Musical Homophobia - or The Homophobia Histories

[ahinton]

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.

Presumably because you can't be bothered. You should try harder.

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

I didn't. You referred to two of your previous posts in which you allegedly explained your position. I quoted them in full - not mere "bleeding chunks" therefrom - for the purpose of demonstrating that they explain nothing but merely state your viewpoint as though there's no need to justify it with evidence.

[ahinton]

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

I think that the use of the figure 2 was intended to be euphemistic, the nub of the issue being the anecdotal "evidence" that took the place of reliable hard evidence in determining whether to go to war in Iraq; I imagine that others would likely read it this way as well - but let's not get distracted by that here.

[amateur51]

Well, first of all, you have no idea how I respond to the music I enjoy, so to suggest that I am kidding myself in that response is pretty patronising. My responses are based on MY emotions and cultural background. They have diddly squat to do with the cultural climate at the time the music was written. I have read plenty on Wagner, and on Tchaikovsky; I've also read Testimony, and Northrop-Moore's "Elgar: A Creative Life", which I think is one of the finest composer biographies ever written. Did I learn from theses books? Yes. Did they increase my understanding of the composer? Yes. Did reading them alter my emotional response to the music? No. Because the music is all there is when you are listening to it.



Even more patronising than your earlier comment.

You can get therapy for all this rage y'know - the world might be a better place if you do.

[Beef Oven!]

Presumably because you can't be bothered. You should try harder.


I didn't. You referred to two of your previous posts in which you allegedly explained your position. I quoted them in full - not mere "bleeding chunks" therefrom - for the purpose of demonstrating that they explain nothing but merely state your viewpoint as though there's no need to justify it with evidence.

I meant post #537. My mistake.

And you can't be bothered to read the reader? Take your own advice and try harder.

[amateur51]

Would 'a homosexual composer' compose any differently from a heterosexual composer?

I'm astounded there are those who are so obsessed with composers' sexualities and yet so easily accuse others of 'homophobia'.

It wasn't any of the so-called 'homophobes' who instigated this thread.

Maybe it's those who constantly raise and parade sexuality issues here who might be the ones actually suffering from any phobias/obsessions?

So you wouldn't expect someone obsessed with the idea of God to be influenced by this in any music she or he was writing,scotty?

Religiosity is an 'add-on'; lesbian/gay sexuality is not

[Beef Oven!]

I think that the use of the figure 2 was intended to be euphemistic, the nub of the issue being the anecdotal "evidence" that took the place of reliable hard evidence in determining whether to go to war in Iraq; I imagine that others would likely read it this way as well - but let's not get distracted by that here.

I've just come off a conference call with MrGG. He told me he believed that the war in Iraq was based on two anecdotes and he was not being euphemistic. I drew his attention to a further seven, whereupon he revised his view. I am easily distracted.

[amateur51]

Isn't saying that music is only about notes and sounds rather like saying that literature is only about letters and words? Just a thought.

To the heart of the matter Mary, as so often

[amateur51]

Ah .....maybe 124 words but on the Gunning-Fog Index only a mere 19. AH has exceeded 60 in the past.

Perfectly self-hoisted there.

He'll be along in a rage in moment to denounce me & report to Matron.

[scottycelt]

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?

No wonder you can't find answers to questions if you don't read posts properly, ahinton!

' ... nearly 90% of the Russian people' ... is what is officially and correctly recorded as having been asserted in the post. The 'incontrovertible evidence in support of the assertion' is easily confirmed by way of Google or any other reasonably efficient search engine.

Please look very carefully at the post again.

[ahinton]

I meant post #537. My mistake.

Fair enough; we all do that from time to time.

In #537, however, you wrote (and, again, I quote in full, not mere "bleeding chinks"):
"The bit that you don't seem to be getting your head around, is that the legislation destroys conjugal, procreative marriage and leaves us with a gender-neutral partnership. It's not marriage.

Now if that's fine by you, great, it's a free country. But don't expect everybody to agree with you

If you still don't understand, read the bloody reader I posted!"
Again, all that you do is state your opinion; there's no evidence from the legislation to explain it or back it up. I'm not asking or expecting you to "agree" with me but I wasn't seeking opinions in any case - just facts and proof, which is still awaited.

I've now read enough of the text to which you linked to conclude that much of this does just the same as you do in providing statements without factual foundation. If you believe as you do as strongly as you do about this and you've given the matter the serious thought and consideratuion that it merits, you ought to be able to oblige with this but, either way, you still haven't done that. Just tell us all which part of the Act specifically provides for the "destruction" of the conjugal and procreative rights of heterosexual couples and I will consider what you write. In the meantime, I wait but am not about to hold my breath.

And you can't be bothered to read the reader? Take your own advice and try harder.[/QUOTE]

[jean]

So you wouldn't expect someone obsessed with the idea of God to be influenced by this in any music she or he was writing,scotty?

I would, and I would expect as a listener to be able to detect it, too.

As I said in that part of the discussion you've arrived at now, but nobody listened.

(See recent interval talks non Bruckner.)

I think scotty should pay less attention to Mozart as an exemplar of a 'Catholic composer' and try Palestrina and Victoria instead.

He might find his faith greatly strengthened as a result.

[amateur51]

Absolutely and I am glad that many forum members are getting their priorities right. Let's not interfere in Syria where the odd few thousand people are gassed. Instead, let's focus on gay issues in Russia.

Apples and pears, stone roller.

They can exist side by side in the same bowl, but are generally unmistakably themselves.

[Resurrection Man]

Hmm, the term "cop out" springs to mind.

Nah...more like a sensible use of my time.

[Beef Oven!]

Fair enough; we all do that from time to time.

In #537, however, you wrote (and, again, I quote in full, not mere "bleeding chinks"):
"The bit that you don't seem to be getting your head around, is that the legislation destroys conjugal, procreative marriage and leaves us with a gender-neutral partnership. It's not marriage.

Now if that's fine by you, great, it's a free country. But don't expect everybody to agree with you

If you still don't understand, read the bloody reader I posted!"
Again, all that you do is state your opinion; there's no evidence from the legislation to explain it or back it up. I'm not asking or expecting you to "agree" with me but I wasn't seeking opinions in any case - just facts and proof, which is still awaited.

I've now read enough of the text to which you linked to conclude that much of this does just the same as you do in providing statements without factual foundation. If you believe as you do as strongly as you do about this and you've given the matter the serious thought and consideratuion that it merits, you ought to be able to oblige with this but, either way, you still haven't done that. Just tell us all which part of the Act specifically provides for the "destruction" of the conjugal and procreative rights of heterosexual couples and I will consider what you write. In the meantime, I wait but am not about to hold my breath.

And you can't be bothered to read the reader? Take your own advice and try harder.

It's over 170 pages! You can't have read enough already!

Oh well, I give up.

[amateur51]

We know of cases where employees have been sacked or demoted in the UK for opposing 'Gay Marriage'. So what's the difference? Anyone who yet again demands examples, just Google!

No 'we' don't scotty - we know of people who were sacked for failing to provide a public service to lesbians and gay men by reason of their prejudice, quite a different matter.