Catholic Bigotry?

[Lonan3]

the thing I've resented most deeply throughout this thread has been the attempt to bully those who disagree with it by accusing them of 'homophobia,' 'ignorance,' intolerance,' and so on.

 

Does demanding another poster provide proof for their "sickeningly inaccurate drivel" without actually offering proof of its inaccuracy (never mind its capacity to "sicken") fulfill the criteria for bullying?

 

I normally respect your ability to reason and debate, which is why I find this post disappointing.

 

"Time after time you're creating the impression that there is a shortage of heterosexual couples looking to adopt. You are making it sound as if the only alternatives are between a 'lonely and sad child remaining in state care for longer' or being adopted by a homosexual couple

I found that suggestion to be a blatant attempt to tug at the heartstrings, in an almost Dickensian manner, which is why I referred to it as ‘sickeningly inaccurate drivel’

 

Quite frankly, the demeanour employed by those arguing against gay adoption have hardly been pure as the driven snow either; provocative talk of a "decaying society" and the downfall of civilizations, for instance, in the context of the discussion's subject, is as much a sham tactic as claiming that everyone opposed to gay couples adopting is homophobic. Similarly, not everyone arguing for the bill is a wrong-headed liberal guilty of using the fate of children to promote and endorse homosexuality for the sake of their own sense of tolerance.

 

If there's a moral high ground to be had regarding how this debate has been conducted, it's ownership is more ambiguous than your indignation perhaps suggests.

I accept, of course, that both sides have, at times, displayed far more emotion than common sense. With regards to the 'downfall of civilizations' however, I will repeat that it was an aside, used in response to a post by ans (and one that did not specify any particular civilization).

I would also say that I not accused anyone of being a wrong-headed liberal - I have accused what is (allegedly) a socialist government of being so weak that it's incapable of ignoring the lobby groups with the loudest voices.

I have also declared that when the pendulum swings too far towards libertarianism, it usually swings back again - and my fear is that it will swing back into the area of repression, possibly backed up by gibberish about moral rectitude.

Progressive liberalism is entirely laudable but, as I've also said in a previous post, the problem can be that ordinary people are left behind by it when it moves too quickly - and they can end up feeling alienated within their own society.

As the yougov poll shown earlier suggests, a high profile issue such as this divides opinion into very nearly equal halves. There is no consensus either for or against.

My opinion remains as it was at the start of the debate - even though I have considered it very carefully.

I insist on the right to say that it is as valid as anyone else's - without being accused of homophobia, ignorance or intolerance.

[VinnieK]

I found that suggestion to be a blatant attempt to tug at the heartstrings, in an almost Dickensian manner, which is why I referred to it as ‘sickeningly inaccurate drivel’

 

Whether it was an attempt to tug at the heartstrings or not is besides the point, what's important is that you declined to argue the accuracy of the statement (which is surely the most important point of contention) - instead succinctly condemning it as sickening and drivel. What's more is that Chinahand subsequently went on to justify the point you dismissed, as you had requested, and yet I can find no response of yours that then answers or contests the point in question.

 

You may very well view Chinahand's post to be an attempt to manipulate emotions, but the fact of the matter is that you surely have to justify such a view. Otherwise you're no better than someone who condemns or dismisses your own views by simply stating they're homophobic, or otherwise failing to do you the courtesy of backing up their reason for disagreeing with you

 

I would also say that I not accused anyone of being a wrong-headed liberal - I have accused what is (allegedly) a socialist government of being so weak that it's incapable of ignoring the lobby groups with the loudest voices.

Whether the government has in fact given in to lobby groups is an entirely different argument (for instance, if it is a case of the government appeasing lobbyists, it's possible to condemn the government's motives whilst still supporting the spirit of the legislation itself), but I will say that I find much of the talk of scheming lobbyists and their influence a little unconvincing.

 

For a start, this is, as has been demonstrated here, a controversial issue, and governments aren't fond of unnecessary controversy (especially when you consider how much the present one finds itself mired in). Even assuming that the gay adoption lobby is "loud", the gay population represents a relatively small proportion of the population and I defy anyone to convincingly argue that allowing gay couples to adopt would be one of the next general election's heavy issues - if anything, allowing gay couples to adopt will probably cause more public attention to be paid to the issue than ignoring it until it's either someone else's problem or it can be dealt with at the beginning of the next government's term. In short, there's little reason for the government to "give in" to the lobbyists, and every practical reason for them to ignore the issue for the time being.

 

I have also declared that when the pendulum swings too far towards libertarianism, it usually swings back again - and my fear is that it will swing back into the area of repression, possibly backed up by gibberish about moral rectitude.

 

This is much akin to the point about decadent and decaying societies. In essence you are saying that if we do not curtail some of our liberties today (or, more specifically the liberties of one sub group of our society) we will be sacrificing all our liberties tomorrow. Some could quite easily dismiss this as an attempt to manipulate emotions by casting a spectre of fear for our collective furture over the debate, much how you treated Chinahand's post. Would this justify me calling it inaccurate drivel or to refer to your point as somehow sickening? Of course not - I would be as guilty of the same charges I was levelling at you by trying to bully my point through instead of debating the issue you raise.

 

On this matter, some examples would be valuable - of the greatest examples of state based repression that I can think of, all of them have been ushered in not by a preceding period of unconstrained liberalism as they have by social turmoil resulting from abject poverty, or governmental collapse and a subsequent power vaccuum.

[Lonan3]

I found that suggestion to be a blatant attempt to tug at the heartstrings, in an almost Dickensian manner, which is why I referred to it as ‘sickeningly inaccurate drivel’

 

Whether it was an attempt to tug at the heartstrings or not is besides the point, what's important is that you declined to argue the accuracy of the statement (which is surely the most important point of contention) - instead succinctly condemning it as sickening and drivel. What's more is that Chinahand subsequently went on to justify the point you dismissed, as you had requested, and yet I can find no response of yours that then answers or contests the point in question.

 

You may very well view Chinahand's post to be an attempt to manipulate emotions, but the fact of the matter is that you surely have to justify such a view. Otherwise you're no better than someone who condemns or dismisses your own views by simply stating they're homophobic, or otherwise failing to do you the courtesy of backing up their reason for disagreeing with you

 

Several points and, with only an occasional few minutes to spare, I'll try to deal with them individually.

I normally have a lot of respect for Chinahand's posts but, in this case, I do stand by my statement regarding the unnecessarily emotive phrases he used.

Furthermore, I did not consider that links to two or three stories were an adequate response which is why I provided a link to the British Association for Adoption & Fostering - with a wealth of statistics on all aspects of the subject.

A few posts later, in fact, he produced a link to the Dept for Education and Skills (which can be found by a direct link from the BAAF) which contains up to date statistics.

Once again, however, there is the question of which statistics are relevant - assuming that most people, unless they have a particular interest in the subject, are unlikely to wade through all 16 pages of the document.

Therefore, it isn't difficult to highlight one or two that present a bleak picture of the adoption picture, just as it isn't difficult to use others to present an entirely different picture.

 

For example: The government’s target for adoptions, included in the Priorities and Planning Framework 2003-06 was to increase by 40% the number of looked after children who were adopted by 2004-05 and to exceed this by achieving, if possible, a 50% increase by 2006. During 2005-06, 900 more children were adopted than in 1990-2000. This represents an increase of 34%.

 

This means that this (target-driven) government has failed to reach one of it's targets. But it also means an increase of 34% of children being adopted than in the previous decade. Do we then say that it represents a 'crisis' in adoption figures or do we applaud the success achieved so far?

 

Likewise, The Government’s target contained in the Priorities and Planning Framework 2003-06 was by 2004-05, to increase the proportion of children looked after who were placed for adoption within 12 months of the decision that adoption is in the child’s best interests, to 95% and to maintain this level (95%) up to 2006. From 2000-01 this figure remained stable at around 80% reaching 81% in 2004-05. In 2006 this figure decreased to 77% whilst the proportion of looked after children placed for adoption over 12 months of the decision that adoption is in the child’s best interest, increased from 19% in 2005 to 23% in 2006.

 

So another target (and it seems like a totally unrealistic one to me) is missed. Was the 'stable 80%' so unacceptable? Does a slight decrease in a single year represent a 'crisis?'

 

It is more than possible that, in the course of a very long thread, I have neglected to return to points made in order to argue or justify them. For that, I apologise.

It is more than possible that I have responded to emotive (and occasionally bombastic) posts too hurriedly and with less consideration than I would normally expect to give. Again, for that, I apologise.

 

But none of that alters my view that this legislation was unnecessary and ill-advised.

Whilst some people have taken the opportunity to accuse me - wrongly - of bigotry and homophobia, they have ignored the very real fact that measures such as this one provide ammunition for genuine bigots and homophobes to gain support among the ill-informed for their creeds of intolerance and prejudice.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I would have to agree with PK's views somewhat - for instance how would you fancy being in a 60 man Army/RAF/Navy barracks, shared open plan ablutions and all that, with some guy staring at your bits?

 

It's all very well taking the high and mighty 'I'm not homophobic' view - but there are certain circumstances where people can have it foisted on them. Sitting in an office is often a different world to some people's reality.

I do not understand what is meant by the 'foisted' comment? It is not about taking a high and mighty 'I'm not homophobic view', I am aware of my homophobia and aware of others. Rather I feel the need to point out the basis of the argument in support of the Catholics can be nothing but one based on prejudice notions, thus making them homophobic.

 

As one of the people who have argued/debated about the rights and wrongs of this legislation - wasting our time because its been foisted on us whether we want it or not - the thing I've resented most deeply throughout this thread has been the attempt to bully those who disagree with it by accusing them of 'homophobia,' 'ignorance,' intolerance,' and so on.

I cannot (and wouldn't wish to) speak for P.K. or anyone else but, from my own perspective, I take exception to such imputations.

Name-calling of this kind is the desperate resort of the intellectually deprived.

There have been many views expressed that are deserving of respect - on both sides of the argument. But when such a serious discussion degenerates into personal castigating of those who hold different views to one's own, then the whole thing becomes pointless.

 

My advice for those who feel bullied by accusations of homophobia would be to fully understand the meaning behind ones arguments in this matter and pay less attention to any accusations. I could argue that it is a desperate resort playing the indignant, normal people whose views are being wrongly attacked.

I don't honestly think you realise your homophobia and I say that no malicious finger-pointing, even I can be homophobic at times and don't realise it. Fair enough, a lot of people don't realise it too but you can't feel indignant when your views are unravelled for what they are.

 

I don't think I have read anything with any basis in fact and good reasoning for why the Catholics should have been allowed to have an exemption. All I have heard are possible risks because the parents are both gay, the EU is forcing the legislation on the UK, and that the Catholic Church somehow has a right to have an exemption. None of these appear to be valid reasons. The first point is homophobic in its basis of argument, the second point also homophobic, and the third sanction the selection of ones peoples' rights over anothers' which makes a farce out of equality and liberalism.

 

Progressive liberalism is entirely laudable but, as I've also said in a previous post, the problem can be that ordinary people are left behind by it when it moves too quickly - and they can end up feeling alienated within their own society.

I don't understand how this would happen. I don't know if it is what you mean I am aware that the reactionary arguments thrown about a lot recently focus on the belief that normal, working man is being left behind while all these rights are being bestowed on the minorites. Also there are those who this that with the incidence of some barmy political correct stuff happening in the country that this is all the same, but it isn't. The normal, average Joe is not left behind, he already has his rights and is usually the perpetrator of the discrimination and prejudice that is being address by legilsation for minorities. Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that certain things need to be address in society and sometimes the racial and homosexual motives have been selfish and single-minded. For instance, a lot of campaigning for sexual rights in the country has been only fought in the name of 'gay rights'. Yet heterosexuals are not free from sexual repression themselves. I think heterosexuals should be brought on board in anything to do with sexual rights.

 

Whilst some people have taken the opportunity to accuse me - wrongly - of bigotry and homophobia, they have ignored the very real fact that measures such as this one provide ammunition for genuine bigots and homophobes to gain support among the ill-informed for their creeds of intolerance and prejudice.

 

Yet I think similarly but in reverse. All the arguments bandied about in support of the Catholics have portrayed a completely incorrect and ignorance perspective on what this is all about. If we are all going to live in a liberal society then it has to be equal rights for all. To turn one of your points the other way, if any group of people can legitimately discriminate against another in society then you have a flawed and inperfect liberal system. Why does anyone deserve rights if some people are denied them. It is interesting to note that the Muslim Council of Britain spoke publicly of their support for the Catholic Church's stance on this. However, this Council is one that aims to remove any forms of discrimination against Muslims in Britain. I call this hypocrisy.

[P.K.]

It is only from your statements P.K. that it seems your are not being rational in your point-of view on this matter. You may dislike something but if that view is based on prejudice then yes it would be homophobic. Though the same accusation of prejudice would be completely true for someone to have an irrational dislike of someone based on their race.

Much of what is stated by those who clearly argue their case in favour of the Catholics is justified from an irrational, ignorant perspective.It isn't so much about morals at all but refuting statements that are based on ignorance.

At no time have I stated why I hold particular views on the subject of homosexuality - apart from the disgust I feel (a perfectly natural reaction to viewing all sorts of circumstances e.g. killing animals for food) when I see two men kissing. Ergo you have nothing whatsoever on which to claim my dislike is "irrational" because to me it isn't.

 

Besides I thought it was the Athenians who began democracy, though in their culture there was much pederasty there were not homosexuals in the same sense as the word is used today.

The Spartans were ruled by a King and had an entirely different form of government. I do not think anything in reference to ancient civilisations has any relevance to this thread.

You need to brush up on your history. Athens was sacked by the Persians under Xerxes in 480 BC. If the Greeks hadn't rallied around Sparta, the military power of it's day, then they wouldn't have defeated the Persians in 479 BC and regained Athens where democracy began. In any event the Spartans always had two Kings so one could be sacrificed in battle without paralysing the state.

 

I would have to agree with PK's views somewhat - for instance how would you fancy being in a 60 man Army/RAF/Navy barracks, shared open plan ablutions and all that, with some guy staring at your bits?

 

It's all very well taking the high and mighty 'I'm not homophobic' view - but there are certain circumstances where people can have it foisted on them. Sitting in an office is often a different world to some people's reality.

I do not understand what is meant by the 'foisted' comment? It is not about taking a high and mighty 'I'm not homophobic view', I am aware of my homophobia and aware of others. Rather I feel the need to point out the basis of the argument in support of the Catholics can be nothing but one based on prejudice notions, thus making them homophobic.

 

As one of the people who have argued/debated about the rights and wrongs of this legislation - wasting our time because its been foisted on us whether we want it or not - the thing I've resented most deeply throughout this thread has been the attempt to bully those who disagree with it by accusing them of 'homophobia,' 'ignorance,' intolerance,' and so on.

I cannot (and wouldn't wish to) speak for P.K. or anyone else but, from my own perspective, I take exception to such imputations.

Name-calling of this kind is the desperate resort of the intellectually deprived.

There have been many views expressed that are deserving of respect - on both sides of the argument. But when such a serious discussion degenerates into personal castigating of those who hold different views to one's own, then the whole thing becomes pointless.

My advice for those who feel bullied by accusations of homophobia would be to fully understand the meaning behind ones arguments in this matter and pay less attention to any accusations. I could argue that it is a desperate resort playing the indignant, normal people whose views are being wrongly attacked.

I am reminded here of a perfectly decent gent who ran a B&B in Scotland. He refused to give a double bed to a pair of American village people for two reasons. Firstly it was HIS house and he wasn't going to have them doing whatever to each other under his roof. Secondly he was concerned that his other guests would be disgusted by the sight of two men kissing, particularly the youngsters. The Scottish Tourist Board immediately went into grovel overdrive, gave the two queens a free holiday and will remove the poor landlords status unless he repents. The absolutely classic example of having a load of crap foisted onto you because of a vociferous 2.5% MINORITY. The next time I'm in Scotland I will make a point of staying there and I will make sure the Scottish Tourist Board knows why....

[Albert Tatlock]

I would have to agree with PK's views somewhat - for instance how would you fancy being in a 60 man Army/RAF/Navy barracks, shared open plan ablutions and all that, with some guy staring at your bits?

 

It's all very well taking the high and mighty 'I'm not homophobic' view - but there are certain circumstances where people can have it foisted on them. Sitting in an office is often a different world to some people's reality.

I do not understand what is meant by the 'foisted' comment? It is not about taking a high and mighty 'I'm not homophobic view', I am aware of my homophobia and aware of others. Rather I feel the need to point out the basis of the argument in support of the Catholics can be nothing but one based on prejudice notions, thus making them homophobic.

By 'foisted' I mean for example in the forces, being forced to live in barracks or tents with gays, some of whom might like staring at your bits, and seeing blokes kissing in front of you etc. - and not having a choice where you happen to be living/staying. I find the thought of two blokes kissing etc. very yucky - never mind those other activities involving the areas where the sun don't shine. Sorry but that's how I feel.

 

I am not arguing about their right to do what they want, but about my right for them not to do it in front of me, and for them to stick to the many hotels etc. that have no objection to two blokes snogging in the bar. Personally I'd have to leave the bar if that happended. Most gays don't do that I know, but some do, and most tend to stick to certain bars, hotels and clubs anyway - which is now a considerable market today.

 

 

_

[Miss Take]

There seems to be a view being permeated here that gay people have nothing better to do than flaunt their sexuality in front of everyone and anyone whenever possible, even in the most inappropriate situations, that they're incapable of being as discreet about their relationships / attractions as the rest of the population - do people seriously believe this?

[Albert Tatlock]

Most gays don't do that I know, but some do...

 

There seems to be a view being permeated here that gay people have nothing better to do than flaunt their sexuality in front of everyone and anyone whenever possible, even in the most inappropriate situations, that they're incapable of being as discreet about their relationships / attractions as the rest of the population - do people seriously believe this?

 

That's precisely what I didn't say.

[VinnieK]

You need to brush up on your history. Athens was sacked by the Persians under Xerxes in 480 BC. If the Greeks hadn't rallied around Sparta, the military power of it's day, then they wouldn't have defeated the Persians in 479 BC and regained Athens where democracy began. In any event the Spartans always had two Kings so one could be sacrificed in battle without paralysing the state.

 

It might be wise to follow your own advice, P.K.

 

Firstly the military power of the day was not the Spartans, it was the Persians. By the Persian wars the Greek hoplite and phalanx formation (to which the Spartans were so attached) was already on the wane, since they were pretty much useless (and indeed largely helpless) against the maneuverable forces of archers and other missile troops the Persians regularly fielded.

 

Secondly, the force that defeated the Persians came from a vast array of city states - the Athenians managed to field 8,000 hoplites, not significantly below the 10,000 fielded by the Spartans (the rest of the spartan force was the usual rabble of helots and skirmishers who made up many of the armies of ancient times). Significantly, the Spartans requested Athenian help because they managed to find themselves chased up a hill with nowhere else to go (and it could be argued that the Thebeans distinguised themselves the most of the greek force).

 

Thirdy, the Persians weren't even that hostile to the notion of democracy on its borders, sometimes even seeing it as a way of avoiding civil revolt, and Mardonius himself established a number of small democracies in the Ionian cities.

 

Fourthly, although homosexuality is attested to in all the Greek city states and constituent regions, the Spartans were by no means homosexual en masse as your initial post suggests (although bisexuality in Spartan women is mentioned in the sources)

 

Finally, democracy, as we know it, of the representative kind originated in Rome independently of the Greeks (and indeed in opposition to "Eastern" infuences).

 

Not much to do with the main topic, but still fun.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

At no time have I stated why I hold particular views on the subject of homosexuality - apart from the disgust I feel (a perfectly natural reaction to viewing all sorts of circumstances e.g. killing animals for food) when I see two men kissing. Ergo you have nothing whatsoever on which to claim my dislike is "irrational" because to me it isn't.

No your right, sorry, irrational may be the wrong word to use. However, when you speak of being repulsed and disgusted there does not seem to be anything natural about your dislike. I really do not see how killing animals for food and two men kissing equate other than in your reaction to them.

 

By 'foisted' I mean for example in the forces, being forced to live in barracks or tents with gays, some of whom might like staring at your bits, and seeing blokes kissing in front of you etc. - and not having a choice where you happen to be living/staying. I find the thought of two blokes kissing etc. very yucky - never mind those other activities involving the areas where the sun don't shine. Sorry but that's how I feel.

 

I am not arguing about their right to do what they want, but about my right for them not to do it in front of me, and for them to stick to the many hotels etc. that have no objection to two blokes snogging in the bar. Personally I'd have to leave the bar if that happended. Most gays don't do that I know, but some do, and most tend to stick to certain bars, hotels and clubs anyway - which is now a considerable market today.

 

I don't think you would see blokes kissings in the barracks around other men, given the maschoism that pervades the armed forces I doubt that two men would last very long if they were that open. And althought someone may stare at your bits they would hardly act upon any attraction if they were interested and they knew you weren't, that is just common sense.

 

I do understand where you coming from in view of your feelings but if a guy is heterosexual there is little to be concerned when it comes to other gay men around. A gay men would only go after another gay men. As a straight man would only go after a woman.

 

As to the point about not having men showing affection for each other in public I think this depends on the circumstances. I don't particularly find it very attractive watching people snogging the face off each other for ages in public but it doesn't bother me a great deal. Yet if the public space is one where a man and a woman can show affection and this is condoned then there are no good reasons for any objection to two men or two women doing the same. Even if it is as simple as two men holding hands through Strand Street; straight couples do it. There is nothing wrong with expressing your sexuality. If straights are free to express themselves then why not gays.

A lot of gay people do tend to stick to places where the vast majority are also gay but the reasons are obvious, it is that straights can't handle seeing gay people express their sexuality. It seems okay to be gay but to actually BE gay is a different matter. Whereas a couple could maybe snog in Colours or Paramount for a gay couple to do the same would risk trouble. Yet straights still feel that it is the gays who are prone to excessively flaunting their sexuality. Objections to a gay couple kissing would be the same as old objections to denying a black person service in a shop or hotel. The superficial reason may be as plain as a simply dislike of black people but the reason why such disgust, aversion or dislike is there is based on learned knowledge that has little basis in truth, they are fabrications.

[Albert Tatlock]

I do understand where you coming from in view of your feelings but if a guy is heterosexual there is little to be concerned when it comes to other gay men around. A gay men would only go after another gay men. As a straight man would only go after a woman.

 

Objections to a gay couple kissing would be the same as old objections to denying a black person service in a shop or hotel. The superficial reason may be as plain as a simply dislike of black people but the reason why such disgust, aversion or dislike is there is based on learned knowledge that has little basis in truth, they are fabrications.

Nevertheless, with a forces background, I wouldn't have wanted to be ogled in my 'own space' even if that 'space' was on occasion shared with 30 other men.

 

Your analogy to serving black people is false. This is about men and women, men and men, and women and women only. As I said, I have no objection to it at all when it's done away from me. I'm not religious or anything, and it may be a way of life to some people, but I just find it to be unsavoury behaviour - and whatever people say, it's not natural or we would have all died out by now.

 

I don't like picking up dogshit either, but to avoid a fine I sometimes have to do so. But if I don't want to pick it up in my own back garden, I shouldn't be made to do so - and told I don't like doing it, because not liking picking up dogshit is a 'learned behaviour'.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I understand that beautiful analogy. I just wonder what you consider your own back garden.

 

Why do you find the analogy to be false?

I know what the argument is about but in comparing the reasons behind feelings of dislike and revulsion, racism and homophobia are comparable (though not identical). The fact that you do dislike seeing something is not disputed and not misunderstood but the reasons behind why you feel you should not be 'subjected' to such viewing is a different thing. I can completely appreciate why being ogled would be uncomfortable if that is how you feel.

Though going back to viewing two men or two women in a pub kissing, this is quite different. Surely you can appreciate that if it is somewhere where a straight couple do it often and it is usual thing then it should be quite all right for a gay couple to do the same whether the straight clientele like it or not. Though I would consider anyone snogging in a pub to be a little strange and would make me think that it should be done somewhere less public (I wonder whether I am just repressed in my thinking). Yet if anyone thought it quite right to object to two women or two men kissing would be wrong to condone a man and a woman to do the same. I did have heard on more than one occasion of two teenage boys kissing in the Outback and they were told to leave by the bouncers (though beside the point, no trouble had been caused by this). Yet anyone guy and girl could do as they please. I think that is disgusting behaviour from the bouncers.

 

As to the statement of 'naturalness', it really isn't much of an argument. 'Naturalness' warrants definition. If you mean that people who have gay sex do not lead to pregnancy then this is quite valid but given such a large proportion of the population do enjoy homosexual relations then talk of naturalness seems redundant. Depending on what viewpoint you take of homosexuality being the product of genes or social factors the very fact that homosexuality exists is enough to state its naturalness; it is the product of society, in fact, it is human nature. Also reference to procreation puts too much emphasis on the fixity of sexuality, it would be a positivistic and quite false assumption to believe that sexualities today were the same as they were even 200 years ago. Heterosexuality and homosexuality as sexualities never even existed in the same manner in which they do today.

 

Nevertheless, the term naturalness in this context only serves the same purpose as the term normal does. They are words used to indicate and create inclusion and exclusion but little else.

 

This is getting a bit off track.

[P.K.]

By 'foisted' I mean for example in the forces, being forced to live in barracks or tents with gays, some of whom might like staring at your bits, and seeing blokes kissing in front of you etc. - and not having a choice where you happen to be living/staying. I find the thought of two blokes kissing etc. very yucky - never mind those other activities involving the areas where the sun don't shine. Sorry but that's how I feel.

 

I am not arguing about their right to do what they want, but about my right for them not to do it in front of me, and for them to stick to the many hotels etc. that have no objection to two blokes snogging in the bar. Personally I'd have to leave the bar if that happended. Most gays don't do that I know, but some do, and most tend to stick to certain bars, hotels and clubs anyway - which is now a considerable market today.

Well said Albert. Now how is it I'm accused of being homophobic for stating the same thing and you're not????

 

It might be wise to follow your own advice, P.K.

 

Firstly the military power of the day was not the Spartans, it was the Persians. By the Persian wars the Greek hoplite and phalanx formation (to which the Spartans were so attached) was already on the wane, since they were pretty much useless (and indeed largely helpless) against the maneuverable forces of archers and other missile troops the Persians regularly fielded.

 

Secondly, the force that defeated the Persians came from a vast array of city states - the Athenians managed to field 8,000 hoplites, not significantly below the 10,000 fielded by the Spartans (the rest of the spartan force was the usual rabble of helots and skirmishers who made up many of the armies of ancient times). Significantly, the Spartans requested Athenian help because they managed to find themselves chased up a hill with nowhere else to go (and it could be argued that the Thebeans distinguised themselves the most of the greek force).

 

Thirdy, the Persians weren't even that hostile to the notion of democracy on its borders, sometimes even seeing it as a way of avoiding civil revolt, and Mardonius himself established a number of small democracies in the Ionian cities.

 

Fourthly, although homosexuality is attested to in all the Greek city states and constituent regions, the Spartans were by no means homosexual en masse as your initial post suggests (although bisexuality in Spartan women is mentioned in the sources)

 

Finally, democracy, as we know it, of the representative kind originated in Rome independently of the Greeks (and indeed in opposition to "Eastern" infuences).

 

Not much to do with the main topic, but still fun.

Yes, it's fun if it doesn't degrade into semantics.

 

Firstly let me clarify: Sparta was "the military power of it's day in Greece" which is what I meant. Which is why the other states looked to them for leadership. You are right that Persia was the "world power" of the time. The estimates of the force they sent against Greece vary but it's thought to be around 300,000. For circa 500 BC an absolutely enormous undertaking. However I disagree about the hoplite phalanx being on the wane. It is precisely because the Persian forces were geared to open warfare that they took such casualties from the Greek phalanx tactics deployed at Thermopylae. Hence Mardonius chose Platae for what he thought would be the final encounter which it was, but not for the reasons he thought. Basically the Persians had no answer to Greek heavy infantry combat tactics.

 

Secondly yes the forces came from all the city states hence my comment "If the Greeks hadn't rallied around Sparta". I suspect you must have misunderstood. Also I seem to recall that the award for the greatest gallantry at Thermopylae went to the Theban commander Dithyrambos. Again it has been difficult to estimate how many actually deployed at Thermopylae. It is known that there were 300 Spartan Peers plus hangers on. Next largest contingent were the Thebans. It is thought the defenders numbered about 5,000 in all. Not exactly an exclusive Spartan affair.

 

Thirdly all states aligned to Persia were still "vassel" states and owed allegiance to the Persian king who was effectively a tyrant. That may be your idea of democracy but it aint mine.

 

Fourthly it is documented how young Spartans were taken from their fathers and assigned to a "peer" for "guidance". Let's not go any further....

 

Finally the struggles between the Ceasars and the so-called "democratic" Senate are well known but I always thought that democracy flourished in Greece as opposed to stuttering along elsewhere.

[Chinahand]

I'm resurrecting an old thread to ask what right a celibate, unmarried man in a frock and a silly hat has to say it is "a grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right" for two people who are in love with each other to marry?

 

Link

Link2

 

I don't think any religion can claim to own the right to define what marriage is.

 

Certainly, a particular religion can preach what it believes to its flock, and has a right to control what occurs in its churches, but that is as far as it goes - it cannot control the rest of society and who the state decides is married or otherwise. I think it is important to note that the Catholic Church denies divorce and will not recognise the ending of a marriage in a legal divorce (apart from in very specific circumstances) - it can attempt to enforce this on its congregation, but it cannot do so on the rest of us; and neither can it stop gay marriage becoming a recognized part of society if that is what society democratically decides to do.

 

I have to say I find the bigotry aimed at homosexual people, and the denial of their love for each other highly unpleasant. I personally think it is good for the state to recognize long lasting committed relationships between people who love each other and support each other. Such things are for the social good.

 

The semantic minutiae interest me less, but, as far as I understand it, homosexual couples have entered into matrimony for longer than Christianity has existed and it is simply a lie that "the universally understood meaning of marriage" is heterosexual. I find this dogmatic language, in the face of its obvious refutation (this whole argument shows it is NOT so universally understood), ridiculous.

 

And talking of ridicule ... The Economist has recently highlighted an example of Catholic wisdom - a pamphlet entitled “Pure Manhood: How to become the man God wants you to be" which it was handing out in Catholic Schools in Lancashire.

 

This offered such pearls as “safe sex is a joke” and “the homosexual act is disordered, much like contraceptive sex between heterosexuals.”

 

Using contraceptives and practicing safe sex is being disordered is it?

 

Contemptible.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I agree with what you are saying and (for those who are of the Catholic faith) it is useful to argue that the morality of many of the clergy and morality of the Pope is terrible. But can we expect more from the Catholic Church?