Musical Homophobia - or The Homophobia Histories

[amateur51]

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.

And if they are lesbian or gay parents scotty? Or if their children are lesbian or gay?

[amateur51]

But there is a difference between an "answer" and a "response" (or a "reply") that is often missed in scotty's posts. It must have made for an interesting experience for his schoolteachers -

History Question: Discuss the effects on the Anglo-Saxon economies of the North of England of the Norman Conquest of 1066.

WeeScotty's Response: I went on holiday to Belgium last Summer.

Dominee's comment on returned essay: But young McCelt, you haven't answered the question!

WS's rejoinder: But I Have! I said I went on holiday to Belgium, and I did. I can't help it if you didn't accept my answer, and it's not my fault if you can't recognise it as an answer. You may want me to say that I went on holiday to Finland, but I didn't, and I'm not going to say that I did just to please you and your like-minded cronies. I think Belgium is a lovely place to go on holiday. Don't you?

Take the case that he has said that he believes that children need "protecting" from "some Gay Activists". He does not say why he believes this, only blusters indignantly that he didn't mean that he thought that they were paedophiles (how could anyone suggest such nonsense?) - leaving the question unanswered. Does he believe that "some Gay Activists" are child murderers; or seek to steal their sweeties; or creep up on them and shout "Boo!" in a really frightening way; or that their very presence in society will make them think "Those two blokes have a relationship that is obviously happier and more affectionate than Mum and Dad's; I think I'll give being Gay a go"? We don't know - MrCelt has yet to tell us. (We do know that he thinks ahinton's sentence constructions are "incomprehensible" - but that doesn't answer any questions either.)

Many thanks, ferney

[jean]

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.

I think scotty is referring to the case of Adrian Smith,, which was bad judgment and should never have happened.

It was so misguided that Peter Tatchell offered to testify in Smith's defence.

I can't think of any other similar case.

[amateur51]

Don't know if this has been covered, but what proportion of the human race is reckoned to be homosexual?

I don't think it would be possible to guage.

Rather more importantly, why would it matter?

[amateur51]

Yes, the usual 'mob mentality' suspects. Where's amsey, btw? His absence here has been particularly noted.

Just back from France, scotty

[scottycelt]

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

Ah, wondered where you had got to, amsey. Lovely country!

Actually Roderick Swanston gave an excellent pre-Proms talk on Tuesday on much the same subject .

I was delighted when he played a snatch of opening of the second movement of the very first and rarely heard version of Bruckner 4, which I happened to plug recently on the Forth Bridge thread!. These were Bruckner's original thoughts and so unlike the more 'godly' sounds we are used to in the later versions. Swanston, correctly in my view, was vehemently contesting the idea of Bruckner as 'a religious composer'.

So why the wholesale change in the later versions? Was it really any great change of mind on the part of the composer or because friends and colleagues thought it would sound more 'godly' and 'Wagnerian'?

We'll never know ... but in any case, I'll take any piece of music engrossed in my own thoughts and nobody elses.

[Beef Oven!]

I don't think it would be possible to guage.

Rather more importantly, why would it matter?

Must be possible to gauge. Probably harder to ascertain.


Why it matters is not more important, but to answer your question, I'm curious.

[amateur51]

Marriage between people of the opposite sex has never been compulsorily about "conjugal, procreational principles"; how insensitive is such an idea to those heterosexual couples who are unable to have children or those who do not wish to do so? The principal point, however, is that "what you want" still exists and remain intact and unaffected by legislation; a marriage is what you want it to be.

You've shattered his illusions now ahinton. Beefy thought that getting married was a bit like joining the AA (the motoring organisation, ahem) - you get a badge and a bit of standing in society. He'll be crushed now.

[amateur51]

Must be possible to gauge. Probably harder to ascertain.


Why it matters is not more important, but to answer your question, I'm curious.

No-one is surprised about that

[Resurrection Man]

Apples and pears, stone roller.

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

You can do better than that but a predictable reply nevertheless.

Indeed they are unmistakable...even you can see that which is an improvement.

[amateur51]

The staggeringly overwhelming majority of married people can and do have children.

Sensitivity is completely irrelevant (although I really sympathise with people who want to have children but can't).

Marriage has (hitherto) never been about social justice.

You can't possibly know that


The Tories are very keen to re-instate tax breaks for married people. It has often been associated with such privileges.

[Beef Oven!]

You've shattered his illusions now ahinton. Beefy thought that getting married was a bit like joining the AA (the motoring organisation, ahem) - you get a badge and a bit of standing in society. He'll be crushed now.

Not so much crushed, more disappointed that the politics of envy and revenge hold sway in the modern world.

[amateur51]

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.

Oh you mean you've lost your perks?

[Beef Oven!]

[COLOR="#FF0000"]You can't possibly know that

Correction: I can know it, but I can't prove it; just like we know the sun will rise tomorrow, but we can't prove it.

Did you not do O'level logic?

[amateur51]

Carol...you make a very valid point. I can no longer be bothered to wade through AH's endless and unpunctuated prose as there are not enough hours in the day. Many of his points are valid but lost in the verbage.

AH's prose is methodically and meticulously punctuated, stonme roller.

Some might argue that there are too few full-stops but the punctuation is most certainly there.