The Long, Slow Death of My Homophobia
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-05-2017, 04:56 AM
RE: The Long, Slow Death of My Homophobia
(23-05-2017 04:45 AM)OakTree500 Wrote:  I live in the UK, and whilst being gay is widely more accepted than in other countries, many years ago it wasn't. Not only was it illegal at one point, but it was socially frowned upon as well, and would often end in a gay person being attacked.

Alan Turing suffered for being gay in Britain at the wrong time, and he was a hero who helped end WWII earlier than it might have ended otherwise.

"Turing was prosecuted in 1952 for homosexual acts, when by the Labouchere Amendment, 'gross indecency' was still criminal in the UK. He accepted chemical castration treatment, with DES, as an alternative to prison. Turing died in 1954, 16 days before his 42nd birthday, from cyanide poisoning. An inquest determined his death as suicide, but it has been noted that the known evidence is also consistent with accidental poisoning. In 2009, following an Internet campaign, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown made an official public apology on behalf of the British government for 'the appalling way he was treated.' Queen Elizabeth II granted him a posthumous pardon in 2013. The Alan Turing law is now an informal term for a 2017 law in the United Kingdom that retroactively pardons men cautioned or convicted under historical legislation that outlawed homosexual acts."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thoreauvian's post
23-05-2017, 05:49 AM
RE: The Long, Slow Death of My Homophobia
(22-05-2017 09:53 PM)sea_tiger Wrote:  While writing my OP I was thinking of traditional marriage rituals[chinese,japanese,indian,tribal] in my mind.Both male and female have different part in rituals.The tradition rituals makes no sense if both participants are male/female.

so you modify the rituals or create new ones. problem solved.

Quote:Straight marriage is rooted in long history of traditions .

as is polygamy. as is slavery. traditions can be limiting or evil and, when recognized as such, should be discarded

Quote:In traditional society marriage rituals and etiquettes are socially very important and skipping on it is not looked upon favourably. [There are social dynamics and values at play here]

so fucking what?

Quote:Same-sex marriage flies in the face of all traditions--->it means it has no roots in tradition and culture.

time to start new traditions then.

Quote:Same-sex marriage is a new thing so it has no equivalent rituals and traditions associated with it and hence no relation to cultural traditions.

time to start new traditions then.

Quote:So it doesn't relate social dynamics associated with ritual marrriage.My point was not to reject same sex marriage on the basis of traditions but my views about my community. Since I was thinking in narrow terms[my community and marriage rituals] I missed on many angles through which to look at this issue.I think I didn't clarify that in my previous post.

Rituals and traditions are important for communities but they should not be allowed to stop progress. They are not unchangeable.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like unfogged's post
23-05-2017, 06:09 AM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2017 07:45 AM by Vera.)
RE: The Long, Slow Death of My Homophobia
You're absolutely right, sea tiger. And these perverts got exactly what they deserved. How dared they imagine they had a right to happiness and love, just like "normal people." And more power to people with the right kind of thinking, like yourself and "the neighbourhood vigilantes" who "broke into their room to catch them having sex."


Now, if you don't mind, you can both take your precious tradition and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.


[Image: im-content-to-stand-on-tradition-im-even...uote-1.jpg]

Tradition is one the ugliest words in the language. An excuse, as someone else said, for acting without thinking. But thinking for oneself is hard, eh, sea tiger? Why do it, when we can swallow what someone else has pre-chewed and regurgitated for us.

Here's another lovely, lovely tradition that dates back centuries and must be preserved at all costs.

[Image: female-genital-mutilation.jpg]

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vera's post
23-05-2017, 06:29 AM
RE: The Long, Slow Death of My Homophobia
Laws don't need to be based on tradition any more than they should be based on religious beliefs.

Marriage is a legal contract between two people. Period.

It wasn't that long ago when people of differing races weren't legally allowed to marry.

To the OP, I am glad to hear that you have shed your hatred...that's a good thing.

To Sea Tiger...you keep revealing how closed-minded you are as you continue to try to rationalize the irrational.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Anjele's post
23-05-2017, 06:48 AM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2017 06:53 AM by sea_tiger.)
RE: The Long, Slow Death of My Homophobia
I think I am being greatly misunderstood.I am to blame for not presenting my thoughts clearly.Let me clarify again.My previous posts are strictly from the point of view of marriage rituals & ettiques [traditions] and social/cultural acceptance in my community.It doesn't deal with legal definition,laws,etc.In my view same sex marriage cannot fit in with the traditional social dynamics.It can have legal validation but having same cultural acceptance is a different issue.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2017, 06:54 AM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2017 07:00 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Long, Slow Death of My Homophobia
Quote:In my view same sex marriage cannot fit in with the traditional social dynamics.It can have legal validation but having same cultural acceptance is a different issue.

No one gives two shits about your ignorant view of anything. Same sex relationships exist across nature in every species in nature. If YOU have the right to the legal affirmation of your relationship, so does everyone else. You are not better. You are not special. There is not a shred of evidence that the legal affirmation of SS marriage has ANY negative impact on any aspect of human society.

Human knowledge of the field of Human Sexuality changed radically in the late 19th Century, for many reasons, and from there this NEW INFORMATION has advanced remarkably. Any view of the subject of Human Sexuality that does not take into account these recent advances, is nothing but ignorant bias.

Homosexuality as an "orientation" was unknown in the history of human ideas until the late Nineteenth Century.
There was no, (supposed), "lifestyle" until the Twentieth Century. The idea of "orientation" arose when Psychology began to develop as a science. All men were assumed to be straight, and only straight, all women straight, and only straight.
There was also no notion of a continuum of sexual behaviors, (bisexuality), as science recognizes today.
Any "different" behavior was seen as "deviancy" from an absolute inherent norm, which the person was assumed to inherently possess, completely by virtue of birth gender.

In Ancient Israel class and status distinctions were extremely important.

The injunction in Biblical times, (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), was against (assumed), STRAIGHT men, (and only men), (as they ALL were assumed to be straight), engaging in same-sex behaviors. (There is a mistaken use of the Sodom and Gomorrah myth in this context also, which is misguided, and I'll deal with that last).

Why ?
It had to do with class structure, and male status. A male, who held the highest position in society, and held the highest class status, was seen to be "feminized" by penetration, and designated as a social inferior, (female), by a male of lower class status, and thus his status was lowered, to that of a woman.
THAT is the reason the culture forbade it. It had NOTHING to do with sex. It was status, and only status. This concept remains very much, (subliminally and overtly), in place today. This law code, in Leviticus, (the latest law code to be written), is the ONLY place this appears in the Old Testament. The author of Leviticus was very interested in the "equality of all" before God. It was that author's agenda. He also said strangers, and others from outside Israel were all to be treated with equal rights and dignity, which was a departure, from other texts and codes. It is ironic, indeed, this equality has been turned on it's head, to treat gay people, less equality. The author of Leviticus WANTED all people treated equally, and that is why he wrote the injunction into the text, in the first place, to PREVENT inequality. The ideal society for this author was classless, and that could not happen if a male penetrates a male, and makes him thereby, a lower class. It's about class, not sex.

This cultural origin was true in the Old Testament culture, as well as the New. That is the reason it ended up in the Bible, and the ONLY reason it was there.

The law in the Old Testament : "You shall not lay a male as with the laying of a woman, it is an offensive thing". (note: the correct translation is NOT, "it is an abomination"). (The word "toi-va" is used, and in archaic Hebrew, EVERYWHERE else is translated, "an offensive thing").

Why is this important ? Because there are levels of "offensive things", and levels of meanings of "offensive things".

There were a number of levels of offensive things in the Old Testament.

#1. was something which was offensive to God, and this was the worst.
#2. was something which was offensive to other peoples and cultures, (for example the same word is used with reference to some foods being "offensive" to other cultures, (as hagas might be to Americans), or for example the Egyptians didn't eat, with non-Egyptians, as that was "offensive", or in today's language, "bad manners".
#3. was something which was just generally "offensive", with no further relational attribution.

So it can be "offensive" to some people, but not everyone, and is relative to the situation, or to god, or just in general.

The injunction against male same sex behavior is the third kind of offensive. It's not related to either God or anything, or anyone else.
(There are other verses around it that are stated to be offensive to God, but not this one).
So in this text, it is offensive to the authors of the text, and that specific culture, (only).

Same-sex behaviors (upper class man penetrated by same class or lower class men), was forbidden, for class reasons.
Equal class men, doing non-penetrating activity, or women together was not forbidden.
( Woman with woman, in general, was not addressed, and the class issue was not important.)

So what does this tell us ?
It tells us the laws were written into the Bible by HUMANS, for human culturally relative, and internally referenced reasons.
The laws in the Bible REFLECTED their OWN culture, of the times, and did not "inform" the culture.
The direction of information flow is crucial. Every Biblical scholar knows this. The Bible was informed by the culture, NOT the other way around.
There are no "ultimate" claims possible from culturally relative, historically rooted, human local customs.

The other main text used to justify the fundamentalist nonsense about homosexuality, is the Sodom and Gomorrah myth in Genesis.

Hospitality of Abraham : In Genesis 18, there is a myth about the hospitality of Abraham, (he welcomes two strangers, who turn out to be angels), as that was an important cultural value, in a society where a wandering desert dweller could get lost, and die.

The myth is followed closely by it's counter example of in-hospitality in the Lot myth, (Sodom and Gomorrah). It is not about sex. It's a counter example to the hospitality story, of in-hospitality. The context is important.

The great irony is that some religious fundies use the Bible to keep gay people away from their "table", and feasts, using the very texts that the Bible intended to teach hospitality, to do the opposite.

ref : Drs. Shawna Dolansky, and Richard Elliott Friedman, "The Bible Now", and "Who Wrote the Bible"

It would really help if religionists got their facts straight, and learned about their fucking Bible.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid117446

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
23-05-2017, 07:08 AM
RE: The Long, Slow Death of My Homophobia
Quote:Same sex relationships exist across nature in every species in nature. If YOU have the right to the legal affirmation of your relationship, so does everyone else. You are not better. You are not special. There is not a shred of evidence that the legal affirmation of SS marriage has ANY negative impact on any aspect of human society.
I agree with every word but I was not discussing about this.I was referring to a different thing.My point of view was different.I think I am making the point unsalvageable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2017, 07:14 AM
RE: The Long, Slow Death of My Homophobia
I think what may be confusing people is that you said you were a traditionalist. This wouldn't be relevant unless you were saying that you were personally against same sex marriage.

I don't understand how being a traditionalist can work. It's just being completely against any sort of change, no matter how beneficial it may be. Things can never improve, and injustices can never be resolved, under such a system.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Robvalue's post
23-05-2017, 07:29 AM
RE: The Long, Slow Death of My Homophobia
Rob, that's what continues to baffle me. When people use words like tradition and conservative values as if they have an ounce of... well, value. And the word progressive as if it were an insult. So, we should have stayed in the caves, or better still, in the trees, because progress - bad? Let's all go back to dragging our knuckles through our own shit, like in the good ol' days...

How does this make even a semblance of sense?

[Image: 76dd690031a512abfd5587f2eaafa367.jpg]

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Vera's post
23-05-2017, 07:37 AM
RE: The Long, Slow Death of My Homophobia
BEGGABOO,


I don't know how long you were LDS and how much you know. I want to ask you some questions:
1))when you say that you want that those who are in homosexual relationship and marriage to participate in Church life and activities WHAT EXACTLY do you mean?
2)in your humble opinion should those who are married and have double life(another person in their lives) to continue to participate in the Church?
3)why are homosexual relationships very serious sin in eyes of God?
4)Do you believe in God Elohim?
5)Do you have testimony of the First Vision?

If you answer my questions I will really appreciate it.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: