex marriage legislation compromises both the human rights of heterosexual couples and the "estate", shall we say, of marriage as understood by such couples without providing any evidence drawn from clauses in that legislation strikes me - and perhaps also others - as a classic example of over-simplification leading to mindless obduracy and, as such, does sound as though you are trying to make others agree with that they don't believe in.

[ahinton]

If heterosexuals have no legal right to get involved in Civil Partnerships (a comparatively new homosexual institution) then if you and your like-minded friends really believed in 'equality' you would support the same right for heterosexuals to retain their very own centuries-old institution. The current system is already fair and equal. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals have the same rights in law.

Personally, I do support the legal right for heterosexual couples to involve themselves in Civil Partnerships. I'm pleased that you've raised this, scotty as, although it's a subject separate from that of same sex marriage, it is still an important issue.

[MrGongGong]

Don't give us that nonsense again, Mr GG!
.

It's not "nonsense"
it's very simple
if you don't want to get married to a man (assuming that you are one) don't
the fact that some men and women DO want to marry people of the same gender really doesn't affect it at all
It's very dangerous when people start suggesting that because "90%" of people think something is a good idea that it is automatically ethical and right

[Bryn]

If they are indeed lost there, how would you know that they're valid? Anyway, it was verbiage when last I looked...

Too much grass, perhaps?

[ahinton]

Too much grass, perhaps?

If the long variety into which some people's ideas read as though they ought to be kicked, perhaps indeed...

[Beef Oven!]

Whether or not one believes in something has no influential impact on its inherent simplicity or complexity.

That's my point. Things get complicated when the desire to make people believe in something they don't agree with becomes the operating principle.

I don't 'persist' in arguing that my human right to a conjugal, procreational marriage has been destroyed. I stated it and explained my reason. See my posts #504 & #547.

[ahinton]

It's very dangerous when people start suggesting that because "90%" of people think something is a good idea that it is automatically ethical and right

It is indeed but, in any case, where is the incontrovertible evidence in support of the assertion that "90%" of the British adult populace think anything about any subject?

[ahinton]

That's my point. Things get complicated when the desire to make people believe in something they don't agree with becomes the operating principle.

I don't 'persist' in arguing that my human right to a conjugal, procreational marriage has been destroyed. I stated it and explained my reason. See my posts #504 & #547.

In the former you wrote

"Well, I could have done what many of my peers did and simply had a common-law arrangement. But I wanted something more. Something unique and special - a marriage based on conjugal, procreational principles. That no longer exists. Marriage is now simply a partnership. I can see no reason why this cannot be considered part of the ever-increasing portfolio of human rights the world's citizens carry about these days."

In the latter you wrote

"It's not about correct. It's about viewpoint. Now, just because a number of countries that represent a very small proportion of the people on this planet have come up with this new idea, it doesn't mean that the rest of us agree."

In no part of either do you identify how opposite sex marriage has been "destroyed" by the legislation. You do therefore persist in making a statement (since you've repeated it in one form or another more than once) without providing any evidence to back it up and are clearly content that merely making that statement lends it validity. I've asked you to clarify. You refer me to these two posts. They do nothing of the kind. To what other conclusion can I therefor come?

[MrGongGong]

It is indeed but, in any case, where is the incontrovertible evidence in support of the assertion that "90%" of the British adult populace think anything about any subject?

2 anecdotes = evidence .......... ?

(good enough for bombing Iraq :-( )

[Beef Oven!]

In the former you wrote

"Well, I could have done what many of my peers did and simply had a common-law arrangement. But I wanted something more. Something unique and special - a marriage based on conjugal, procreational principles. That no longer exists. Marriage is now simply a partnership. I can see no reason why this cannot be considered part of the ever-increasing portfolio of human rights the world's citizens carry about these days."

In the latter you wrote

"It's not about correct. It's about viewpoint. Now, just because a number of countries that represent a very small proportion of the people on this planet have come up with this new idea, it doesn't mean that the rest of us agree."

In no part of either do you identify how opposite sex marriage has been "destroyed" by the legislation. You do therefore persist in making a statement (since you've repeated it in one form or another more than once) without providing any evidence to back it up and are clearly content that merely making that statement lends it validity. I've asked you to clarify. You refer me to these two posts. They do nothing of the kind. To what other conclusion can I therefor come?

I have no ability, should I even think about the desire, to know, or even possibly begin to try to know, what conclusion, or even the possible range of conclusions available on this matter, for you, or anyone else in this forum, being logged in or not, pertaining to any conclusions that you could, therefore, or by any other means, come to.

And, why have you selected bleeding chunks from my post? Why not just read?

[Beef Oven!]

2 anecdotes = evidence .......... ?

(good enough for bombing Iraq :-( )

That was loads of anecdotes. If you are going to criticise the then government on going to war in Iraq, get your facts right.