Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner The piano and homosexuality

Wow, going downhill with no brakes. So Diane expresses her view and gets bombed with insults. The advocates of tolerance turned into fanatics. Let's promote equality, as long as you don 't disagree with me, is that how itt works?
Everyone has a right to not like anyone else. And as long as one respects them and abide the law the way one feels he/she should be respected , that's fine. In this day and age, there is plenty of information and lietrature on the matters. If someone for any reason feels put off (to put it mildly) by homosexuality, who has the right to insult him?
By the way, im totally cool with homosexuality. To discriminate people for their sexual orientation is obviously unacceptable. I believe people don t chose it whatever anyone says. I have a very close relative whose life was made miserable for being gay in the wrong environment, sop i kow what i am talking about. But i am not cool with people telling me what or what not to like. I am sick of people pusihing homosexuality (not pointing fingers towards this forum) down my throat to paraphrase Diane, because that is happening where i am, constantly. Funny that a gay friend of mine feels the same about it. Gays have been forced to live in some kind of ghetto for so long, and now that they can break out, a part of that community is trying to ghetto themselves again.

Respect and civility doesn't mean acceptance. Civility, in fact, consists mainly in accepting the things you don't like.

So, Diane, if it's not your business what another does in the bedroom, why even comment? It matters greatly to you. That's all too obvious. Don't try to coat your hatred, because it makes you appear more ignorant than you already are. You act as if you're offended that people jumped you for your opinion(s). You're entitled to believe whatever you want to believe... no one is going to deny you that... but when you open your mouth and put yourself out there, then you've just opened yourself up to every critic in the world. Your little "bummer" remark (which I'm sure you giggled at as you typed it), is disgusting and you absolutely COULD have resisted. Grow up. As you do, attempt to acquire a tolerance for others that doesn't state that someone else is wrong simply because they don't live their life the same way that you do.

Everyone has the right to insult and criticise everyone. And I can think of no better reason than because someone expressed horrible views. You can think and believe what you want, you can express what you want. That is free speech. But if you choose to express what you think and believe in a public forum, you are not allowed to use the defence of free speech to shield yourself from criticism or the consequences of saying what you said. No idea has any reason to be respected merely because it is somoene's opinion.

By the way Diane, there are many homosexuals who never have anal sex. They are still homosexuals. There are many heterosexuals who do have anal sex (as I said before, in raw numbers far more than there are homosexuals). This does not make them homosexuals. Why do some people find it so hard to separate sexuality from the sexual act?

Deja vu all over again actually from a few pages back.

If the internet had been invented in the 1940's or 1950's we might be having a discussion about "The piano and the Negro" arguing whether or not it was acceptable for blacks to force themselves down our throat by wanting to play music outside of segregated honky-tonk establishments or the odd jazz club, or gasp, expect to eat and drink in the same restaurants we do and travel in the same bus seats. Or we might be posting on a thread "The piano and the little woman" arguing whether it would ever be acceptable for a married woman to work outside of the home, or to keep composing or teaching after marriage or to post on internet fora without the permission of her husband.

Do we still think that freedom of speech should mean that it would be socially acceptable for us today to come on this forum and say that negros (or a common slur in its place) are unnatural or otherwise inferior and that you are just sick and tired of their uppity attitude of wanting to be visible and treated equally being forced down your throat? Or that in your opinion, Diane has no right to post here since she is a woman and therefore, without question, hopelessly lacking the kind of wisdom that only the man of the house can possess and therefore should submit herself to her husband's authority or only speak when spoken to?

Of course not, people would be all over them. However, these were common and socially accepted opinions and accepted free speech just a little over half a century ago in the United States. Now they come across as being bigoted and offensive and people who hold these opinions often have the good sense to keep them to themselves.

The point is that although the freedom of speech goes very far in the United States, including venturing into hate speech territory that is illegal in many countries with different histories and different views on dangers of hate speech, when one states his or her opinion one cannot then expect to stifle the free speech rights of those who react.

Yes it was! We don't have to knee-jerk at the word "racism". It can take a joke.

And, puns aside, also very true. We're talking as if there's a general rule - homosexuality is either innate or a preference. Isn't it more likely that there's a spectrum, and some people are mobile within it?

Indeed - sexual activity isn't even required in order to think of oneself as homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, omnisexual, or whatever. It's about how one feels and perceives and identifies, and not only about what one actually does with other people. For example, I would guess that many, perhaps most, people have a pretty good idea of the nature of their sexuality before they start having any sex at all. And it is also clear that many, perhaps most, people are able to go through the motions of sex in ways that don't match their sexuality (which can be confusing to everyone involved).

Diane is very convinced that HER way is right. Her arguments come straight from fundamentalist Christian pamphlets (did she, personally, know this reformed homosexual?). And, of course, she's welcome to express them. And we're welcome to mock them.

It is pretty funny when people to get all tangled up with "freedom of speech" stuff in a moderated forum. You do not have the freedom to say just anything you want here - read the rules.

And, in fact, you do not have that freedom in many other places, both virtual and real. For example, the famously liberal speech clause in the US constitution's 1st amendment would seem to allow absolutely anything to be said any time and any place within its jurisdiction, but in actual practice it doesn't work out that way. Not even close.

And then there is the curious idea that somebody can say whatever and that "free speech" somehow protects them from any consequences for having said it. Where does that come from? It's a pretty weird (and frankly, very childish) idea, IMO.

That's an easy one. When the vile perversion is detected, immediately take out not just the foetus but both parents. It's their fault for having the defective genes in the first place. Kinder just to remove them from any danger of further breeding.

You are confused. There's no equivalence between Diane's opinion and the lives of real people. Being gay isn't merely an opinion about things, you know.

If there was some gay person here making a knowingly offensive fuss about how totally gross straight sex was (you stick it there?!?!?) and they didn't want to even know about it, or, better yet, they didn't even want know that straights exist, THEN you'd have some degree of equivalency.

Indeed. For those of who have been banned and banished by the powers that be for speaking uncomfortable truths this is as clear as day.

Well said.

No, it wasn't funny, and not because of some knee-jerk about racism. It was not funny because it trivialized Bruce's worthwhile comment.

You are right about freedom of speech, but where do you draw the line? In my opinion, way beyond the referred post. There are plenty of statements in it that can be denied through evidence that's available to anyone. That would make more sense to me than the answers she s been given. Anyway my point is that all you can ask for is for people to accept homosexuality or heterosexuality. To live with ti and respect it. But i think it's reasonable to consider that there are some people (many or few, that s not the point) who do not like the idea of any other orientation that is not theirs. People should nt be blamed for their thoughts. Notr while they re just that, thoughts.

Right and the more uninformed the arguments, the easier to do so.
That's just to remember that not all the opinions are born equal.

People definitely should be held responsible for their thoughts, if those thoughts are hurtful to other people and are, in fact, firmly held opinions that are publicly expressed as their point of view on something, rather than just being transitory blips in consciousness.

How long is a piece of string?

We are social animals. What is socially acceptable depends on society and is constantly in flux, and hopefully progressively evolving us in a direction opposite to barbarism and our primitive caves. Who is society? We are.

To find out where the line is, I guess the best way is to open your mouth.

That was tried earlier up thread to which she responded that she was unconvinced. Using rationality to change biases about mores is notoriously difficult.


I don't see anyone "blaming" Diane for her likes and dislikes nor her thoughts (in fact I earlier expressed my compassion for her). I do see a variety of critical reactions to rather offensive statements that Diane made in the form of posts including her attempt to then stifle the freedom of others to react to her statements, thereby trying to call attention to herself and cast herself as a victim and stifle and suppress others.

One of my grandfathers was racist until the day he died. In his later years he discovered that his old one-liners didn't get the kind of reaction he was used to. In fact, quite the opposite. The day he died his racism died with him.

It is possible that nothing will ever change Diane's mind or the mind of certain others reading but not posting. But, one day, she, like all of us, will be dead and I can only hope that, just like for my grandfather, those personal opinions that might be considered by some to be ignorant and bigoted (and her strange compulsion to graphically communicate them), will die with her as new generations of reality-embracing, compassionate, inclusive, justice-promoting social human beings take all of our place on this planet.

(Readers: Please click on 'Re: theJourney' in the bar at the top of my post to read the whole of the post I am replying to, but I think the above snippet conveys the crux.)

Many thanks for your generously detailed reply. I had forgotten how deeply-rooted the notion of "sin" is in some circles, and how "choice" intertwines with that. Looking at things more pragmatically now, I understand your earlier post more clearly, and I agree with your reasoning.

Be careful! This tends towards: "What you do or say offends me, therefore you must not do or say it!"

Just make sure YOU aren't weirder than the people you criticise! I find it strange and perverted that members of some religious sects truly believe that they are eating a wafer that has literally become human flesh. But I have no power or wish to stop them doing it.

That is why churches/religion are full of homos because it is the only safe, respectable place in which to hide from the world.

In the 1970s steambaths were full of priests except on Sundays.

And wear frocks :-) Yes, the fact that so many priests are homosexual adds even more humour to the gay marriage debate. I'm reminded of Tom Lehrer's "Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize". It's all become so unreal, all you can do is laugh.



If you say so!