Brokeback Mountain : Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

I have read books that assert Roman civilization crumbled due to homosexuality (ironically by a Catholic priest - think the book from the 80s or late 1970s. I also read where anything of a sexual nature from anthropological digs were locked away in the 1800s from the general public, in Great Britain. I find it odd and hypocritical in the USA we extol Greece as the "birthplace" of democracy yet ignore the ancient practices of "mentoring" which included male/male sex. Many tribal cultures had some sort of puberty rites involving homosexual behavior. How did so much world history get censored? It seems pretty clear to me that homosexuals were always part of society, straight people just didn't know, or the few who did, pretended they didn't.

My question is how did so many people over so many centuries (Europe & England, then the USA) pretend homosexuality never existed? To what purpose?

Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

My grandma once said that she wanted to try eating at a lesbian restaurant. She would hate me bringing this up, because she meant Lebanese restaurant. We all laughed a great deal, which really upset her. She explained very defensively that in her day (1920s and 30s) that sort of sexuality was just not discussed, or even thought about. Getting information on hetero sex was rare, and she knew many women who had not really ever experience satisfying sex because of the almost total ban on discussing any sort of sex; let alone same sex.

Her's was an era of post-Victorian sexual repression hang over, and you've said that the 1800s- the Victorian era- was rife with sexual repression. Is it all a very recent phenomenon, historically speaking, and down mainly to one slightly insane monarch? Are we only just emerging from the shadow of that repression?


🇦🇺 All the little devils are proud of Hell.

Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

Victorian England was quite a place. Women were supposed to bear children in suffering per the Bible but Queen Victoria tried chloroform and liked it. Piano legs were covered in crinoline so as not to be suggestive and chicken breasts were called "bosoms" in polite society. If men wanted a bj, or something other than standard missionary sex, they went to a hooker. The wouldn't defile the mother of their children. This was per several different books I read.

However, I was speaking of the whole world over a long time, not just Britain. Surely many people were aware of what I described in my OP. I'm not suggesting a group effort in censorship, but it just seems odd we can talk about world wars, every kind of torture but two guys kissing or falling in love unhinges people. Until very recently (as I'm sure you know PHY)male actors in particular would go on and on (usually after being asked) how difficult it was to play a Gay character and the kiss was almost unbearable. No one asked and the same feelings were not evoked when they played a brutal mass murdering dictator or something exponentially "worse."

Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

I believe your logic is flawed, as evidenced by your comment, "My question is how did so many people over so many centuries (Europe & England, then the USA) pretend homosexuality never existed? "

Please quantify "so many people". Because without that your statement is meaningless.

To me "pretending hjomosexuality never existed" was never in the mainstream, I have been around since the 1950s and we always knew homosexuality existed. But we knew it as an abnormal lifestyle, one that bypassed the normal male-female lifestyle where procreation is a main component.

..*.. TxMike ..*..

Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

(9/26/2016) EDIT to my original post - my answer should have started with - if the USA extols Greece as the foundation of democracy, is it meaningless to ignore or worse - deliberately conceal the rest of the culture? The point of this whole post "Western Civilization" has done this over and over with homosexuality. Original answer continues below:

TxMike - many people put topics here to get the discussion going. I admit my question wasn't as well written as it could be. When for example even it is known that a famous person or a particularly distinguished anybody (scientist, statesman, musician, painter etc.) is or was Gay that was never mentioned.

I have read several books, Byrne Fone's "Homophobia" (700 pages) comes to mind and the other one from the 1980s was mountains of scientific research whose title escapes me right now; of cultures all over the world at different times which had some form of accepted homosexuality, puberty practices or whatever. A berdache (which the missionaries termed the 'third sex') even visited the White House in 1886. Although further reading indicates they thought he was a woman. And yet reading so many of the scientific (eg psychological theories and research) one would think the topic was unknown except as rare abnormalities.

It is difficult to put many years of reading into a small post like this not the least of which is my being leery of misquoting something. And I of course, realize the origins of chemistry (alchemy for the purpose of creating gold) and other sciences hundreds of years older than psychology would have much more general appeal than social and sexuality concerns. Still, the authorities had no problem making plenty of time in Western society for extremely harsh punishments for homosexuality but punishments were generally harsher then than now. The US Consitution specifically prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, in theory, anyway.

Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

" Still, the authorities had no problem making plenty of time in Western society for extremely harsh punishments for homosexuality but punishments were generally harsher then than now. "

Yes, but don't just focus on homosexuality. The Jews had even harsher punishment in the 1930s and 1940s by the Germans just for being Jewish. It is the history of "civilization", to punish those who are different. Unfortunately it has always happened and I fear it always will.

BTW, I too am a Chemist, MS Analytical from Purdue.

..*.. TxMike ..*..

Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

I didn't focus just on homosexuality, notice I said the punishments generally were harsher. (I meant for everything not just homosexuality) Unfortunately, no one can type as fast as their thoughts........I got a book about the religious right - put out by Americans United for separation of church and state. It is actually not against religion as you might think. Anyway, in a mission statement for Concerned Women of America, they mentioned homosexuality dozens of times, family services four times, child support once.

What I'm getting at is if homosexuals are only 2% of the population or even 8%, this issue gets disproportionate attention relative to the "upset" it causes in society. Yes, we agree nonconformists are always singled out in society.

I actually got a chemistry degree and try as I might, I couldn't get a job, at least in Michigan at the time; well a crappy job at a paint company that didn't pay squat. Ironically, I stayed put to be near family and eventually they all moved. Can you believe two people on these boards are raking me over the coals for putting that in my bio? My opinion is that THEY had to look for it, just so they could peg me as "pompous and arrogant." I have never referenced my education in any of my posts. Damn, these are discussion boards, so discuss. Attacking is the last refuge when their points don't make the case.

Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

It's interesting what people bring to the discussion table. And certainly it's considerably more interesting than the insecure attacks of those that fear they bring no more than their often poorly-conceived opinions. I don't mind a naive opinion from someone open to discussion because they are learning and happy to admit it. It's naive opinions from those who are sure they have no more to learn that are nothing more than boorish snobbery.


🇦🇺 All the little devils are proud of Hell.

Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

Phy - you may not have noticed my PM, but check out Rascal's responses to me. She is vicious. Inherently just posted ONLY to criticize my conversation with you. He or she thought using the phrase "extricated myself with great rapidity" was a joke, I would be laughed at, no one talks this way I'm just being pompous etc. (I thought I was just having fun with words, I probably wouldn't speak that way!)

Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

There's a lot of passion in these issues. With the right to marry in the headlines because of constant setback, the gravitas and the emotional scope of the issues is obvious. I have had some pretty heated exchanges with people on this board, who argued sincerely but still couldn't handle opinions that contradicted their own. The aforementioned gravitas and scope made the disagreements into highly charged moral stands. As in religious zealotism, words like evil, bigot and hater were bandied around. Iow, non-believer.

Which is understandable, when people see the politics as morally based rather than rationally based. Legislation has to be rational, and in a democracy take all voices into account regardless of the heartfelt morality of certain sections. Morally based legislation is not likely to last, and is a very slippery slope for its proponents. When a legislative decision, particularly one driven by a court decision, serves morality rather than the spirit of law and moves too fast for the benefit of the greater good, everyone suffers. A little revolution needs to go a long way, because a lot can become a blood bath.

These two jokers, otoh, are simply shìt-stirrers.


🇦🇺 All the little devils are proud of Hell.

Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

I agree totally with what your saying. Another POV though. Jesus said it so well "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." So so so much of the time people (mostly politicians, ministers etc.) pretending to claim the high ground, moral or otherwise, are just keeping the pot stirred so the little people stayed agitated. Little people, the majority of the public, squabbling about little issues. That is how the "big" i.e. wealthy or connected people get so much of their agenda through.

Isn't it funny how negative concepts can be expressed in tiny sound bites "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" but more "liberal, affirming" views can almost never be. I have yet to find a quick but polite way to phrase the following idea: Gay people have always existed, they are here and have been. They have been teaching your children, policing your streets and every other possible job. We are your neighbors, friends, etc. YOU just didn't know it.

Which the above is a response, sort of to the same sex marriage question. We're already here, we're living our lives. (If) I am ever lucky enough to find the right guy to get married to, it really won't effect YOU, the straight religious person at all. With global warming, pollution, wars over oil, social security going broke, medical care and prescriptions almost out of sight, the immigration issue, few decent jobs that pay well with benefits out there, college costs out of control, really.........is who I marry that important to you?

Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

That's the slippery slope of morally based legislation. The legislation that says that marriage is between a man and a woman has its roots in historically moral legislation. It simply can't stand up to rational scrutiny. It is a strong moral belief, and has hung on like a bad smell thru repeated attempts to make such laws rational. Decriminalisation was the biggest one in recent history.

Your second para sounds like Fight Club. Iow, thems fightin' words, pilgrim. Saying that the reason for the moral objection has existed for as long as the moral objection (even predating it) isn't a very persuasive argument. The response it simply that that is why there is a long-standing moral objection!

A problem for legislation is that it delves into marriage at all. Imo, the Church has as much right to dictate legislative action as the Government has to dictate religious dogma. Iow, not at all. By getting involved in moral issues and enshrining them in law, the Government builds its own slippery slope. I'd call it more a tobogan run, cos it's fast and downhill all the way.

One issue is that if the Gov can say that a man can marry a man regardless of objections based on the effects on children and therefor the very future of the community, then why not ratify polygamy? How many other 'variations' of marriage can put up their hand for enshrinement in legislature if same sex gets the nod?

I saw recently on tv a group of people who fall in love with objects. One was head over heals with the Statue of Liberty. Another loved the Berlin Wall. What is marriage, if it is just a social status thing that could be extended to people who love and want to spend the rest of their lives with a monopoly board? Yes, really a monopoly board.

The argument that same sex marriage and polygamy both damage children can then be squarely levelled at divorce, which I would think is easier to argue as a genuinely negative and impacting 'right of law' on children. That reveals the basis for the enshrinement of marriage in the first place; the moral argument has at its foundation a (perhaps genuine) fear of the disintegration of the very fabric of society, an attack on structural integrity that could result in 'lost' children.

I say 'perhaps genuine' because I am not convinced. Nations go to war; that is a negative for kids. But really, I'm not sure at all that there is not a grand upside to getting marriage out of legislative control and letting it be the purview of what-ever religious institution that founds itself on the ideals of its practitioners. Why not a gay church, for gay people?

Will that destroy society, or merely restructure it into a far more acceptable and even positive fabric, particularly within the dogmatic beliefs handed down to children. Will children be in fact happier to accept marriage in many different forms just as long as it results in a stable home environment? The Government can still enforce the rights of children in access to and support from their parents, without getting involved in the personal relationships of adults.

I think democratic society can bare a distinct dividing line between parenthood and marriage. By ratifying divorce, the Gov already does so. Not that that's a good argument- the Gov should really keep out of adult relationships completely, and stick to protecting the rights of children while protecting the rights of people's choice of relationship. Seems fair enough to me.


🇦🇺 All the little devils are proud of Hell.

Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

Wow. This is a post that I really need to ruminate on, but since I can't sleep, I'll do my best. You make a lot of points that I mostly agree with, but a few caveats and a few things we simply disagree. However, you're reasonable, I think I will convince you or at the very least give you substantial food for thought.

1. not sure how you get a moral objection from me pointing out most straight people are gleefully or ignorantly oblivious that we have been here all along. In other words, I'm still the same person you knew and loved before you knew I was gay. Why most people can't grasp this is another mystery. Even to the point of excommunicating their own children. But I think (and hope) this happens less and less. I agree with you that moral objections come to the forefront as Gay people become "braver" and more noticeable (see I read most if not all your posts on here).

2. A man marrying a man will not allow anything and everything such as polygamy. After reading several books (several years pre SSM) by lawyers on this subject (some presumably Gay, others Straight) in US law anyway, the courts have consistently said marriage is the most important decision a person will ever make. They just didn't apply this to Gay people until recently. As you very likely know, they didn't even apply this to interracial hetero couples until the Loving decision of 1967 or near that year. (there were many fears that interracial marriage would lead to anything and everything, it didnt') So to get to the point already, marrying ONE person of your choice, over 18 (eg the same rules for all) is the distilled essence of equality, and equal protection under the law (14th amendment). Oddly of all the good things SCOTUS said in ruling for same sex marriage they didn't say this. To elaborate further wholesale polygamy will never work (a) if a man is ill, and three wives vote to pull the plug and three don't, what happens? (b) can most men afford several wives? Can he ever pay enough into social security to pay for all of them? What happens to the "dating pool" if rich men take so many women out circulation? This is a real concern. Or vice versa for Polyandry. And there are many more concerns.

Another tidbit - these books by lawyers had a few instances where existing law wasn't followed (due to hetero presumption, anti-Gay bias, however you want to put it. I forget the state, might be Minnesota. In the 1970's two Gay men tried to get married since the marriage license application was gender neutral. Rather than give them the license, the court denied them and gave the legislature time to amend the application. Point being if people/government/courts aren't going to use any common sense, anything can happen. But not simply because of change in law because of mindset/prejudice, duplicity, whatever of the judges. Look at Scalia's opinions.

PS - no one can marry their dog or Monopoly board either, since neither can give consent.

3. Since there is no requirement in any country (that I'm aware of) that requires children to get a marriage license and many marriages don't have them, I am not sure the PRIMARY purpose of marriage is about children. Historically it has been about cementing alliances, financial security and of host of other things. But even if it is, divorce, as you rightly point out, is the primary harm to children. And as a child support worker, formerly welfare, if children really were our main concern, the laws in my opinion would be very different. I think the "marriage is about children" idea is one of the high moral ground pretend questions we were discussing earlier. Another tidbit - The laws for centuries presumed the children of the marriage belonged to the husband even if they were not biologically his. So that is an attempt at ignoring women aren't always virgins (or faithful) or to keep social order by making impotent (pun intended) the bio dad, something else or a combination of things?

4. There is a gay church (Metropolitan Community. Next point, children are quite accepting. They must be taught to hate. As I said elsewhere, when someone accused Jack of not caring about his son, when he drove to Wyoming after he got the postcard that Ennis' divorce went through....A part time happy dad is much preferable to a 100% full time miserable dad. My father was an total alcoholic. The best thing my mom did was get divorced and marry a good guy. My brother and I were adopted and had a much better life on the farm. We were even in the wedding ceremony as agreeing to be his children. Quite novel for 1969. of course, for decades, I never told anyone my mother was divorced. I can count on one hand the number of divorces in my family going out to 4th cousins even.

Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

Ok, on 1: It's not a moral object of mine, but of theirs. My point is that saying homosexuality existed in the shadows since forever doesn't give them reason to change their opinion. It's not an argument for acceptance, and can be used as an argument as to why anti-homosexual sentiment is not a recent thing, either. Iow, anti-homosexual sentiment has been around as long as homosexuality, but that doesn't ratify it. It's not a persuasive argument in either direction.

On 2: First, what is SSM? Then, your objections to polygamy- a) a no vote on balance is a no vote, b) some men can. Point being that those objections can be countered with simple rebuttal responses. My thrust is that marriage is a legislative nightmare because of the ambiguity of the reasons.

That brings in 3. I used children as a cornerstone (interesting mental image there) because of the status of children outside of marriage, and the reasonable historical link between marriage and children. That is, while marriage is not necessarily a precursor to having children, having children is, in the eyes of many, necessarily a precursor to marriage. Your last para shows that you know what I'm saying there.

I guess my overall thrust is that petitioning the Gov for marriage rights is like petitioning the Church (established) for equitable taxation laws. What power does the Gov really have to dictate Holy matrimony to the Church?

The Gov has legal concerns regarding taxation, ownership etc when two people become married, or even as married. That, I think, demonstrates the Gov's interest. Two people don't have to be married, only as married for there to be a reason for legislation on a societal basis. But when it gets into the intangibles of love, desire, and even sexual pref (intangible from a legislative pov only), there is little or no traction.


🇦🇺 All the little devils are proud of Hell.

Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

1) What I was alluding to, and not very well, was since up to a certain point, fairly recently, mainstream society was not personally acquainted with anyone Gay. And now that we know Rock Hudson, Tab Hunter, some of our family, teachers, a few hunky police and fireman on various talk shows are, that would in any other situation at the very very least be cause for reevaulating the moral positions. Especially in light of how hypocritical it is to denounce Gays at every level and meanwhile my state alone has 50,000 unwed births ANNUALY. Seriously, can you imagine what would happen if churches & politicians REALLY started to condemn unwed parenthood in the same degree of hate that they talk about Gays? One is as immoral as the other per the Bible. Well, there are many books that seem reasonable to me that explain how the Bible has been misinterpreted on that subject. I gave a fundy friend "For the Bible Tells me so" DVD. After watching it, she just said " I can't accept any of it." No specific reaaons. However, things are changing thank God.

2) SSM is same sex marriage. a) US courts are I think very different than England. A lawyer wrote the theoretical 3/3 so no I would not agree that a no vote on balance carries the day when it is a tie. The other three could endlessly litigate. That's how it is here. I only gave a handful of reasons that I remembered. There were a lot. Of course SOME men can afford many wives, I asked if most could. Bad question on my part, but I did address the dating pool. If rich men take too many women out of the pool, because women would be attracted to financial security, it is very likely many men would end up with no wife. Which could be a plus, then they would be in the market for a husband? (kidding but wishful thinking on my part). Again, I will defer to the lawyers who wrote several books on this subject.

3) I think we agree some and disagree some here. I have read and read and read about how much the laws about marriage have changed. So much so, that I stand by my statement that marriage is not "all about children" probably even now. In the 1800s the small number, presumably, of women who did divorce did not get the children. The husband did and it had nothing to do with who was the better caretaker etc. today's concept of "the best interest of the child" (in divorce anyway) didn't enter into the decision at all.

The US government is not dictating holy matrimony to any church. Any church is free to not marry same sex couples. Since religious freedom is so powerful here, I can't imagine that would ever change. However, the government dishes out over 1000 benefits based on marital status, so they couldn't discriminate against Gays forever since our Constitution continues to be understood more and more as time passes, that we give MORE freedoms, more equality not less.

Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

The churches do condemn unwed pregnancy, and divorce. That's why people don't go to church for divorce these days. Civil union in legislated law is not the same as marriage within a religion. But the latter transitions to the former as a matter of convenience. As a devout believer, how would you see that state of affairs, with all its repercussions re children etc?

I'm Aussie, btw. The little flag at the bottom of my posts does have a Union Jack, but that's up for debate these days. The political left has just defeated a move to commission a plebiscite into gay marriage. We are very much dragging our political feet compared to our cultural peers.

The lawyer's objections to polygamy seemed to be based on polygamy inside of US social and legal structure as it stands, as well as some odd quasi-Darwinist arguments. The simplest response to the objections is to site social structures that are unaffected by the Lawyer's objections. Point being that, while courts are different in British Commonwealth nations, the objections are bound to the US situation. And even there they can be counter-argued, as aspects of the Mormon faith have done.

Even staying within those boundaries, in considering the pull the plug objection mere litigation issues is not really a moral objection. Saying that polygamy is untenable because in an unusual situation it could cause extended litigation is a non sequitur. Inheritance laws could be rejected for that reason, if it were overwhelming. But it is far from it.

The Gov is dictating the terms of the disillusionment of marriage vows. Back to my lead line- the Church doesn't grant divorce per se, not without there being grounds based within that religion's dogma. But the Gov has passed laws that can override any religion- it dictates.


🇦🇺 All the little devils are proud of Hell.

Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

No church locks up unwed mothers (to say nothing of the fathers) and gives them conversion therapy. While I would suppose churches advocating rounding up Gays and putting them on their own island are rare, still NONE advocate this for unwed mothers. And there is worse. This is what I meant when I said "condemn in the same degree."

No Gay group that I know of is or ever has advocated for the government to require any church to perform same sex marriages. I already said religious freedom is very important in the US. So I don't understand what you're driving at when you say marriage within a church is not the same. We wanted to be equal, with the same rights before the government since church attendance is your choice, paying taxes is not. Well, even if you don't pay taxes, the government is supposed to treat citizens equally.

Well, as to the Mormon faith, of course, lawyers can argue anything. They can say anything but in the end, they have always lost. Which one could say Gays did too until recently. The difference, as I mentioned previously, allowing adults to marry ONE other adult of their choice is easily argued within the framework of existing law. Polygamy cannot.

Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

You're putting words in my mouth- I didn't say Christian Churches lock up unwed mothers. I said that they do not condone. However, locking up unwed mothers has been a practice of particularly the Catholic Church for quite some time. The rights of single mothers has a similar timeline as homosexual rights.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2273961/Ireland-says-sorry-10-000-women-slaves-Catholic-workhouses-locked-brutalised-nuns.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_asylum

I only point this out because you brought it up. It's not really pertinent to our discussion. But further to that point; my mother was brought up Protestant, became pregnant at 15 and was sent to a Christian organisation in another city to have her daughter, whom she was then pressured to give up. This was all to avoid the shame that the Christian community would heap at her and my family's feet. Given your first para, I think you would be surprised by the parallels between the treatment of homosexuality and unwed parents; even in living memory.

Marriage as a legislated civil right is a very recent idea, in the scope of religion. Churches do object to Govs regulating what is at its source a religious issue. The term marriage and all that goes with it stems directly from the church, and any legal dictates at-the-least usurp Church authority. Consider what it would be like today if the Gov didn't legislate reasonable grounds for divorce, support for single parents, freedom to marry regardless of race or religion etc.

I don''t bring these things up to support the archaic position of formal religion. There are two main reasons- first, that the debate is still very young, and the effects of both religious oppression of single parents etc as well as social oppression of homosexuality is a living memory issue. That is one of the discussions that BM contains. Second, only in understanding the pov of those opposed to civil union will there be any real chance of positive change in a meaningful time frame. Sympathy is a two way street, as is respect- something I know you hold as being crucial to any dialogue.

Back to BM- according to the time-frame of the movie/story, Alma divorced Ennis mere months after 'no blame' divorce legislation changed the marital landscape of the US. To be clear, I support that as well as the right to civil union for homosexual peoples. A couple of years earlier, and she would have had to 'out' Ennis to get her divorce granted by the Church. The courts had no such power at that time.

That brings me back to the reason for talking about the Church re marriage. A great number of religious people believe that Gov interference in what were squarely Church matters undermines the societal fabric that relied on the Church. It is these people that are the 'against team'. It is these people that will have to accept that the formally holy sanctity of marriage is no longer the purview of the Church. It is these people who must accept the greatest change to both their heart-felt beliefs and their religious history. It is these people that we need to stop blocking civil union, and to accept that homosexuality is, has been and always will be here to stay.

We have to give what we want to receive- understanding, both emotional and intellectual. We can't change every heart and mind, but we can, in a social democracy, change the majority's views. Another attack on the Church's most sacred law, marriage, is not what we or they want. Asking for marriage rights is an yet another affront to the Church, and that is understandable. Asking for Gov recognition via civil rights legislation for civil union- acceptance of a union in the eyes of the law- is, to me, the better, more respectful, course.

After all, the rights we are asking for are not the marriage rights of the Church, but the right to be recognised as the legal partner of ... ; the same rights as married couples have in law. They ought be separate issues, and as they have only become diluted in very recent history that is still possible.

I know this post is running long, so I'll say one more thing. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. There are religious laws governing marriage that are said to be the word of God, and not the words of men. That's how fundamental, how crucial it is. The words of men in Gov hold no truck with religious law. I would like religion to change, but that would defeat the purpose of generational stability thru adherence to dogma. It seems to me to be a far better idea to keep separate Church and Gov law. It's respectful in both directions.


🇦🇺 All the little devils are proud of Hell.

Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

Phy -

It surely wasn't my intention to put words in your mouth at all, I was making a comparison. The unwed mother is not locked up and converted from her 'natural'(maybe not the best choice of word?) sexuality in any comparable way to what all these fundy churches do to Gays. She was punished for having sex outside of marriage, not for having heterosexual sex. When released, she was free to marry and have sex. (I'm not dismissing the harshness of the ordeal, but continue on below) also consider the world (social policy specifically) was much harsher generally prior to the 1960's.

I did slip up with a USA only mindset on this issue, yes I'm aware of the Magdalen laundries (and other things through the centuries) and didn't consider them when making my comparison, but it is a huge difference that unwed mothers homes did not exist in my lifetime AND the gay conversion therapy confining mostly boys/men are going strong TODAY. As I mentioned also, the "illness" label was removed from the American Psychiatriac assn.'s list of illnesses in 1973, over 50 years ago and a significant portion of mental health professionals still consider homosexuality a mental illness. Another major difference.

Don't agree that Alma may have had to out Ennis a couple years earlier, she could have cited a number of other reasons for her divorce. I watched divorce court on TV in the late 60s - obviously they were reenactments, but they were real cases. There were tons of reasons. The bone of contention of course, was for the plaintiff to prove his or her allegations. But if Alma claimed mental cruelty, Ennis wouldn't have disputed it, (to avoid bringing up the real reason) so proof wouldn't be necessary.

As to the rest of what you said, it seems like you're either not addressing directly what I brought up or you're changing your position. For example a few posts ago, you said something like marriage out side a church isn't the same thing. So I reply that no gay group was asking the government to force churches to do same sex marriages, we (gays) wanted equality in government benefits relating to marriages. Then you essentially say the same thing above that church and government marriages should be separate. Well, we mostly agree but I would find it helpful if you are replying specifically to me to put my question above your answer, if you're so inclined. Thank you!

Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

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.

Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

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.

Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

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.

Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

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.

Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

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.

Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

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:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcXeutDmuRA


Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

"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 ..*..

Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

Well, it seems to matter to them what the alleged percentages are. And it apparently matters to you in order for you to comment on it.


So why shouldn't I, too, be discussing it?




Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

No, I say it doesn't matter, it is just a statistic, I'm wondering why it matters to you. You seem upset that estimates are lower than you think they should be.

..*.. TxMike ..*..

Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

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.

Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

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).

--

Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

Silly comment. I don't care if you discuss it, just seems like a whine.

..*.. TxMike .

Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

TX mike - so you do or don't see that it IS a big deal though, to significantly deflate real numbers?

Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

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.

Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

Thanks so much Prometheus. You put in words what I was trying to say. Did you notice my "quote" about the mission statement (?) of the Concerned Women of America?

Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

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.

Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

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?

Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

Are you responding to Prometheus?

If so, might be a good idea to post a bump directly to his post so he gets the notification.


🇦🇺 All the little devils are proud of Hell.

Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

Oops, my bad...was scanning and responding from flawed memory....knew poster's handle started with a "P".

Re: Why has the West pretended for so long homosexuality didn't exist?

No wuckers.


🇦🇺 All the little devils are proud of Hell.
Top