|
Post by ahinton on Mar 21, 2016 3:06:35 GMT -5
In a recent post in another thread on this forum, Sydney Grew urged me, not for the first time, to initiate a thread here; his peculiar advocacy in that post of the "encouragement" of homosexuality provided to me the impetus to respond to his invitation.
Since human homosexuality is a state that may reasonably be regarded as occuring naturally (provided that it is not externally interfered with), any attempt at the "encouragement" of homosexuality would surely be both counterproductive and counterintuitive and in no one's best interests. He said nothing about the "encouragement" or otherwise of heterosexuality. It would be a parlous society were homosexuality or heterosexuality to be "encouraged"; as such "encouragement" would also constitute a divisive principle that risks setting those of one sexual proclivity against those of another, it would likewise be socially retrogressive, especially at this point.
In many Western nations, homosexuality has been frowned upon, even to the point of being legislated against. What is surely needed in what might not unreasonably be regarded as a somewhat more enlightened age (at least in such matters) is the fostering not of homosexuality itself but of due recognition, understanding and acceptance of male and female homosexuality by those of all sexual persuasions and none; states of sexuality and sexual inclinations are not by nature up for "encouragement" of "discouragement".
I should perhaps put my own cards on the table here by declaring that I am not a homosexual.
Members' thoughts on this will be welcome.
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on Mar 21, 2016 5:20:16 GMT -5
Thank you ahinton for your contribution to our forum. The key word in the matter you raise is "freedom" (or "liberty" as Frenchmen have it). In to-day's national world-life one must do what the mob in their low way have it one should do. Think of a school-boy who detests organised "games" like cricket, footleball and general athletics. His masters will sit upon him until he joins the senseless throng. Once he has got through school their brothers will force him into a kind of daily slavery. Liberty, fairness and equality will not arrive for the individual until the world is governed by universal robotic entities.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Mar 21, 2016 7:44:21 GMT -5
Thank you ahinton for your contribution to our forum. The key word in the matter you raise is "freedom" (or "liberty" as Frenchmen have it). In to-day's national world-life one must do what the mob in their low way have it one should do. Think of a school-boy who detests organised "games" like cricket, footleball and general athletics. His masters will sit upon him until he joins the senseless throng. Once he has got through school their brothers will force him into a kind of daily slavery. Liberty, fairness and equality will not arrive for the individual until the world is governed by universal robotic entities. I am puzzled by your response, not least because it seems not to address the subject matter that I raised, for the following reasons. I do not understand how an obligation, real or perceived, to do what "the mob" (whoever they might be) wishes to be done might impinge upon the subject itself - and, while we're at it, why "Frenchmen" and not "French people"? You mention "schoolboys"; what you write about them - which, again, appears to have nothing to do with the subject - presumably applies equally to schoogirls although you do not mention this, yet I cannot see a direct link between sporting activities or the insistence upon participation therein and homosexuality. You likewise mention "masters", by which you presumably mean schoolteachers but, again, one presumes that this likewise applies to female schoolteachers as much as to male ones. Again, who are these "brothers" that will force such school attendees into what kind of "slavery"? - and why only "brothers" and not "sisters"? What has this to do with homosexuality and the ways in which society regards it? The overtly Grewsome "robotic entities" business is sheer nonsense, not only because this won't happen and wouldn't solve any such problems if it did but also because robots are - at least at present - designed by the very humans of which you appear implicitly to harbour a mix of suspicion and contempt; what possible grasp of human sexual proclivity could "universal robotic entities" be expected to have? I am sorry to have to admit that this is a most disppointing start to the discussion and I can only hope that other forum members will be interested to focus on the subject with constructive responses, otherwise Sydney Grew's repeated invitation to me to initiate a thread will clearly have been woefully misplaced.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2016 15:48:30 GMT -5
What would you encourage, ahinton?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Mar 21, 2016 16:18:26 GMT -5
What would you encourage, ahinton? As I've already stated - the recognition, understanding and acceptance of homosexuality, the avoidance of divisive attitudes between those of different sexual persuasion and the certainty that heterosexuals and homosexuals of both sexes are never the victims of negative or positive discrimination.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2016 1:41:48 GMT -5
Well what Gerard has said seems to me very pertinent throughout. The majority of people with their earthy preferences - I, following Kant, call them the "mob" or the "demos" - attempt to force minorities - for example those who detest athletics, or those who would prefer not to "spend" ten hours daily at a "job", or those who prefer to practise subjects such as that of this thread - to do what they do not want to do. All kinds of differences of a minority could be, and have been, used by the conformists as reasons for an evil discrimination - even the colour of one's hair as has been pointed out - which unfairly offends the liberty of some minority. "Get away you horrid mob" is all the victims of this can at present quietly but ineffectually say.
So when the member claims to be unable to see a link he might simply think a little longer and use his imagination a little more; only thus will he avoid the disappointment he professes. Truly, the subject of this thread - its distinction or categorisation - has no right to exist. And one cannot "recognise, understand or accept" something that does not exist, can one, what?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Mar 22, 2016 5:12:11 GMT -5
Well what Gerard has said seems to me very pertinent throughout. The majority of people with their earthy preferences - I, following Kant, call them the "mob" or the "demos" - attempt to force minorities - for example those who detest athletics, or those who would prefer not to "spend" ten hours daily at a "job", or those who prefer to practise subjects such as that of this thread - to do what they do not want to do. All kinds of differences of a minority could be, and have been, used by the conformists as reasons for an evil discrimination - even the colour of one's hair as has been pointed out - which unfairly offends the liberty of some minority. "Get away you horrid mob" is all the victims of this can at present quietly but ineffectually say. To the extent that the manner and matter of the treatment of minorities or minority groups by anyone in authority does indeed have a pertinence here, I can accept the principle behind your argument insofar as it goes; however, it is, I believe, a more general subject in itself - the oppression of one group by another group - as indeed you illustrate in the other examples that you cite here, rather than a specific matter of the notion of ostensibly attempting to "encourage" homosexuality or to endorse such "encouragement". One might as well expect some noisily oppressive group of authoritarians to seek to "encourage" women to be men or vice versa. Truly, the subject of this thread - its distinction or categorisation - has no right to exist. And one cannot "recognise, understand or accept" something that does not exist, can one The subject of this thread is "Homosexuality"; are you seriously suggesting that it "has no right to exist"? It is perfectly clear that human homosexuality has a long and sorry history of being misunderstood by many, including legislators, the Church and members of the general public and this has self-evidently led to grave mistreatment - and not simply because male and female homosexuals happen to be a "minority" group either. In more recent times, matters have undoubtedly improved on that front, although ample work clearly remains to be done (though more in some places than others). You observe that "one cannot "recognise, understand or accept" something that does not exist"; again, are you seriously suggesting that human sexuality does not exist and that, accordingly, one particular manifestation thereof is unamenable to being "recognised, understood or accepted"? I really am at a loss to understand where you're coming from on this, especially given your evident advocacy of the "encouragement" of something that you now appear to imply is non-existent and your remarks about those quaintly termed "public schools" in that context. "What" what? I've no idea what - or, indeed, why - you end your sentence therewith.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2016 8:57:12 GMT -5
I would disagree with Sydney that a thread on Homosexuality in Relationships and Morality has no right to exist. Nevertheless, I do think that sexuality can be complex, and I too am sometimes reluctant to discuss homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality, transgender and related issues. I am not sure that my own sexuality is as fixed as I would like, and I would acknowledge that sexuality inevitably changes over the course of a lifetime. Pre-puberty, we may be more asexual, whereas later in life, we may express our sexuality in changing ways, sometimes involuntarily. As Matthew Parris points out in the link below, for some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time. Matthew Parris, iconoclast once more. But will the gay rights lobby like it?Generalisations are therefore difficult. It may be better to widen this thread to include all expressions of sexuality rather than just homosexuality, as I do not feel qualified to comment uniquely on homosexuality and Sydney/Gerard may not accept the classification in the first place. As for what ahinton would like to encourage: the recognition, understanding and acceptance of homosexuality, the avoidance of divisive attitudes between those of different sexual persuasion and the certainty that heterosexuals and homosexuals of both sexes are never the victims of negative or positive discrimination. Well, sexuality is inherently divisive, there are at least four divisions at the BFI Flare Festival, and although I may move around the intersections with heterosexuality, I do not find myself to be comfortable with Ls, Gs, Bs or Ts, and in terms of personal relationships, I do find myself discriminating against them. Perhaps I would be more comfortable encouraging (virtuous) actions rather than states, but I recognise that sexual actions can be interpreted very differently in different contexts. I am undeniably sometimes a prude, closing my eyes during raunchy sex scenes on film, for example, but I recognise that others are more comfortable with a more voyeuristic approach. As for encouraging sexual behaviour, for example through seduction or indeed grooming, I think that we have to be extremely careful about the consequences of our actions. Does this make any sense?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Mar 22, 2016 11:40:52 GMT -5
I would disagree with Sydney that a thread on Homosexuality in Relationships and Morality has no right to exist ... Generalisations are therefore difficult. It may be better to widen this thread to include all expressions of sexuality rather than just homosexuality, as I do not feel qualified to comment uniquely on homosexuality and Sydney/Gerard may not accept the classification in the first place. As for what ahinton would like to encourage: the recognition, understanding and acceptance of homosexuality, the avoidance of divisive attitudes between those of different sexual persuasion and the certainty that heterosexuals and homosexuals of both sexes are never the victims of negative or positive discrimination. Well, sexuality is inherently divisive, there are at least four divisions at the BFI Flare Festival, and although I may move around the intersections with heterosexuality, I do not find myself to be comfortable with Ls, Gs, Bs or Ts, and in terms of personal relationships, I do find myself discriminating against them. Whilst agreeing in principle with your opening sentence (and still from a standpoint wherein I remain unable to understand why Sydney wrote as he did about this), I think that the term "against" is the issue in what you write here. I stress once again that I initiated this thread purely on the basis of what Sydney had written elsewhere, specifically in respect of the notion of "encouraging" homosexuality and in the context that it is a phenomenon not by nature amenable to encouragement in the sense that might apply to others that might be a matter of personal choice; in other words, one does not "choose" to be a homosexual or indeed a heterosexual. Perhaps I would be more comfortable encouraging (virtuous) actions rather than states, but I recognise that sexual actions can be interpreted very differently in different contexts. I am undeniably sometimes a prude, closing my eyes during raunchy sex scenes on film, for example, but I recognise that others are more comfortable with a more voyeuristic approach. As for encouraging sexual behaviour, for example through seduction or indeed grooming, I think that we have to be extremely careful about the consequences of our actions. Does this make any sense? It does indeed, especially now that we have entered a climate in which a major inquiry into (mostly child) sexual abuse has at last gotten under way and is anticipated to deal with alleged instances going back decades and is accordingly anticipated to last for at least five years (which, given the gravity, the longevity or remit period, the complexities and the numbers of possible cases involved, strikes me as an almost derisorily and impractiably short timescale). To the extent that the "encouragement" of homosexuality advocated by Sydney might be thought to constitute a part of this in at least some cases, there are indeed dangers of the kind to which you draw implicit attention but, as there remains no small degree of confusion and uncertainty as to what Sydney actually meant by what he wrote about it, I prefer for the time being likewise "to be extremely careful about the (possible) consequences of" what I write about that! By this I mean that it is not clear to me whether Sydney meant "encouraging sexual behaviour, for example through seduction or indeed grooming" although, if so, this would appear, among other things, to smack of divisiveness to the extent that he did not likewise refer to "encouragement" of sexual behaviour other than of the homosexual kind. He also implied advocating the "encouragement" of those under the current legal age of majority, which is to be the area of focus of the majority of the cases that will be considered and investigated during the course of this inquiry; however, as quite what it was that Sydney sought to encourage remains unclear (apart from its being confined to homosexuality), I do not of course suggest that Sydney advocates and/or endorses the kind of historical behaviour that might be scrutinised by this inquiry. To return to your use of the word "against", that is the aspect of divisiveness that, to my mind, is a primary cause for concern; what I referred to in seeking to advocate "the recognition, understanding and acceptance of homosexuality, the avoidance of divisive attitudes between those of different sexual persuasion and the certainty that heterosexuals and homosexuals of both sexes are never the victims of negative or positive discrimination" was for the purpose of expressing hopes for the fostering of far more and widespread vive la différence attitudes in which the risk of any palpable kind of persecution of individuals or groups of people (minority or otherwise) on the grounds of their sexual orientation. I also remain uncertain as to what precisely it is that Sydney claims does not and/or has no right to exist in the present context, which fact seems to serve only to exacerbate my difficulty in understanding what his stance on such matters might be, especially given what he'd written on the subject that had sparked off this thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2016 19:02:01 GMT -5
Have you ever walked out of a film in disgust, kc?
And to Mr. H: what a lot of dangerous waffling! What I said was that the distinction or categorisation in and as the subject of this thread has no more right to exist as a subject of discussion than does the distinction or categorisation of the condition of having hazel eyes say. We wonder do we not when the mob will finally encourage the enthronement of a homo-sexualistically inclined monarch.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Mar 23, 2016 1:51:58 GMT -5
And to Mr. H: what a lot of dangerous waffling! What I said was that the distinction or categorisation in and as the subject of this thread has no more right to exist as a subject of discussion than does the distinction or categorisation of the condition of having hazel eyes say. We wonder do we not when the mob will finally encourage the enthronement of a homo-sexualistically inclined monarch. You've made your own trap into which to fall here - and you've duly fallen thereinto. You now modify your assertion by diluting "no right" to "no more right" without how much right to exist each of your two examples has; one can, after all, in any case no more "encourage" homosexuality than one can "encourage" hazel eyes. Much the same applies to a homosexual monarch (by which I assume you to mean in UK); at present, there is a list of people who are in line to assume the monarchy and it is unlikely that anyone who is other than first or second in line as of now will ever assume the position of monarch; unless one of these happens to be homosexual (which appears not to be the case now or to have been so in living memory), UK is unlikely to have a homosexual monarch and all the "encouragement" in the world (whatever form it might take, if any) can make no difference to that. Again, I have no more idea who "the mob" might be (am I a member, for example?) than I do as to who "we" are, still less why either would try to encourage any such thing when that simply isn't possible in the first place. That said, the indefinite survival of the monarchy in UK is by no means a certainty; whilst there is no especially strong Republican movement in UK, its exit from EU (should that occur as a consequence of the referendum in three months' time) will undoubtedly provide yet further "encouragement"(!) to Scotland to quit UK and reapply for EU membership in its own right (as indeed it would have to do as the majority of Scots wish to remain in EU); whilst it is far less likely that Wales would follow suit if Scotland did this, the fact remains that it might be open to constitutional debate whether the monarch could - or indeed would be expected to - remain in place in a newly seceded Scotland as well as in the remainder of UK. What I wrote does not constitute "waffling" but an effort to take the subject - and kleines c's contribution to discussion thereof - as seriously as they merit; as to "danger", wherein might you believe this to lie? - I am able to perceive none and, from the absence of evidence to the contrary, it would seem that no one else is either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2016 15:35:17 GMT -5
If I may address your question directly, Sydney: Have you ever walked out of a film in disgust, kc? No.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Mar 23, 2016 18:03:08 GMT -5
If I may address your question directly, Sydney: Have you ever walked out of a film in disgust, kc? No. You may, of couse - and indeed you have - but I don't see what that has to do with the subject!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2016 12:29:38 GMT -5
If I may address your final point directly, ahinton: If I may address your question directly, Sydney: No. You may, of couse - and indeed you have - but I don't see what that has to do with the subject! No, I have never walked out of a film in disgust, ahinton. As for homosexuality, one of my favourite comedies features cross dressing and homosexuality. Some Like It HotI don't think that it is quite homosexual, but Billy Wilder’s outrageous and subversive play with gender was truly boundary pushing and helped lead to a loosening of censorship after United Artists released the film without certification. In 2012, the film was ranked 43rd in the critics’ poll! BFI - Some Like It Hot (1959)This is how it ends! YouTube - 'Some Like it Hot' - The greatest ending line in movies Do you find this funny, Sydney?
|
|