-
Posts
-
”Homosexuality was considered to be a ‘mental illness’ in the not so distant past and ‘immoral’ and large parts of the establishment, religion led and the mainstream media bombarded society with negative images and negative stereotypes of these issues. It is not exactly rocket science why people hold the views they did, or still do. ”
I think and I may have got it well wrong , that Ge was re-quoting another chatter in the main part, but basically saying, with so many decades of the ‘establishment’ bombarding, indoctrinating a ‘less informed public’ in the myths and utter nonsense about homosexuality, condemning them to ever lasting hell and all that bullshit, is why people had such negative attitudes towards it and unfortunately the less educated still seem to go by what Grandad said……
I think and I may have got it well wrong , that Ge was re-quoting another chatter in the main part, but basically saying, with so many decades of the ‘establishment’ bombarding, indoctrinating a ‘less informed public’ in the myths and utter nonsense about homosexuality, condemning them to ever lasting hell and all that bullshit, is why people had such negative attitudes towards it and unfortunately the less educated still seem to go by what Grandad said……
Of course that’s what I meant. The ‘bigger’ picture.
i just don’t think you’re right at all, Gerry.
I think it’s part of your conspiracy theory of the effete Establishment controlling the hard-working manual workers.
That’s not something peculiar to you. I think it’s deep-seated among a lot of people, especially on the Jacobin Left (to which I think?? you belong???) and to the Far Right. I’m on the Left, too, but from a different tradition.
If you look at it carefully, the Establishment isn’t united in that conspiracy, if it’s united at all. There is such a thing as the Establishment, and they have their own way of dealing with things and accepting people into their ranks.
Homosexuality distinguishes them form most people. Much of tyhe Establishment, especially the upper part, accepts homosexuality. If anyone was homosexual, it was known and tolerated. If they were unlucky to be found out and arrested, then the Establishment had to accept that publicly while privately regretting it and maiing sure that the victim was hurt too much if at all possible (this refers to Establishment homosexuals). There’s a lot of evidence for this.
Homosexual affairs weren’t uncommon in the universities. I personally knew one man who had an affair with the poet, WH Auden, when both were undergraduates in the 1920s. When Sumner Welles, the US Ambassador was outed in 1940 and forced to leave the State Department, Franklin Roosevelt (a US aristocrat if ever there was one) called in the man who had exposed Welles and said to him “William C Bullitt, you have done a good job in getting rid of Sumner Now leave this room and never soil my sight again”.
It;s why many Commuist and Jacobins used to paint the ruling classes as lazy perverts, as opposed to the honest heterosexual working classes. Wilhelm Reich, a German Communist, argued in the 1930s that all Communists were healthy heterosexuals and all Nazis were sick homosexuals!
Most ‘ordinary’ people were fearful of gays because they felt threatened for avarious reasons, some of it to do with Christian teaching. The propaganda etc was less of a conspiracy and more a reflection of already existing attitudes.
I’m not being personally insulting to you, Gerry, because i think your approach is quite a widespread one, but I also think it’s crude and wrong. If you wish, and if it’s possible for us to discuss this without upsetting each other, I’ll debate it with you on a separate thread.
That toleration included transvestism.
One Chancellor of the Exchequer used to give financial statements to the House while wearing a dress and makeup.
I’m not sure Philip Hammond will be doing this on Monday, though it would be good if he did.
It would give a whole new meaning to the nickname he has of Spreadsheet Phil
.I have no idea what Sceptical is babbling on about while he delivers his sermon to me personally and while he dictates what I think and what my views are on this subject and what I feel emotionally from within the narrow prism of his JC looking glass and an opportunity to demonstrate why he is right and anyone else who disagrees is wrong and which is why I am more or less avoiding the boards and his nonstop bullshit.
I think most people with half a braincell recognize the church led establishment until more recent times here in the UK have led a witchunt against homosexuailty and other forms of sexuality that deviate from the norm, a norm dictated by religious doctrine and again, until more recently enshrined in British law. Currently being played out in vast swathes of other continents, particularly among the Muslim faith and which has been commeted on previously on these boards.
Thanks Ge, yea, the main characters mentioned in the song, were real trans / gender fluid people, well known for frequenting Andy Warhol’s club, The Factory.
On a slightly different note, relating to Ruthless’ post, although I see no need for the silly ‘IT’ descriptions, we all know Ruthless likes to be shocking….. however, if someone goes to a gay bar, or ‘gender fluid’ bar, club, etc etc, as a straight person, they should be aware all may not be quite what it seems and in my opinion have no right to feel ‘offended’ if they mistake someone for the wrong gender, but what if its a ‘ straight’ pub, club etc, ( I’ve put straight as opposed to ‘normal’ as not to offend those of us who feel what ever floats your boat is normal for you , maybe non specific bar would be a better description, anyway I digress…) So your’e in a ‘non specific’ bar, club, etc and you meet someone you fancy…. come the end of the night and its getting down to the nitty gritty ( or maybe after several dates even ), do you have the right to be well pissed off that the person you have invested time and possibly money in, turns out to be the opposite gender to what you thought and they hadn’t disclosed it ? I mean it’s ok not to fancy / be interested physically, in people of the same sex as you isn’t it ? Or is it ? ?
I’ll try again….
I think it amazing how most of us here..our personal life view.. different opinions as well.. as well as go back to history and provide some better insights are informative. Thanks.. Interesting..
What bothers me mostly here however or I should say in rooms..if I respect your decision to be ..act..use names and numbers and may be comfortable in your form I am accepting..considerate..not rude.. why is it then..I can think of one in f3..constantly calling me..other Americans here..Fakes.. is that not calling the kettle black? Rude..not nice… umm what you call that?
I have no idea what Sceptical is babbling on about while he delivers his sermon to me personally and while he dictates what I think and what my views are on this subject and what I feel emotionally from within the narrow prism of his JC looking glass and an opportunity to demonstrate why he is right and anyone else who disagrees is wrong and which is why I am more or less avoiding the boards and his nonstop bullshit.
I think most people with half a braincell recognize the church led establishment until more recent times here in the UK have led a witchunt against homosexuailty and other forms of sexuality that deviate from the norm, a norm dictated by religious doctrine and again, until more recently enshrined in British law. Currently being played out in vast swathes of other continents, particularly among the Muslim faith and which has been commeted on previously on these boards.
The Church – Establishment and non-Establishment – have been saying this from the start, when they were being persecuted by the Romans.
Still – easier to duck a genuine discussion by personal abuse than it is to take a critical discussion about your own approach..after all, you may be forced to defend your approach more carefully, or even change your views??
God forbid!!
The Church – Establishment and non-Establishment – have been saying this from the start, when they were being persecuted by the Romans. Still – easier to duck a genuine discussion by personal abuse than it is to take a critical discussion about your own approach..after all, you may be forced to defend your approach more carefully, or even change your views?? God forbid!!
I am sick of your whiny neediness, the way you personalize your posts to other people, grandly informaing them what they think and why they think it and the way you create this exact scenario deliberately so you can then whine that you are a victim being personally abused. You really are a manipulative, horrible abuser Mr Liberal do as I say and not as I do.
And that’s the second time you completely ignored Moose while you clamour to demonstrate your victim status.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!