Musical Homophobia - or The Homophobia Histories

[Resurrection Man]

Is it? Perhaps you should understand my point, which is that religions require 'belief' and obedience to the dictats of an authority. Those are defining characteristics that distinguish religious thinking from rational thinking. Nazism and Communism were certainly in that category, even to the extent of using the trappings of religion - mass gatherings, icons, books of quotations from the revered.

In post 657 I said:



I was not attempting to knock anyone's personal faith (how could I have done that?) but to show that Nazism and Communism were of a particular nature, religious rather than secular.

I was agreeing with this post until this last point which I think is a nonsense. Throughout the history of man, regimes/dictators/kings/rulers/whoever have claimed that 'God/Allah/whoever' was on their side. That hardly makes their regimes 'religious'..well not by my definition of religion nor most other people I would suggest. I think that you are belittling anyone who has a religious faith because for many devout followers, their religion is not a 'Pick'n'Mix'. They will follow the teachings/whatever of their particular religion. Now if that religion says that homosexuality is wrong then that becomes part of their belief set.

We're not going to agree on this so best agree to differ.

Perhaps I should start a thread on why society condemns/curtails my (and others) own particular preferred lifestyle namely going 'skyclad'.

[scottycelt]

I have started to see a parallel between this thread (and most others, come to that) and the Second Law of Thermondynamics. All tends towards atrophy unless something is injected from outside, like a fresh news report.

Okay, Pab ... how about yesterday's stunning landslide election victory for the anti 'gay-marriage' Liberal Party leader in Australia? (now that's what I call a proper 'liberal'!) :winkeye:

[Pabmusic]

I am certainly not condemning your lifestyle nor seeking to curtail it (partly at least because I have absolutely no idea what your lifestyle consists of). However, I suspect that you are generally supportive of attempts to curtail other people's lifestyles because of your belief system. Your beliefs lead to their curtailment.

And yet you are aggrieved because "society condemns/curtails [yours] (and others) own particular preferred lifestyle". Something doesn't add up...

It sounds rather too much as if your preferred lifestyle would include condemning the lifestyles of others.

It's all a bit like the Pilgrim Fathers. The received impression (at least in America) is that they left England to escape persecution for their religious beliefs. Yet there was no widespread persecution of Puritans. The 'persecution' was that they weren't allowed to persecute others for living according to the wrong "preferred lifestyle" (ie: not being Puritans). This was echoed in California a year or so ago when a Christian church started a legal action claiming it was being 'persecuted' following a new law forbidding the public humiliation of gay students (members of the church would congregate outside schools and follow gay students around, reading biblical tracts out loud and telling the world how evil they were). One student committed suicide because of it.

[Pabmusic]

Okay, Pab ... how about yesterday's stunning landslide election victory for the anti 'gay-marriage' Liberal Party leader in Australia? (now that's what I call a proper 'liberal'!) :winkeye:

No doubt the new Aussie PM has been avidly following your posts, Scotty.

[Pabmusic]

Well, this may not quite be thermodynamic or even a news report per se, but will it do in the meantime?

http://www.joycedidonato.com/2013/09/05/5820/

What a lovely piece. This sentence should be read together with RM's post 811 for a contrast that needs no comment:

"There are well-intentioned parents, siblings, friends, strangers, communities, schools, as well as governments, that insist on trying to make homosexuals feel like lesser human beings, hoping for their silence, which is seemingly so much easier for their oppressors to bear".

[ahinton]

I was agreeing with this post until this last point which I think is a nonsense. Throughout the history of man, regimes/dictators/kings/rulers/whoever have claimed that 'God/Allah/whoever' was on their side. That hardly makes their regimes 'religious'..well not by my definition of religion nor most other people I would suggest. I think that you are belittling anyone who has a religious faith because for many devout followers, their religion is not a 'Pick'n'Mix'. They will follow the teachings/whatever of their particular religion. Now if that religion says that homosexuality is wrong then that becomes part of their belief set.

We're not going to agree on this so best agree to differ.

Perhaps I should start a thread on why society condemns/curtails my (and others) own particular preferred lifestyle namely going 'skyclad'.

Perhaps you should but, in the meantime, like Pabs, I know nothing of what your lifestyle consists or, for that matter, whether any of what it consists is a matter of your personal choice or enforced by some other authority. However, what I think that you are doing here (intentionally or otherwise) is bringing into the arena the question of the potential for conflicts of interest and practice beteween the religious and the secular, as well as the possible contrast between the perceived immutability of religious dogma and the potential for flexibility in secular law.

Under any régime where religious practice of any kind is permitted by statute, that religious practice and the secular law will coexist (except, of course, in cases where the law of the land is based solely upon religious dogma); it is therefore obvious that conflicts might arise between the religious and the secular. If, for example, homosexuality is deemed to countermand both the creed of a particular religion and the secular law of the land, no such confict arises; however, whereas many subscribers to the religion concerned would regard its truths to be set in stone, the secular law of the land can be subject to change and, when such change brings about legal sanction of homosexuality, the conflict between the religious "law" and the secular ditto arises as a direct consequence.

I think that a necessary prerequisite for rulers to be able to claim that "God/Allah/whoever" is on their side is that religious practice be regarded as paramount. In how many Western democracies would most leaders seek to claim that "God/Allah/whoever" is on their side? Isn't this kind of claim more likely to be encountered in certain kinds of religion-based dictatorships rather than being in any sense universal?

OK - so if a particular religion determines that homosexuality, same sex marriage, bisexuality, transsexuality et al goes against its creed but that religion is practised in countries where any or all of these are acceptable under their secular laws, the question that remains to be addressed is which should take precedence - the religious creed or the secular laws; under a democratic régime, it will invariably be the latter, irrespective of the conflict of interest and practice that such precedence endorses. One obvious consequence of a situation in which secular law says one thing but religious dogma another, it is obvious that those who value the secular law will come to consider that the religious creed is wrong about such matters and therefore wrong to outlaw and condemn them.

[ahinton]

Okay, Pab ... how about yesterday's stunning landslide election victory for the anti 'gay-marriage' Liberal Party leader in Australia? (now that's what I call a proper 'liberal'!) :winkeye:

So the Australian election was based solely upon a choice between pro- and anti- same sex marriage, was it? Well I never! I must have been reading all the wrong news reports and talking to all the wrong Australians! Will you be packing your bags and moving to Australia then, scotty?

[scottycelt]

What a lovely piece. This sentence should be read together with RM's post 811 for a contrast that needs no comment:

"There are well-intentioned parents, siblings, friends, strangers, communities, schools, as well as governments, that insist on trying to make homosexuals feel like lesser human beings, hoping for their silence, which is seemingly so much easier for their oppressors to bear".

I tend to concur with RM. If we believe in different moralities we are never going to agree with each other. The above is simply a heavily subjective opinion governed by mere speculation.

However, whatever our strong views on the matter, I fail to see the logic of the following:

a) 'Gay Marriage' should not be prevented from becoming law in the UK because it is only opposed by a minority. (according to polls)
b) The measure against 'Gay Promotion' should have been prevented from becoming law in Russia (and should now be repealed) even though it is only opposed by a minority.(according to polls)

I really do struggle with the apparent compatibility of both contentions!

[Pabmusic]

I tend to concur with RM. If we believe in different moralities we are never going to agree with each other. The above is simply a heavily subjective opinion governed by mere speculation...

It seemed to me that RM's complaint was that, in society's permitting others to pursue a lifestyle incompatible with his own beliefs, his are actually being condemned or curtailed. The victim is RM and it would be 'right' to revert to a system where the 'victims' should be those whom RM's beliefs decree should be.

Is that what you 'tend' to agree with?

...However, whatever our strong views on the matter, I fail to see the logic of the following:

a) 'Gay Marriage' should not be prevented from becoming law in the UK because it is only opposed by a minority. (according to polls)
b) The measure against 'Gay Promotion' should have been prevented from becoming law in Russia (and should now be repealed) even though it is only opposed by a minority.(according to polls)

I really do struggle with the apparent compatibility of both contentions!

I doubt there has to be a logical link between the two since they are unconnected, but you make the mistake of assuming laws gain moral validity by the strength of their support. They don't (since when have morals been a matter for Breakfast phone-ins to determine?).

[scottycelt]

It seemed to me that RM's complaint was that, in society's permitting others to pursue a lifestyle incompatible with his own beliefs, his are actually being condemned or curtailed. The victim is RM and it would be 'right' to revert to a system where the 'victims' should be those whom RM's beliefs decree should be.

Is that what you 'tend' to agree with?



I doubt there has to be a logical link between the two since they are unconnected, but you make the mistake of assuming laws gain moral validity by the strength of their support. They don't (since when have morals been a matter for Breakfast phone-ins to determine?).

I'm not making any mistake in simply highlighting the position of some which, in terms of logic alone, makes absolutely no sense. Or maybe you think it should not be highlighted? The parallel 'gay rights' issues in Russia and the UK are most certainly NOT unconnected These are the two sides of exactly the same coin!

The whole point is that the idea of morality here obviously differs so who is going to decide what is 'moral' in society?

Majority moral opinion or minority moral opinion?

[amateur51]

Well, this may not quite be thermodynamic or even a news report per se, but will it do in the meantime?

http://www.joycedidonato.com/2013/09/05/5820/

Sincere thanks for this link, ahinton - quite made my day

[amateur51]

I'm not making any mistake in simply highlighting the position of some which, in terms of logic alone, makes absolutely no sense. Or maybe you think it should not be highlighted? The parallel 'gay rights' issues in Russia and the UK are most certainly NOT unconnected These are the two sides of exactly the same coin!

The whole point is that the idea of morality here obviously differs so who is going to decide what is 'moral' in society?

Majority moral opinion or minority moral opinion?

Would you be happy to see the return of state murder aka capital punishment in this country scotty?

[Resurrection Man]

It seemed to me that RM's complaint was that, in society's permitting others to pursue a lifestyle incompatible with his own beliefs, his are actually being condemned or curtailed. The victim is RM and it would be 'right' to revert to a system where the 'victims' should be those whom RM's beliefs decree should be......

No, that's not at all what I said. For starters I am not religious but I like to think that I can appreciate and understand where those with a strong religious belief are coming from.

[amateur51]

No, that's not at all what I said. For starters I am not religious but I like to think that I can appreciate and understand where those with a strong religious belief are coming from.

Any chance of appreciation and understanding for the other side of the argument?

[scottycelt]

Would you be happy to see the return of state murder aka capital punishment in this country scotty?

Again our moralities differ. I do not equate the criminal with those who are entrusted to try and protect us from the criminal. I would never describe capital punishment for a particularly heinous crime as 'state murder' if it is thought an effective deterrent in stopping or reducing similar heinous crimes. Just think of the Norwegian mass-murderer. I think many might make a strong moral case for your 'state murder' in such a situation in order to prevent (they believe) further massacres of young innocents going about their lawful business.

However, there is a genuine moral dilemma here for those who believe in the sanctity of ALL human life even those of criminals. However it all boils down to where one draws the line at society trying to protect innocent life (eg shooting dead a gunman holding hostages?).

I remain opposed to capital punishment largely on the grounds that it's deterrent effect is doubtful to say the least and then there is always the clear danger that the wrong person will be convicted and executed by the state. There have been a fair number of cases in the UK alone where the wrong person has been later found to have been imprisoned. Fortunately for them, and the conscience of the nation, the death penalty was abolished in this country, and correctly, imv.

However, we digress ...