John Wright Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 You have completely ducked the issue What the Tourist Board would or shoud do is important as it sets the norm OK is it justified for your old lady on the tube, on a bus or in public to not just feel unwell but to comment adversely upon the following a black male and femalecouple a muslim male and female couple the woman wearing full Bhurka A sikh male and female couple, man wth turban an orthodox jewish male and female couple in traditional garb, prayer curlsm shawl and pork pie hat a reformed jewish male and female couple A wheel chair bound male and female couple an english male and female couple A french male and female couple A male and female couple who were born with Downs syndrome and function at high level, but still are recognisably affectedand who are of sufficient intellect to have capacity to decide their lifestyles A man wearing a skirt and his wife, in trousers or not two straight men or women greeting mwah mwah a teenage couple with their tongues down each others throats for ages and hands everywhere Might the actual answrs have been different in different countries/places today and historically. If so does historical acceptance justify the here and now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 It's interesting you think that homophobia and racial discrimination have a lot in common. I believe them to be completely seperate issues so is this a question of empathy from the gay community perhaps? I wouldn't know. The reason why there is so much commonality is because gay people and people who are non-white have been and continue to be subject discrimination. The reasons why racism and homophobia exist are the same as well. "I would admit that if they did run a poll that the response would include a lot of people, maybe even a majority who would condone the behaviour of the hotel owners. But what does this mean? Do majorities represent what should be or what is right? Definitely not." Well, we do actually live in a democracy do we not? No, I don't think we do. We live in countries where the majority can vote in the party they want to rule the country, that's all. But this does not mean that there is an assumption that the majority know best or should have the ability to choose as a bloc what should happen in the country or in the community etc. Specifically, I mean that there should not be a dictatorship of the majority. It is the majority that has already created the current power relatioship systems where the majority has a monopoly of discourse in relation to itself and minorites. The normal and abnormal are good examples of this language of the majority and the majority use this to prove that they are right. The point is this. Our b&b owner comes across to me as little different to those who had Gough arrested and the lady who was so incensed on the tube. You are right that a poll may well have shown that a majority would condone his action. Now, who speaks for them? I'm absolutely convinced that their reactions are perfectly natural to them, like removing a finger from a candle flame i.e. they can't help it. Which is why, of course, our b&b owner didn't just use some excuse to fob them off with. So my question "who speaks for them?" has the answer "the b&b owner" for a start. Incidentally I didn't admire him for his actions against the homosexuals per se, I admired him for not ducking the issue by hiding behind a tissue of lies. Maybe she can't help having a reaction because she has been brought up to believe homosexuality is wrong. As I mentioned earlier, the majority (those who are dominant in society) already dominate the discourse of sexuality so that homosexuality is made to seem unnatural, wrong, and disgusting etc. The dominant in society, which are heterosexual, have largely directed the language in which homosexuality is understood, and thus how sexuality is understood, and people who are homophobic use this understanding in order to argue their point. But this understanding of sexuality is a creation, not some natural knowledge. This is why the majority may support the B&B owner and why the B&B has something to say and doesn't just fob them off. But why do you ask who speaks for this "old lady"? Does she need someone to speak for her? Only a bigot would, whether they realise they are or not. The problem is this lady does NOT have rights to stop overtly homosexual behaviour from offending her. Yet as a member of the majority she most certainly should have. As mentioned earlier the majority should not be able to dictate how the minority express themselves and behave in society. Your opinion seems to be very illiberal. You think it is acceptable to curtail people's abilities to express themselves just for the sake of offending an old lady. I also believe that this situation will not be turned around. Well, not easily anyway. Playing Devils Advocate (I do like that expression) for a while if this repugnance some folks feel towards homosexuals is perfectly natural and part of our make up then it will never be turned around. It's also no good trying to get parents to teach their children differently. Talk about irony, the homosexual community trying to dictate to the heterosexuals how they should bring up their kids! The words lead and balloon spring to mind here. With education and the increasing visibility of homosexuality in society there will be less people who will take offense at homosexuality. It is a process of tackling the ignorance in society and delegitimising the language and understanding of homosexuality that the majority has. Homophobia has nothing to do with human 'make-up'. I think it does do good to teach kids differently. These kids could be or become gay themselves and will undoubtedly meet other gay people in their lifetimes. Are homosexuals dictating how kids should be brought up? I am not aware of it. I am aware of Section 28 being repealed but that has nothing to do with dictating upbringing. There really is no irony that I can see. So I would like to see the homosexual community showing more respect to those who find them distasteful. After all, it could be as natural as homosexuality itself.... It is difficult to find respect for those who show no respect for others. So homosexuals should not offer respect to those who find their behaviour offensive. And if such distastefulness is as natural as homosexuality, which it is not, then the obvious solution is for those feeling distaste to turn their heads away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 We are more racist, sexist and biggoted than we like to think or ever admit (as a society not just as individuals). There are still many areas where religion or strange rules bind us nearly invisiby and we do not see them. You cannot be a catholic and become king or lord of man The king or lord of man or his heir cannot marry a catholic Fair statement, but bad examples. There is no bar on catholics becoming the Lord of Mann. There is a bar on the King/Queen of England being a catholic - but that is different. The King or heir can marry a catholic. However if they do so they would lose their right to the throne and be treated as though dead as far as succession is concerned. That is quite different from a ban on marrying catholics. (Consider if it were to come out that Princess Diana was secretly a catholic before she married Charles - would it mean the marriage was void and make William and Harry illegitimate - no. It simply excludes Charles, William and Harry from the succession). The insidious prejudices against homosexuality are more pernicious than those against religion. Consider how Prince Charles took an injunction against newspapers over the matter of his being discovered in bed with a male palace aide. On the one hand I would like to think it suggests the positive that stating someone is gay might not be held to be defamatory, and there is reluctance to go that route - hence these extraordinary steps. On the other hand even so, this sustains and perpetuates prejudice in the denials. I don't give a damn what his sexuality is. A denial by the royal family which makes being gay seem like something shameful to be kept secret is a different matter. During the Nazi occupation of Denmark, when Jews were first forced to wear a yellow star of David emblem to distinguish them, legend has it that the King of Denmark also took to wearing this as a form of protest against this discrimination - and that act of moral leadership affected people's attitudes. Similarly Charles might have refused to comment, and maintained his sexuality is a private matter, but have stated he would rather be thought to be a homosexual than to give anyone reason to think this would be something to be ashamed of. Instead of the standard "no comment", there is strong denial and efforts to suppress any such rumours. Now consider if the King of Denmark had instead vigorously denied unreported rumours he was jewish. The fact this establishment homophobia was received with barely a murmur of objection IMO shows how as a society we are more bigotted than we are prepared to admit, and how such prejudice is deeply engrained. IMO this is like being spewed on by that woman in Little Britain; it's an expression of homophobia just the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 I don't mind the criticism Skeddan but get the facts right. Christian 10th and Danes did not wear yellow triangles out of sympathy with Jews who were forced towera them. Denmark was left out of the final solution at the Wannensee Conference (sp). For three years Denmark ruled itself after invasion and there were no anti Jewish moves. There was a German military government however from mid 1943 and within a month 7000 Jews had been ferried by sympathetic Danes to Sweden to live out the war. About 500 were incarcerated by the Nazis but the danish Governmet demanded contact and they were not transported. Thye did not have to wear the Star of David AS for Royal marriages 1. Thye cannot legally marry a Catholic because authority to marry has to be sought and would be refused, that woud make a marriage to a known Catholic null and void, 2. I agree your analysis on the Diana secret 3. The KIng and lord of Man are one and the same at present andthus affected by the same legislation.l Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 You have completely ducked the issue What the Tourist Board would or shoud do is important as it sets the norm OK is it justified for your old lady on the tube, on a bus or in public to not just feel unwell but to comment adversely upon the following: Blah-di-blah-di-blah... lots that could be descriminated against on the grounds of race or religion but not sexuality.... Sorry John but I'm just not going to play this game anymore. Duck the issue? What issue? Certainly not a religious or racial one. VisitScotland do not set the norm around discrimination on sexual grounds, the hetereosexual majority do. That's the majority that LDV has already tacitly admitted to, to his/her credit. Racial and religious harmony starts in the playground which is why the sexuality issue IS completely excluded from this reasoning i.e. we can prepare our youngsters in school for racial and religious harmony by integretion but they are too young to include sexual deviation from the norm. That's not just a chance choice of words by the way. Survival of the species is recognised as one of the great evolutionary drivers which makes the homosexual community something of a waste of resources does it not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 John, it wasn't really a criticism - the main point you made was a good one, I just thought the examples were not so good. You're right about Denmark and give a good summary of the events - my silly mistake for hurriedly and sloppily putting "legend has it" in the wrong place. Thanks for pointing that out. As far as a model for comparison with Prince Charles's fervent denials of being homosexual, I don't think it matters much that this is an urban myth. The king or heir could legally marry a catholic. Approval for royal marriages is a matter of discretion, it is not a rule or law that such consent would not be given. In any case, under the Royal Marriages Act any member of the Royal Family over 25 can marry without consent by giving notice to the Privy Council and they can then go ahead with the marriage a year later. Edward VIII had to abdicate - supposedly for marrying an American (or was it because she was a divorcee like Eleanor of Acquitaine?). Never mind it was just a sham to cover up the real reasons for ousting him, point is that in principle the king can marry whoever - even a Nazi agent - he just might have to abdicate as a result. The Queen is not the Lord of Mann, and no English King has been, though the estate has often been in their custody as is at present. It's a big difference, much like wardship. Detailed discussion of the various statutes etc. is not really relevant here - and given your apparent unwillingness to discuss the question, I think we may as well just agree to differ on that. The more relevant issue here is to do with taboos against homosexuality that still are very strong, and which elicit denials and hush-ups - including adamant denials of being gay not only from Prince Charles, but also Prince Edward. Whether true or not (in case anyone has any doubt), it is illustrative of how deep this prejudice runs when their 'defending against accusations of being homosexual' is considered acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Sorry John but I'm just not going to play this game anymore. Duck the issue? What issue? Certainly not a religious or racial one. VisitScotland do not set the norm around discrimination on sexual grounds, the hetereosexual majority do. That's the majority that LDV has already tacitly admitted to, to his/her credit. But the point I was making is the norm should not be 'set'. Norms regarding sexuality are reason for homophobia. Norms are nothing more than an artificial understanding of the world that has been created by the majority or the most powerful to oppress the less powerful. We live in a better world than 50 years ago as now governments and bodies such as VisitScotland recognise when oppression is taking place and stop it happening in future. Racial and religious harmony starts in the playground which is why the sexuality issue IS completely excluded from this reasoning i.e. we can prepare our youngsters in school for racial and religious harmony by integretion but they are too young to include sexual deviation from the norm. Yes racism does start in the playground though it wouldn't be the only place in which it has tackled. But I think, without being rude, you lack an understanding of the issue with homophobic bullying in schools. Firstly, I think that children should be taught, far earlier than they are, about sexuality and sex in schools or by parents so I don't accept there is something wrong with introducing the topic of sex in schools. One good reason for teaching kids about sex and sexuality is to make them aware of what sexual abuse, why it is wrong, and what to do when someone tries to begin abuse. I think people need to 'get over' uptight attitudes to sex where children are shielded from sex, which no doubt makes it far easier for adults to abuse children. Anyway, I am digressing a little. Homophobic bullying, as I am sure you can understand, does not take the form of kids ridiculing others because they have had anal sex or have been kissing boys. Rather homophobia is so ingrained in society that kids have AN understanding, a predominant understanding (not a truth), that gay is funny, bad, weak, and something worthy of ridicule, or more precisely that gay people are such things. In school it has little if nothing to do with an understanding of being gay actually is. Children in school have little understanding of sex, never mind homosexual sexual acts. Moreover, boys are often ridiculed for effete or camp behaviours which has nothing to do with sex. Yet these boys are often called bent, gay, puffs, faggots, etc. All derogatory names for homosexual men. So homophobia is something very relevant to the playground and requires education and understanding in schools to remove such negative attitudes to homosexuality. sexual deviation from the norm. That's not just a chance choice of words by the way. Survival of the species is recognised as one of the great evolutionary drivers which makes the homosexual community something of a waste of resources does it not... You are placing negative value on things without adequately explaining what you mean. It isn't good enough to simply say 'waste of resources' without explaining how that is the case and how homosexuality does NOT fit into the survival of the fittest. I don't see why evolution need be a marker for placing value on people as you seem to do. What of the straights who don't breed? Are they a waste of resources? You could really extend this idea of the utility of human beings to lots of people in society (such as pensioners). You seem not to be recognising some things. Sexual intercourse does lead to reproduction but homosexuality is a product of procreation because we are human and it can be assumed from historical evidence that humans have been engagting in homosexual behaviour since we have been on the face of the planet. So how is this sexual deviation. It is you who places value on those who reproduce, this is bigoted. Whereas you do have the dichotomy of gay and straight, this isn't as it has always been, that is exclusively straight people and exclusively gay people only. Patterns of homosexuality are different in different societies are they show differences in the past, but homosexuality has always been there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 sexual deviation from the norm. That's not just a chance choice of words by the way. Survival of the species is recognised as one of the great evolutionary drivers which makes the homosexual community something of a waste of resources does it not... 'norm' is loaded; children deviate from the norm in so far as age is concerned, but not in any way which is not normal. Prevalence of homosexuality where there is traditional acceptance shows this is not maladaptive abnormality, but rather adaptive to the species, and homosexuality thus enhances survival of the genes of our social species. Bad but quick example - bee colonies have members who are non-reproductive (the majority), but which are valuable part of the species, and not a 'waste of resources'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 neither sexuality discrimination nor racism start in the pl;ayground, thye start in the home and the only way of eradicatingeither uis education, out of the playground into the home and it takes a couple generations at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 'norm' is loaded; children deviate from the norm in so far as age is concerned, but not in any way which is not normal. Prevalence of homosexuality where there is traditional acceptance shows this is not maladaptive abnormality, but rather adaptive to the species, and homosexuality thus enhances survival of the genes of our social species. Bad but quick example - bee colonies have members who are non-reproductive (the majority), but which are valuable part of the species, and not a 'waste of resources'. You are right of course. It was a very poor choice of words on my part. And it was the very strange Spartans who played a major part in turning the Persians over so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 neither sexuality discrimination nor racism start in the playground, they start in the home and the only way of eradicating either is education, out of the playground into the home and it takes a couple generations at least. John I didn't explain myself very well because I was getting a bit fed up with the race issue. I think the French have got it right by banning religious symbols etc in schools in an attempt to assist integration. We have had multi-cultural playgrounds for years now and imho it's the best weapon against racial and religious discrimination that we have. Which is why I view sexual discrimination differently. You do not - c'est la vie. LDV sex education over here is now taught in primary school and depending what year they do it in the kids will be around 9 or 10. So they will probably not be aware of their leanings at that time. My partner's 12 yo certainly isn't! I was interested in the UKIP/BNP mention. They are condemmed and pilloried and rightly so in my opinion but they get a surprisingly large number of votes. The folks who vote for them presumably like their intolerance and I do know that the BNP are seen as the voice against race and religion that Joe Public no longer has due to legislation. Be warned! The thing is there are many many people like the b&b owner and they're good, honest, decent folks. But it seems to me that not only have their rights been eroded by a vociferous minority but also they have no voice. To me that is wrong. Simple as. As to "campness" I read an interesting book on Kenneth Williams. He was as camp as could be. However as a homosexual he found the whole idea of sex repugnant. This and other issues led the poor man to be a very tortured soul. A great shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 LDV sex education over here is now taught in primary school and depending what year they do it in the kids will be around 9 or 10. So they will probably not be aware of their leanings at that time. My partner's 12 yo certainly isn't! No they would not be aware. But kids of that age are aware of oppressive uses of language. And kids should be educated in order to eradicate such behaviour. And that goes for racist language and homophobic language. I was interested in the UKIP/BNP mention. They are condemmed and pilloried and rightly so in my opinion but they get a surprisingly large number of votes. The folks who vote for them presumably like their intolerance and I do know that the BNP are seen as the voice against race and religion that Joe Public no longer has due to legislation. Be warned! The thing is there are many many people like the b&b owner and they're good, honest, decent folks. But it seems to me that not only have their rights been eroded by a vociferous minority but also they have no voice. To me that is wrong. Simple as. I fully understand exactly where you are coming from about the BNP and the voice of the majority. But what you are referring to and believe there should be is not a voice for the oppressor, the majority already have a voice and always will (but the occasional restrictions on freedom of speech should be rightly opposed). You are demanding a right or entitled for that voice to be heeded and actioned upon. And your reasons for this seem to focus on the fact that it is majority who wish it. This is also what the BNP and UKIP want. The legislation only prevents this 'voice' from effecting discriminatory behaviour, and such discrimination is wrong. But taking action on this voice will lead to the oppression of the minority for the sake of what? What is it exactly that the majority thinks it is threatened by or will thinks it will lose. It is the voice of ignorance. It shouldn't be silenced, that would be oppressive itself, but it certainly be acted upon. All that that these organisations are doing is trying to protect the minority and give a voice to the minority where it previously had none, and when one was voiced it was vociferously attacked or silenced. But there really is no threat to the voice of the majority. The minority are not in any way taking away the majorities voice. It is a voice that is changing as the voice of racism and homophobia is an ignorant one. People are becoming more enlightened on such issues. Unfortunately, people are not convinced and some do not understand which is why educating is key to eradicating oppression. As to "campness" I read an interesting book on Kenneth Williams. He was as camp as could be. However as a homosexual he found the whole idea of sex repugnant. This and other issues led the poor man to be a very tortured soul. A great shame. Yes, it was on TV some years back looking back on the 'Carry On' cast and showing what unhappy people or lives they had. From what I remember Kenneth Williams could not allow himself to have sexual relations with other men because of this repugnance, which made him very unhappy. But it shows the impact on people when everywhere they look and everything they listen to is dominated by the voice of the majority that tells you that you and what you desire is wrong. As I was said above, there was no voice for the minority to counterbalance this oppressiveness in society so homosexuals internalise this hate and then hate themselves for what they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 Firstly I think you are on very dodgy ground claiming that the natural reaction of a lot of people to homosexuals is based on "ignorance". Secondly is it right that a b&b owner should be vilified by the homosexual community just because he has identical views on same sex relations as Kenneth Williams? Nice irony.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 KW may be an example of camp and homosexuality not going together. He was cuber camp, moved in very homosexual circles but apparently did not have sex because the thought of sex digusted him. Doen't mean he was gay and gay sex disgusted him, any sex, he was not even a sexual, whatever his sexuality it appears he did not perform due to his fear of what he considered a duisgusting act, he may have been sexphobic. Totally different. I certainly don't agre that someone should be vilified but the B&B keeper was in the servioce industry and he fell short in the provision of accomodation, It was right to complain to his registartion body He is not allowed to advertise no gay guests, that is illegal and so is turning them away. He was given opportunity of saying sorry, won't hapen again and refused so was de registered. It really is a question of education and it really does start in the home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 Firstly I think you are on very dodgy ground claiming that the natural reaction of a lot of people to homosexuals is based on "ignorance". Secondly is it right that a b&b owner should be vilified by the homosexual community just because he has identical views on same sex relations as Kenneth Williams? Nice irony.... Why do you think it is dodgy ground? What do you mean by natural? I don't think there is a 'natural' reaction to homosexuals. These so-called natural reactions to homosexuality are the product of AN education and a particular knowledge that heterosexuals have, a knowledge that the majority have had a monopoly on in order to maintain power. The product of this has been oppressions and stigmatisation in society. But when you talk about 'natural' you imply that this reaction is something other than a response based on that person's beliefs. When the old lady gets offended it isn't because of something 'natural' but because she has always been taught that homosexuality is wrong, taught that such behaviour should never be seen in the open, and probably has never seen two men kissing. There is no implication of 'naturalness'. But maybe should explain what it meant by 'naturalness'. KW may be an example of camp and homosexuality not going together. He was cuber camp, moved in very homosexual circles but apparently did not have sex because the thought of sex digusted him. Doen't mean he was gay and gay sex disgusted him, I don't understand what you mean here John. I thought Kenneth Williams saw himself as homosexual? He did fancy men didn't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.