Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?
-
Phydeaux50 — 9 years ago(September 27, 2016 09:28 PM)
Well, to get to the point, I'm saying that there is a vast difference between the Church and the Gov, a difference characterised by the Gov using democratic and civil rights to usurp the ground that was formerly, traditionally the Church's sacred ground.
That is the scope, the gravitas of the 'battle lines'. In asking the Gov to ratify civil union (not marriage- a religious word), we are asking for the Church to accept that marriage is no longer a sacred word, and the possession of the Church.
It's a huge ask.
All the little devils are proud of Hell. -
jaroslaw99 — 9 years ago(September 28, 2016 04:23 AM)
No again. The church hasn't had sole custody of marriage for a long time. The state has issued the license, formerly required blood tests, registered the marriage on government books for tax purposes etc. The "mistake" here was tying up all the benefits with marriage. As if hetero marriage was the only valid lifestyle. Unions made a similar mistake in the 40s demanding insurance be paid by the employer instead of pushing for universal coverage. In the US. Europe did it with far fewer resources after WWII and interestingly spends less and has better overall health.
-
Phydeaux50 — 9 years ago(September 28, 2016 06:50 AM)
http://www.cflp.co.uk/a-brief-history-of-divorce/
The "mistake" here was tying up all the benefits with marriage.
That's the point-
tied up
with marriage. But not the same thing.
Granted, it's been a long time since Henry VIII created the C of E to grant himself a divorce, but the laws governing divorce in court have only recently, in living memory, departed from sacred law in any genuine way.
It is a slow, generation-by-generation process of gradual acceptance, as each new generation grows up believing the latest dogma (I'm sure Les has an opinion on that). The world my mother grew up in is vastly different to the world we accept as normal today, as I'm sure you know.
Briefly on the MM laundries (and many other similar concepts)- they were an extreme and acceptable manifestation of the prevailing beliefs, acceptable because they were in keeping with those beliefs. To say that they weren't as bad as doesn't change that they were bad. Their criticism and disillusionment in the wake of (generational) public outcry only supports that they were 'no picnic'.
All the little devils are proud of Hell. -
jaroslaw99 — 9 years ago(September 28, 2016 07:10 AM)
We certainly agree that societal attitudes change slowly but I'm not really sure that your post disagrees substantially with mine. Catholics would pursue civil divorces just as frequently as others, but how many followed up with annulments through the Vatican? I've no idea. In any case, we have same sex marriage in the USA, long overdue in my estimation. It is finally legal recognition of what was de facto for a long time for many, with the distinction of the the added benefits we (Gay people) worked and paid taxes for all along.
People still get married in church, and will continue to do so, but the fact they aren't "really aware" that benefits derive from government or employers is a societal failing that is finally addressed, hence the upheaval and "controversy" where there should be none. Eg my spouse is just as worthy of health insurance as a hetero spouse would be. In many cases children are involved and when that was finally part of the public discussion, I think it helped speed things along. I never understood the moral objection (and for decades the legal discrimination) to homosexuality but the same government gave welfare to unwed mothers (which was not always the case!) A coworker, not particularly moralistic) called it subsidized fornication!
Lastly, it is valid to say "not as bad as" regarding the laundries, because everyone's life was more difficult compared to now. My great grandfather via marriage was injured at a factory and never worked again. He couldn't get hired and had to live out his days with family. THAT is harsh, and that is how it was. I'm finding it difficult to put into words here - to compare to today's standards isn't reasonable. The Sisters administering the laundry conformed to the standards of that day, it isn't possible to run things according to future ideals. -
Phydeaux50 — 9 years ago(October 04, 2016 11:47 PM)
With the unwed/gay comparison I wanted to draw attention to the Church's positions on both as being crucial to social attitudes in their times. The Gov steps in to voice change while the Church holds out, much of that as consequence of having held the power via bricks and mortar institution. The place where such issues as unwed/gay were both decided on and acted upon has shifted. But the language and the origins of that discussion remain the same.
It can be called a semantics discussion, and mostly likely is on weight. So why not simply remove the term 'marriage' from the dialogue, and ask for what is wanted rather than trying to 'expand' a term's definition that still has strong, even inalienable ties with its institutional origins?
I'm suggesting that marriage ought not be a term for the law makers to use to determine valid civil rights. Without that debate, the size of the against team theoretically becomes considerably smaller.
It seems similar to asking for something but being denied just because we didn't say 'please'. It doesn't mean we shouldn't have it, only that we didn't use the right words when asking.
All the little devils are proud of Hell. -
PrometheusTree64 — 9 years ago(September 17, 2016 08:47 AM)
They
still
pretend it, for all intents and purposes.
Every year, the conservatives and even establishment agencies like the CDC come out with percentages that seem to get smaller and smaller each time.
Nowadays, the "authorities" try to push a patently absurd "1 to 2%" theory, when 4 to 5% today publicly identify as gay (even though we know the portion that publicly identifies as gay is always a fraction of the actual gay or bi inclined population). So are they saying that most of the folks who publicly identify as gay are actually terrified straight people afraid to come out of the hetero closet??
Pretty soon, they're going to tell us that homosexuality is a myth and never existed (perhaps gay marriage, though legal now, is just a hologram projected onto the media courtesy of an evil Barbra Streisand).
If you take the gay population, and add to that the bi-curious population (regardless of how they publicly define themselves) you're obviously talking about a really significant portion of the public, regardless of geographic or cultural location.
But that fact is really, really something people don't want to deal with.
There has always been something terribly "threatening" about the concept of two same-sex people (especially two testoterone-infused males) engaging in intimate affection with each other. Which is probably why the emasculated stereotype of the "queen" has always lingered, even though some of the most macho of men engage, openly or not, in gay sex.
Even in modern movies and TV, rife with gay roles since the '90s, you either get the adjusted-to-the-present queen, or guys who are hypersexual to the point of being cartoonish, or virtually monastic like WILL & GRACE, or THE MODERN FAMILY type of gay couple where you just
cannot believe
them as a couple (thus de-sexualizing them in the mind of the audience).
There is actually a theory about wars and aggression being an offshoot of this kind of repression of normal male-male carnality. (Which, by the way, doesn't mean that violent or destructive males aren't actively engaging in sex with other males sometimes they are, but that cultural repression and shame wins out).
Yes, in the '50s, people technically knew homosexuality existed (don't forget the Kinsey Report of 1948, which they're
still
trying to debunk). But the attitude was that homosexuality was freakish and abnormal and that almost noone really "was that way" even in prison.
What people actually believed, even thru the '80s, was
ridiculous!
Unless they traveled in a particularly sophisticated circle, and most people did not.
Even overt stereotypes like the unmarried, lavendar suit wearing queen in your office complex carrying a poodle was viewed by many folks as "an effiminate straight man" as long as everybody liked him. (If they didn't like him, the Q-word might be muttered in the corners).
But today, as openness increases and society has become much more aware, the authorities issue reports that give smaller and smaller numbers.
It's all so stupid. But that denial-narrative is still really important to somebody.
LBJ's mistress on JFK: -
TxMike — 9 years ago(September 17, 2016 11:14 AM)
"Nowadays, the "authorities" try to push a patently absurd "1 to 2%" theory, when 4 to 5% today publicly identify as gay (even though we know the portion that publicly identifies as gay is always a fraction of the actual gay or bi inclined population)."
Why does it matter to you what the percentages are? Whether it is 2% or 6% or 12% what you identify with is personal, not influenced by how many others identify the same way.
.... TxMike .... -
jaroslaw99 — 9 years ago(September 17, 2016 02:35 PM)
TxMike - neither Prom nor I are "upset" at what the actual numbers are. Ask yourself WHY any agency or foundation would deliberately deflate the real number? Answer - they are trying to make it look unimportant, insignificant. I have heard people in debates on TV/Magazines/online say in talking points "Gays are only 1% of the population. That gives permission for us to be dismissed because there will ALWAYS be bigger "issues/problems" to deal with.
-
PrometheusTree64 — 9 years ago(September 17, 2016 04:39 PM)
Precisely.
And if you add all the gay folks, the bi folks, and the bi-curious folks, you're talking about half the damned planet. And somebody doesn't want us to know that.
TxMike doesn't even want us to discuss it! (And I can just guess why). -
truetexian — 9 years ago(September 25, 2016 10:53 AM)
Interesting points about recent and current gay portraits on television. I've lost step, when did the numbers get downsized as to societal proportions? When I was a teenager, it was reported to be more like 10-percent of the pop.
-
Phydeaux50 — 9 years ago(September 21, 2016 08:49 PM)
I can't help but believe that there is still a very significant amount of misreporting in surveys re homosexuality, or alternative sexuality to give it a blanket name. Or perhaps umbrella term sounds better.
The issues of BM are still very much living memory, and I don't see a huge distance travelled since then. Contention has risen with exposure, but that's about it. Resolution seems a distant goal.
That contention is one more reason on the heap for people to misreport their sexuality. On top of that is the lack of 'exploratory' opportunity due to the said contention and its forebearers.
I think that's why the push for legislative change gets such vehement opposition. It's called 'pandering to a vocal minority' because it is yet to be recognised just how wide alternative sexuality is within our communities. Depth of alternative sexuality, or lack there of, is another contributing issue.
All the little devils are proud of Hell. -
truetexian — 9 years ago(September 24, 2016 10:54 AM)
Most of this thread has been interesting to read. Commenting on some of your latter points, I especially like your cultural take on today's and recent television's gay portraits.
As to societal proportions, I'm sure I remember as a teenager that the estimates were much higher. I even seem to remember a retail shop called "10 Percent". I haven't kept up, when did these figures get downsized?