I wonder if the author has ever seen the figures of the number of so called families that live on welfare, and yet we live in a so called capitalist society.

I know no one who wants homosexuality made a criminal offence as the author suggest. What many object to is the unhealthy perverted lifestyle being presented to our kids as normal.

Runner - what is 'normal'? Birds do it, animals do it, and for all I know even educated fleas do it. People have been doing it since the beginning of recorded history and probably for many generations before that. So in what sense is homosexuality not 'normal'? Just because you don't like it?

Jon.

Runner,
I reckon there are extremists who would want homosexuality banned. One of those is a regular contributer to this site. Homosexuality would be normal to a homosexual. Just because we don't like something or it goes against our religious beliefs doesn't mean we have to deny this to other people, if it's not interferring with us.
I have neigbours who are gay. I needed their help one day which they gladly gave. I wouldn't have expected to receive that if I had vilified them like some other so called Christians I know.
I was blessed earlier this year when I saw Christians marching in the Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras apologising to the Gays for lack of welcome in the Church. This was greatly received by the Gay people.
The Biblical stand on homosexuality does not apply to me as I am not gay. It is up to Gay Christians how they interpret the Bible's stand on homosexual relationships.

Watch out runner! I love a man who talks butch.

In my yonger days I produced and directed a couple of gay revues,and still keep in contact with some of the performers.

You Know what they say "I'm not Gay but I've been with a few men who are."
Me thinks you prostesth too much what are you afraid of?

I wonder what the author would make of a statistic revealed in the United Kingdom recently where a report found that 25% of Muslim students said that they had little or no respect for gays. The figure was even higher for male Muslim students at 32%. But among non-Muslims, the figure was only 4%.

"I wonder what the author would make of a statistic revealed in the United Kingdom recently where a report found that 25% of Muslim students said that they had little or no respect for gays. The figure was even higher for male Muslim students at 32%. But among non-Muslims, the figure was only 4%."

I'm surprised the figure was as low as 25 percent. Committed religious types from homophobic religions obvious feeling hating gays is part and parcel of their belief in God. I'm skeptical about the four percent figure. Were Mormons not surveyed? Or committed Catholics or Anglicans? And in Eastern Europe where Catholicism and the Orthodox religions hold sway, gays have experienced violent opposition each time they show their faces.

At any rate, gender is more important than religion when it comes to anti-gay bigotry and violence. The many pilgrims during Catholic World Youth Day ignored me as they went on their merry way. Tanked up male footballers or their fans would have bashed me or at the least given me a mouthful of homophobic abuse - despite the fact that I get around in jeans, a jumper and non-descript t-shirt. I also feel quite safe walking past Muslim women. A group of Muslim males is a different proposition.

To underline my point, who are usually the spokespeople for most religions and who get the best jobs in the religious hierarchy? Quite simply, religion is the excuse for homophobia whereas really the problem is that gays offend some people's sense of how men and women should act.

SP. And your point is? The Vatican condemns homosexuals as do political rightwingers. So whats new!

Steel Man

The term 'Gay Christians' is about as biblical as a fornicating or immoral Christian. It might be 'normal' to some people but just ask any honest doctor how unhealthy sodomy is. Churches might welcome 'gays' or sodomites but just like adulterers, liars they need to turn from their sin. No one loving their sin more than God will inherit His kingdom. You should not be changing biblical standards in order to be accepted by society or others.

John Passant,

You write 'But make no mistake. The nature of capitalism is such that it still sees the family unit as the best model for cheaply producing the next generation of workers.

Hence, while accepting the reality of gay relationships, many (like Howard and Rudd) still hanker for the old days when women produced babies for capital and homosexuality was a crime.'

So far as can see, your logic is no better than that of St Paul. (He gets the cause of homosexual desires wrong, and aruges illogically to an immoral conclusion. Runner, please note.)

John, capitalism can't see anything. so how is your comment to be interpreted? Some capitalists are gay, and others accept homosexual law reform, so it can't be that you mean that capitalists see the family unit as the best model. Nor can you mean that capitalist ideology encourages people to see women and the family in this light, since that plainly false. It may assist the survival of the capitalist system to have traditional families. But where is the connection to how people think? And where is your evidence as to Rudd's motivation?

Runner:
"The term 'Gay Christians' is about as biblical as a fornicating or immoral Christian"

After I managed to stop laughing, I recalled my bible classes at school and politely suggest that you go read your bible - you'll find plenty of christians behaving badly:

"Lot refuses to give up his angels to the perverted mob, offering his two "virgin daughters" instead. He tells the bunch of angel rapers to "do unto them [his daughters] as is good in your eyes.""

Why does god hate virgins so much? They're always being treated badly.

"Ecclesiastes 7:20
For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not."

I guess that includes god as well as all christians.

I was a little surprised last night on the ABC program Question and Answers that the Rudd governments Climate Minister, Penny Wong was put in an uncomfortable position by another guest commentator who admitted Penny Wong to be gay, as he was himself he confessed.

Penny Wong was answering a question on her belief that a marriage was between a woman and a man, not same sex couples.

Penny could not refute his true statement about her being a lesbian and his revelation took her by surprise, she gulped down each of her words thereafter, recovering herself by the next question that was directed for her comment.

Penny Wong was questioned by him, about how Penny is denying her rights as a lesbian to marry and she was just mouthing the Labor party line on gay marriages.

The original question was really directed to Malcom Turnbull of the Liberal Party and his electorate with high numbers of gay residence and the unanswered question about his lifestyle preference in partners.

Fractelle

You are either spiritually blind or willfully ignorant when it comes to throwing aspersions over God's character. Your inference is that you are the good moral one while God is the evil virgin hating one.

You might think that your own delusion justifies perverse behaviour but you are wrong. You are a good example of God's long suffering in wishing for none to perish but all to come to life. Your isolated twisting of Scriptures is typical of those who have issues in their lives that they won't address.

Dear Fractelle....

welcome back..

On the "Lot" issue you might like to revisit that, the basic problem with understanding such passages is that they are simply reporting events, not making value judgements on them.

A classic example is the incident where Lot's daughters got him drunk, had sexual relations with him and became pregnant by him.
If it happened like that.. it is reported like that..

None of these reports suggests such behavior is either good or beneficial. For 'value' judgements we must look at the 'commandments' and specific teaching on 'yes/no'...'good/bad'...'right/wrong'.. and the Law is the usual place to find that.

Just because the Daily Terrorgraph reports Richard Pratt doing bad things, does not mean they hold him up as any kind of example.. right?

For all those writing in favor of the normality of homosexual behavior, I'm sorry.. ur plain wrong.

The normality of human reproduction, and its associated sexual activity is purely heterosexual.

The only way that 'homo'sexual activity can be considered 'normal' is if you say "Deriving pleasure from other peoples bodies" is normal... but then.. that could lead us down many untoward paths with unknown (?) or emotionally unacceptable destinations.. the 'Highway to Hell' from AC/DC comes to mind there.

Pleasure is normal... wanting it.. is normal.. how we get it, is something we all should consider very carefully in my view.
All actions have consequences, some temporal, others eternal.

Ozbiz writes:

"John, capitalism can't see anything. so how is your comment to be interpreted? Some capitalists are gay, and others accept homosexual law reform, so it can't be that you mean that capitalists see the family unit as the best model. Nor can you mean that capitalist ideology encourages people to see women and the family in this light, since that plainly false. It may assist the survival of the capitalist system to have traditional families. But where is the connection to how people think? And where is your evidence as to Rudd's motivation?"

Yes I should have referred to the bourgeoisie or bosses or capitalist class.

It is true that some capitalists are gay. That was the case when such normal human activity was ciminalised. That criminalisation was not aimed at the ruling class but the working class. There were the occasional show trials (eg of Oscar Wilde) to show the working class the consequences of "bad" behavious, just as we have show trials today.

A member of the ruling class and their individual preferences (sexual, drug or otherwise) can contradict their class's needs. Their individual actions don't threaten the position of the bourgeoisie, unlike such activity among workers. If all workers discovered drugs and sex and rock and roll to the exclusion of work, profit would fall markedly.

The pink dollar doesn't help here; it only reinforces the idea that homosexual behaviour is different and needs to be quarantined away from the rest of society. It reinforces the concept of difference; it does not challenge it.

What is the basis of the Intergenerational report; the baby bonus? What drives the political expression of the ruling class to push the idea that the more babies the better? What pushes Rudd to adopt this and to proclaim with Howard that the family is the bedrock institution in our sciety? (If he hasn't yet done so, he soon will.) What drives Rudd to oppose gay marriage?

Only radically changing the relations of production can liberate humanity from the straight jacket of wage slavery and sexual and other oppressions.

Polycarp. Do you know the meaning of love, for what ever form it comes in is beautiful.
Its not all about tonights the night! As your posting appears to be saying!

Classic stuff this “The nature of capitalism is such that it still sees the family unit as the best model for cheaply producing the next generation of workers.”

Modern capitalists think of the “family unit” not so much as its workers but as consumers/customers.

A “gay family unit” is as valid as a “heterosexual family unit”

both are consumers and therefore both are potential customers of the products and services which the innovative capitalists risk all to bring to market.

Of course, as commercially motivated innovators, a capitalist will do nothing to diminish a market opportunity,

The capitalist is more likely to respond to a homosexual union by seeking to market to the particular needs of the “gay family unit” (like making beds with rubber teeth grips on the head board).

Of course, the anti-capitalist movement (as far as it still exists) was formed on the values that

Marx may well have ‘accommodated’ homosexuality but Engels far less so.

Lenin de-criminalised it, Stalin and his successors re-criminalised it.

Gorky is quoted in Proletarian Humanism” (1934):
“Exterminate homosexuals and Fascism will disappear”

Sad really, so desperate for an angle, this drivel is designed as wedge politics between a seemingly successful and legal homosexual social group and a seemingly successful legal capitalist social group by a group of failed economic and social theorists whose reality was mass starvation, imprisonment and walls to stop people from migrating to freedom.

I always have difficulty believing arguments that a certain 'class' or economic framework somehow conspired to cause a particular social agenda.

Shady backroom deals to benefit a ruling elite can't occur on such a broad scale. To benefit a single company, sure, but extending this to a grand plan to benefit all companies through enforced heterosexuality is just a leap too far in my view.

Sure, economic systems can cause social change, but it's the 'intent' part I have issue with. Who are these mysterious backroom people who made shady deals with the churches? When did these agreements happen? How could they be put into place?

Seems more like good ole' fashioned discrimination to me.

Boazycarp: << Dear Fractelle....

welcome back.. >>

Dear Boazy....

welcome back..

but why are you still lying about who you are?

The problem for pro-market political parties such as the Liberals here, the Republicans in America or Conservatives in Britain is that they espouse the free market when it comes to economic activity but seem to want to go out of their way to restrict the rights of gays. The Liberals in 2004 had the idea of amending the Marriage Act to explicitly exclude same-sex marriage. The US Republican President attempted to get a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. The conservatives introduced Clause 28 in Britain's Local Government Act outlawing any vaguely pro-gay literature. It doesn't seem to make sense given that gay people are workers and consumers (and indeed often vote for those very parties).

But it does make sense when you consider that adherence to the ideology of the family (Mum, Dad who are legally married and the kids) is also essential to maintaining the power base of these parties.

So there is a contradiction. Freedom in the marketplace is okay but not when it comes to personal life choices. Interestingly, people over at the very pro-capitalist Institute of Public Affairs will support things like same-sex marriage. But of course the IPA doesn't stand for office and is not intimidated by the Catholic Church, the Australian Family Association and other conservative lobby groups.

Runner,
Ask that same Doctor how unhealthy heterosexual sex can be?
Hepatitis alphabet, cervical cancer, herpes, NSU, syphilis, Aids, Gonerea etc.
Then ask Christians how many are virgin on virgin at marriage…the blind leading the blind,one might say Ouch!
Do you have missionary sex all the time or do you experiment? Oral sex perhaps? That can be unhealthy too for that matter so can kissing.

In short life is a risk. If you have self imposed artificial standards that’s fine …what you do in your bedroom is you and your partners business and no one else’s. Likewise you have no right (even in your Bible) to look down on, pontificate at or demand compliance to you views of others. They’re not affecting you so mind your own business. To me it is enough that people express their love to their partners. Like the old song says "what the world need now is love" (more love) not supercilious judgement

examinator

'. Likewise you have no right (even in your Bible) to look down on, pontificate at or demand compliance to you views of others.'

Just thought you would put your point of view did you examinator just as the gay lobby continually does.

You write 'what the world need now is love" (more love) not supercilious judgement'

Too right the world needs love, not men and women totally blinded by their own lusts trying to change laws to further denigrate our nation.

Just thought you would put your point of view did you 'runner' just as the 'catholic church' continually does.

You write 'what the world need now is love" (more love) not supercilious judgement'

Too right the world needs love, not men and women totally blinded by their own 'stupid, pointless discrimination' trying to 'keep' laws to further denigrate our 'citizens'.

(Diggin that hypocrisy runner, keep it up).

Homosexuality seems to present a
recurring issue of debate for so
many people.

The behaviour however occurs all
over the world and throughout
history, although its form,
acceptability, and apparent extent
vary greatly from one society or
culture to another.

Perhaps instead of denigrating people
we could just stop for a moment and
remember that they, obviously, all
have to be somebody's child, parent,
cousin, co-worker, teacher, neighbour,
friend, or fellow student...

The comparison doesn't hold water, Boaz.

>>On the "Lot" issue you might like to revisit that, the basic problem with understanding such passages is that they are simply reporting events, not making value judgements on them... Just because the Daily Terrorgraph reports Richard Pratt doing bad things, does not mean they hold him up as any kind of example.. right?<<

Earlier in the chapter, some judgements are made, and they are pretty conclusive. Sodom and Gomorrah were judged to be wicked, and destroyed. If I recall correctly, there was even a certain amount of discussion between God and Abraham about the level of wickedness involved before the final solution.

"Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven" Gen 19: 24

So we are led to expect that where wickedness exists, and the Lord is about, wickedness gets punished.

But later in the same chapter, we find incest.

No fire. No brimstone. Not even a slightly wagged finger.

It is not therefore a pretty fair conclusion that while the behaviour of the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah was to be condemned, that of Lot and his daughters was not?

Foxy

Your request is entirely reasonable; we are all humans and should treat each other with compassion and respect.

Yet for the likes of Runner, Boazcarp et al this is not enough. Their entire raison d'etre is the subjugation and vilification of others, this is how they prop up their fragile egos.

The best that can be said is that they are in the minority...the worst is that it is an exceedingly noisy one that harms many of us simply for holding different views and having the temerity to express them.

Religion like capitalism relies on an expanding population; for control and to increase demand. Any who do not fit this mould such as homosexuals or people like myself who have not had children, do not fit, are therefore considered suspect.

That this is an illogical (religion) and unsustainable (big business) ideology is ignored and your polite request that we be excellent to one another, is reduced to a whisper.

In light of my above post it is reasonable to ask why I even bothered having a go at Runner - a very easy target after all.

The answer is:

HYPOCRISY

And I had just read the following article, surely one of the most hypocritical actions taken by police in the name of christianity:

http://littlurl.com/d2qmq

"Preacher commits horrible acts, is allowed to finish sermon on love and redemption before arrest.

You've probably already heard this one, since it is all over the news: a preacher, Anthony Hopkins, murdered his wife after she caught him sexually abusing their children and stuffed her in a freezer -- with the daughter's assistance. This happened four years ago and the children's mother has been kept in the freezer in this house ever since. The pastor of Hopkins church reports that "the children were so respectful, just so easygoing", and that they "loved their dad. They were very close to him." Right. Rape, murder, and incest are just ordinary events in the Abrahamic family tree.

What I find disturbing about the whole story is this. Anthony Hopkins spent all this time since as an itinerant preacher, traveling about and preaching the 'Holy Word of Jesus Christ'. His daughter moved out of his house, finally, reported what he'd done to the police, the police went into his house and opened the freezer, and then they went off to the church where he was preaching that day. What did they do then?

Police allowed Hopkins to finish his sermon before arresting him.

Wait, what? Was this an example of Christians showing respect, that they allowed a child-raping murderer continue mouthing words of love and redemption in their church, words that clearly meant nothing to this monstrous psychopath? If only he'd crumbled a cracker, perhaps then they would have been less tolerant."

Dear Fractelle,

I still prefer to believe that most people
are decent human beings, and basically good.
They just sometimes don't stop to think
about the damage they're doing by
trying to enforce their point of view on
others, by making unfair
judgements and by labelling people.

It's very easy to denigrate people when
you place them into groups. It becomes
less personal. Groups like - Muslims,
Jews, Blacks, Christians, homosexuals,
and so on...

But when you take people on a one-on-one
basis - when you actually put a human
face on a person , (someone's child,
neighbour, cousin, friend, co-worker,
fellow student) it becomes personal,
and harder to judge and label.

My request may well be a whisper, but
I'm hoping those with a sense
of fair play will hear it.

Let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone seems to come to mind here.

Anyway, I went to the Canberra Day of Action.

It was small, about 60 people. But quite lively. More lesbians than gay men.

My take is that marriage equality is not that important for most gays etc.

This might be because they think the hompohobia rife in our society is all pervasive and unchallangeable, and the level of any struggles in Australia has been low for many years (apart from occasional upsurges like the anti-Iraq war demos). So the idea of militant demos for basic rights is not in most people's psyche, and even when they do occur (as in anti-Iraq war demos) they peter out after a while.

Anybody go to the Sydney or Melbourne NDAs. What were they like?

Passy

'Let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone seems to come to mind here.' Too right but at least you acknowledge it as sin and thats a start.

Fractelle,

I don’t know how you leapt from Ecclesiastes 7:20 to “that includes god as well as all Christians”. But spot on, re: Christians.

Non-believers instinctively know when a Christian is being hypocritical, and are quick to point out our failure to show love, or slowness to embrace the “unloved”.

We’re easy targets for such criticism, after all, claiming to model ourselves on the one man, the only one in the history of mankind, who stands apart from Ecclesiastes 7:20, the one who “doeth good, and sinneth not”. Try to imagine the joy of finding that one and abiding in Him, being confronted daily by failure, and watching others celebrate your weaknesses (!)

Note the gleeful clapping of hands when we fail to perfectly emulate Jesus Christ, and the crow of victory in the “discovery” of the huge gap between our claims and our reality.

It is hard to come to grips with our (unfortunate) lack of humility and our boast of knowing the “truth”, and the many contradictions of the Christian walk. Then, there are the few on the fringes, who are not just “run of the mill” sinners like you and I, but murderers, rapists, child-molesters, who dare make the same claims (and taint us all further).

Notice how runner lumps homosexuals in with adulterers and liars. Biblically, some sins have more gravity, but all is sin to a holy God. The cure that runner gives is simply this: “they need to turn from their sin”.

I don’t favour runner’s tendency to antagonize and agitate y’all through being so NON-PC, and a heavy reliance on the Pentecostal interpretation, however, I can’t accuse runner of biblical errancy.

Now, you don’t sit and discuss this with a lesbian and her partner over dinner . Nor do you rant and rave about the wrongness of their lifestyle, express joy over their new rights as parents under Australian laws or extend a welcome into the capitalist fold.

As a Christian, a woman, and a mother, I am genuinely happy to enjoy the privilige of their company and share their anxiety over a new pregnancy.

I agree with TRTL about the absence of a capitalist conspiracy, especially one backed by a religious element.

And Suebdootwo - bringing Penny Wong’s sexual preferences to our attention (changes nothing), except it does show that one can defend a party preference over a personal one, which, while I question her motivations, gives me a strange sense of hope that others might follow and put our needs as a nation, above that of the individual.

Runner

I don't believe in sin, least of all that normal human behaviour should be criminalised or stigmatised, or characterised in that way for the benefit of religious fanatics. I was trying to point out the hypocrisy of the Christian Taliban on this site.

And I certainly don't think there is a conspiracy of the bourgeoisie and religion, although at times given the fervent homophobia both the ruling class and religious fundamentalism dsiplay, you could make that argument.

People can (mis)read into my articles what they want.

I would be interested in your thoughts...

I was wondering why is homosexuality so reviled and hated in every culture (except ours in recent years)?

What motivates this hatred?

My best guess so far is that homosexuality is a rejection of male responsibility. For every homosexual, there is an un-wed, childless woman, or an abandoned one.

In these days where the "marriage Strike" is hitting women so hard, with so many willing women being unable to find a man willing to marry them, the question is espicially pertinent. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_strike)

It's just maths... equal numbers of men and woman are born (pretty much). Homosexuality dooms women to spinsterhood or abandonment.

Katie

I do not expect christians to behave all exactly like JC - what an absurdity. I expect christians to behave like the rest of us - human with all the frailties the come with being human.

Where I draw the line is being dictated to.

You appear to be apologising for Runner - he never contributes to a debate - instead he constantly maligns those with whom he disagrees.

That there is a trend for both right-wing conservatives and fundamentalist religious to discriminate against gays and lesbians is demonstrated by politicians, media and religious leaders all the time.

PartTimeParent

You claimed that "It's just maths... equal numbers of men and woman are born (pretty much). Homosexuality dooms women to spinsterhood or abandonment."

ROFL

NO. I think you have forgotten LESBIANS! Yup, some women prefer other women. See, it all works out in the end.

BTW, many straights choose to be single, so I really don't get what you mean by 'spinsterhood'.

katieO,

With all due respects calling sinners to turn from sin isn't Pentecostal doctrine it is bible doctrine. You might disagree with my method which you are entitled to do but don't marginalize one of the core teaching of Christ.

"My best guess so far is that homosexuality is a rejection of male responsibility. For every homosexual, there is an un-wed, childless woman, or an abandoned one."

So there are no female homosexuals? And what exactly is male responsibility? I'll give you an example: men who don't go through the charade of marriage and children when they know they are gay. Some men do and it makes a lot of people very unhappy.

Incidentally, I know women and men who are happy being single and/or childless and wouldn't have it any other way.

A hilarious article. And the left wonder why no one takes them seriously?

Can we get pass the 'gay is normal' line in the sand and just get on to legalising incest, beastiality, polygamy and child brides etc.

Frankly, you beastophobic, incestophobic, homocidophobes make me sick with all your standards of behaviour.

Now, back to aborting all those foetuses with the gay gene...or should we adopt them out to some nasty heterosexuals?

RC. What an interesting life you live, by your posting you appear to be experienced in all those bizarre going ons! You devil you RC!!

Dear Pericles...

how dare you cite ancient obscure documents..and even offer interpretations of them :)

After all.. you are on record as confessing to no faith in such.

tut tut.

Then again.. if you make a public confession that "Ancient documents are valid in understanding what motivates people" then.. you might be more worthy to engage with.

Until such a time..... please don't quote things you have stated hold no relevance to today.. oops.. is it just the 'Christian' ones that apply? now there's a thought....

My point is..and will remain.. homosexual behavior reflects a malfunction in the brain or a choice. There is no other possible explanation. It's as simple as looking at the physical structure of male and female and a basic knowledge of human reproduction.

The theological position on this type of behavior (for whatever reason) is that it is an 'abomination' to God.

It is so, because no one would seriously seek to justify child abuse or paedophilia simply because the perpetrator had some 'brain malfunction' which was difficult to identify.

Anti homosexual behavior comments might seem a bit like 'voices in the wilderness' these days, but.. as a noteworthy politician of yesteryear once said when it was suggested he is now nothing but a voice in the wilderness (after Heath was re-elected and his career thus at an end):

"Wilderness's are good places for voices..I notice...they tend to get a reverberation which is often lost in the more crowded places"..

In-deed :)

Who remembers Edward Heath? Edward who?

But 'the voice'.. is still reverberating...even now.

Kipp,

unfortunately, here in Spain, my sexual gratification with primates has been deemed against their rights! (Well at least until I can prove it is consenual and that the animal was over the age of consent!)

So, my passions will be limited to Doggy style with more domesticated animals...

From reading the postings on this subject I've learnt I have a brain malfunction, am inclined to beastality and child molestation, I'm an abomination in the eyes of God and am an irresponsible male. Geez, Louise, it's amazing I can get out of bed in the morning (is Bin Laden posting to this website under an assumed name?).

One consolation is that while the posters are spewing their bile on this forum they're not on the streets harming people. The other consolation is that the Australian electorate rejects that sort of fanaticism. For example, Fred Nile couldn't even win a lousy Senate seat in the 2004 Federal Election - and his homophobia is pretty mild compared with some of the stuff I've read here.

Gay human rights is only compatible with democracy. As long as Australia and Western European countries are democracies, gay people will have human rights now and in the future. Gay rights are impossible in regimes like the Soviet Union and its clones and theocracies such as Saudi Arabia and Iran.

So, if those working themselves up in a frenzy of excitement about gays want to be truly happy, you may need to move to an anti-gay regime. It won't be very democratic but you might be able to see a few gays getting beheaded or beaten to death as a bonus.

Runner,
I use the term Gay Christian as there are a number of Gays who profess to having a faith in Christ. I've acknowledged the Bible's standards about homosexuality, but as I am not gay this does not apply to me. Gay Christian groups have there own explaination for the Bible's standard on homosexuality and that is between them and God. We have no right to criticise gays when there is sin in our own lives. I believe the biggest sin in the Church is hypocrisy. The fact is that the church has rarely showed God's love to the Gays, we have only offered them hate.

By the way, where is Gibo at the moment. Has he been banned? He wrote a lot of unproked vile comments about me that were deleted and he hasn't been seen since then. If one can't handle having their opinions challenged on this forum, they shouldn't be here. That's what these forums are all about.

Boazycrap: << homosexual behavior reflects a malfunction in the brain or a choice. There is no other possible explanation

[...]

But 'the voice'.. is still reverberating...even now. >>

It seems our born-again homophobe is still hearing voices, poor chap.

Well, Boaz, what a fascinating new line of argument you have come up with!

>>how dare you cite ancient obscure documents..and even offer interpretations of them... After all.. you are on record as confessing to no faith in such<<

The idea being, I guess, that while you are permitted to make all sorts of outlandish claims based on the Bible, to selectively use passages from it to justify your observations on the actions and activities of your fellow human beings, and to wave it about as some kind of all-conquering talisman, I am barred from pointing out the inconsistency of your interpretation, simply because I am not religious?

That sounds like the argument of a desperate man, Boaz.

I would be the last person on earth to deny you the right to use any document you see fit to buttress your faith in an omnipotent being in the sky. I know how much it means to you, and how without its support you would be nothing.

But you cannot escape some simple facts.

Primary amongst these is that these stories were written by people. And these people, apart from their predilection to see the hand of God in the stuff they could not comprehend, were also historians.

When they “saw” the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, they happily saw divine intervention.

When they reported the activities of Lot's daughters, they saw nothing unusual in the actions of a family, intent on dynastic continuity. The moral judgements against incest are those imposed by a retrospective application of twentyfirst-century standards.

>>The theological position on this type of behavior (for whatever reason) is that it is an 'abomination' to God.<<

The inconsistency, as ever Boaz, is this.

You choose to believe that homosexuality is an “abomination” based upon your interpretation of the Bible, but reject the thought that the same document is comfortable with incest.

And whether you like it or not, the fact that I do not use the same writings as the basis of my understanding of the universe, does not disqualify me from pointing this out.

Steel Mann

You write 'The fact is that the church has rarely showed God's love to the Gays, we have only offered them hate.'

You seem to be totally missing the point. By calling homosexuality sin is not hate. It is the same as calling adultery or fornication sin. If you hated people you would not want them to repent and turn to Christ. You would allow them to continue their path to hell if you hated them.

I have and never would condone harming anyone. This issue is about 'gay marriage' which condones something not only unhealthy in this life but leads to hell. People living together in heterosexual relationships are also on the same road if they are not married.

I know Christians who have nursed homosexual aids patients (something some of their own would not do).

This issue is about what is good for society. Endorsing and promoting homosexuality is certainly not good for society.

Runner are you saying your mates only nursed homosexual AIDS patients, and not heterosexual AIDS patients!

Rather patronising and unprofessional of them, don't you think

Runner,

I acknowledge your opening post where you said you did not want to see homosexuality made a criminal offence. The fact is many Christians are not so tolerant.

Knowing Christians who have nursed homosexual AIDS patients is good to know, yes many others would not. (I probably wouldn't either. Simply because I do not have the knowledge or experience in this area).

Kipp,

Runner mentioned homosexual AIDS patients because that was what was relevant to the topic. They probably do also nurse hetrosexual AIDS patients.

For medical consequences of homosexual activity read below

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/EducationalPamphlets/MedicalConsequencesofWhatHomosexualsDo/tabid/73/Default.aspx

runner, you cite the 'family research institute'.

Please. When you find more propaganda in future, at least don't insult our intelligence by using this. At least do us the courtesy of finding a right-wing lobby group that has a more subtle name. Hell, even looking at the link is a clue that information is cherry picked rubbish to support an agenda.

By the same token, I could select any site on STDS and use it to warn of the danger of 'heterosexual' relationships.

Why is it runner, that this has been explained repeatedly to you yet you never acknowledge or rebut this - homosexual sex does not carry the risk of pregnancy, so participants are less likely to use condoms.

It is unprotected sex that's dangerous, not homosexual.

Rebut this, huh? Focus on the actual topic for once, and try something challenging, instead of parrotting the same rubbish over and over. That's how debate works - someone makes a point, someone else gives information and makes a point why it's false.

Can you move to point C, or is it too scary and do you need to huddle back at point A, together with the other fearful traditionalists at the 'family research institute'.

Whoa, hold your powder runner...

Fractelle calls me an “apologist” for you – there’s a clue. (there may be points of departure over scriptural interpretation if we boil it down; however, that is not the case in this thread).

Non-believers take offense to the very concept of sin, be they adulterer, liar or homosexual. Even though you and I acknowledge the fallenness of our state, and see certain human behaviors as aberrant / not normative / deviating from God’s intention for mankind, labelling homosexuality as a sin is seen as prescriptive.

It was only at the point of my conversion that I understood my “sinfulness” and need for repentance in the light of the price paid for my sin at the cross, courtesy of the Gospel of Mark. Bearing that in mind, I am not suggesting we give the lite version of the NT, just that we try to use a language that is accessible to non-believers.

Passy – where is this Christian Taliban you referred to? There is a huge range of Christian opinion on this forum, and we don’t always agree. If you are the author or this article, this expression lacks any journalistic integrity, and worse.

Fractelle, despite what you say, you do seem surprised when Christians behave like the “rest of us”, for the “rest of us”, the whole of humanity, includes the Anthony Hopkins’ of the world.

And I don’t agree:

“That there is a trend for both right-wing conservatives and fundamentalist religious to discriminate against gays and lesbians is demonstrated by politicians, media and religious leaders all the time.”

Actually, the pendulum has swung the other way.

So, DavidJS, the human rights battle is being won here. Gays and lesbians are stepping up to the full entitlement of rights (and responsibilities) available to every citizen of this secular democracy. Perhaps now, we can turn our minds to the truly disenfranchised, the powerless, the oppressed and the tortured, and our hearts to the reason for it all.

Runner. You quote an extreme rightwing religous organisation to make your point,even though "Dr" Paul Cameron and his analysis on homosexuality has been rebuked by his peers.

His book on relationships also puts into question what is thinking really is!

htt://www.splcenter.org./intel/intelreport/article.jsp.?=363

katie0: << where is this Christian Taliban you referred to? >>

Actually, I think that's a very apt term for some of OLO's godbotherers - indeed, I've used it myself to describe runner, Boazycarp, Gibo et al. Clearly, there are also plenty of sane and reasonable Christian members of OLO (like katie0, for example) who wouldn't warrant that description.

<< the human rights battle is being won here. Gays and lesbians are stepping up to the full entitlement of rights (and responsibilities) available to every citizen of this secular democracy. Perhaps now, we can turn our minds to the truly disenfranchised, the powerless, the oppressed and the tortured, and our hearts to the reason for it all. >>

Hear hear. That's more like it :)

I would agree with you Kipp, particularly about accepting responsibility.

Rates of STD’s in Australia have doubled in the last 10 years, and this is mostly due increased rates of STD’s in the gay community. So there is a highly disproportionate amount of STD’s amongst homosexuals when compared to the rest of the population.

Marriage involves a commitment to one other partner, and marriage is nature’s way of reducing STD’s. If homosexuals do get marriage, they can start and show responsibility, reduce the number of sexual partners they have, and vastly reduce the number of STD’s they have.

Quite a good point there, HRS. Those who attempt to play the gay-sex-STD card should logically be in favour of same-sex marriage as it would reduce the number of sexual partners.

What say you runner? Do you therefore support same-sex marriage?

Not entirely in favor of homosexual marriage TRTL. The main benefit to it would be to help eliminate the high rate of STD’s amongst gays, and help reduce the transient nature of many gay relationships.

However adoption of children by gay couples is questionable, and I would rule out completely lesbian women having children through IVF, thereby denying the child a right to a father.

The Christian Taliban?

Those dogmatic Chrisitians who brook no difference, dissent or discussion that contradicts, challenges, questions or even doubts their vision of the world, a vision handed down from ancient texts and accepted as gospel (pun intended.)

religion accepts the status quo (good for capitalists) and gives the impression the world, the here and now, can change (good for the oppressed.) Since nothing does change fundamentally through their particular god's intermediation or their own religious actions capital laughs all the way to the bank. (Another bad pun which doesn't save the cliché.)

OK. Now it’s getting spooky. First, BD morphed into something else (but is still distinctively BD), and now someone else is writing under CJ’s name (where is the real CJ Morgan? Anyone?)

Passy your linkage of taliban and Christian, is neither original or justifiable.

In summary, you borrow this extremist term to describe dogmatic religionists who conspiratorially buttress and endorse the capitalist state. It is unclear how they stand to benefit from this particular nastiness, although it sits comfortably with their narrow worldview (unless they are already part of the capitalist establishment that desires to prop up the status quo).

Phew. I'm relieved. For a moment there I thought you were making a connection between the brutal, ousted Muslim extremists of Afghanistan, notorious for civil rights abuses - particularly against women - and the surge of American, fundamentalist, right-wing politicians with Christian affiliations (and OLO Christians).

Indeed, you do use your terms loosely. Personifying capitalism, for example.

Capitalism cannot “wage a campaign”, “criminalise homosexual activity” or “see the family as a unit”. A group of capitalists might be able to, but who are these people?

The only explanation for these mysterious friends to the ultra-religious, is that they have existed through history, silently planning and forging secret alliances with the “more backward elements among society”. Quite a history-changing union of power-mongers (the “forces of reaction”) that you’ve assembled there. All existing with the common purpose of bullying homosexuals back into the factory.

Take a big leap in logic, followed by some very long bounds over the historical record, to arrive at the “roots of homophobia” theory.

But since we are on the topic of the causes of rapid homophobia, could you please share how sharia evolved to institutationalise the persecution of homosexuals in the complete absence of capitalism?

Passy, we have a different concept of “eternal”, and we seem to digress on the level of “vigilance” required to protect our democracy too. When solidarity with gay and lesbian rights becomes a compulsion in democracy, then you have lost the very basis of the freedom that democracy serves to protect.

TRTL

'Quite a good point there, HRS. Those who attempt to play the gay-sex-STD card should logically be in favour of same-sex marriage as it would reduce the number of sexual partners.'

Why would you Legitimize something that leads to so much disease and debauchery? It sends the totally wrong message to young kids who might want to risk experimenting with perversion.

katie0: << ...now someone else is writing under CJ’s name (where is the real CJ Morgan? Anyone?) >>

Er... hello katie0.

Unlike most people - including you - I contribute here under my real name, and I'm not aware of anyone else on OLO posting under it.

What makes you think someone else has been posting as me?

KatieO. Are you saying that accepting homosexuality is a challenge to democracy? Surely as a christian you divorce your beliefs from politics and outside influence.

Without respect for the diversity in life, we are without respect for our own beliefs.

Oops. That backfired, CJ. I still remember the days when you told me to shut up and go away. I guess that was the evil twin. ;)

"KatieO. Are you saying that accepting homosexuality is a challenge to democracy? Surely as a christian you divorce your beliefs from politics and outside influence."

Kipp: that must have been a speed-read. I'm saying that a democracy has a room for all sorts and that every opinion is equally valid under the rules of a secular democracy.

Notice though, that when Christians feel compelled to vocalise a warning to a society that promotes a lifestyle incompatible with the word of God, there is a deepening suspicion, lack of tolerance and "respect" for our view.

In a true, secular democracy, gay and lesbian rights are not weighted higher than the need for Christians to meet and worship together, even when such worship includes preaching against practicing the gay and lesbian lifestyle.

Kipp, you wrote: "Without respect for the diversity in life, we are without respect for our own beliefs."

I guess you can't help but preach to me Kipp. However, you'll see that I have a great regard for diversity and have carefully considered different beliefs, even those that belong on the bumper of a car. My sticker would read:

"Without respect for the divinity in life, we are bereft of belief."

runner: "Why would you Legitimize something that leads to so much disease and debauchery? It sends the totally wrong message to young kids who might want to risk experimenting with perversion."

runner, the point is and remains, that if you were genuinely making the argument because you believe the homosexual lifestyle leads to higher rates of disease, then you logically would want to make that lifestyle less prone to disease.

I don't believe this is your reason at all.

Simply because, any doctor will tell you that heterosexual or homosexual sex itself is just as capable of spreading disease.

You can't argue against that point. It's sheer stupidity to even try, since it's well documented and proven. You can only argue that it's the lifestyle that leads to this - the habit of multiple partners and unprotected sex. (Something that isn't unique to homosexuals, but I'll let that slide).

So, clearly, if you really were concerned about disease rates, then you would logically be in favour of same sex marriage, as, if nothing else, it's a way of institutionalising monogamy.

One partner. Less chance of disease spreading.

IF that is your real reason, as opposed to some holier-than-thou-sin-and-god trip.

Yet you're still not in favour of same sex marriage, which is pretty compelling evidence as tp where your real motives lie.

"So, DavidJS, the human rights battle is being won here" says katieO. Yes, I'm cautiously optimistic but it does prove my point that human rights for gays can only come about in countries that at least have some semblence of democracy. Sure, Australia is behind Spain and the Netherlands. But in Spain under Franco, gays rights were unthinkable. The same with the Netherlands when it was occupied by the Nazis.

Totalitarian ideologies, be they religious ones such as Christianity or Islam or secular ones like Stalinism and Nazism can't abide gay rights because gays challenge those ideologies in terms of how men and women are supposed to behave. It is only in countries where adherents of such ideologies have been marginalised that gay rights have a snowball's chance. That's why gays have a better chance of not being killed by the government in Turkey compared with Saudi Arabia (although Islamic fundamentalism in Turkey is a big worry).

Also, every anti-gay regime also restricts the rights of women illustrating the point that anti-gay bigotry is closely linked to sexism

TurnRightThenLeft,

Quite ironic that even the Red Cross realise the much higher risks of taking blood from those practicing homosexuality. You could hardly call them religous.

You also miss the point that I have never hidden the fact that I oppose gay marriage because homosexuality is declared sin and unnatural by God in both new and old testament. The bible again is vindicated by obvious medical facts concerning homosexuality. Face it TRTL sodomy is an extremely unhealthy practice whether you are a believer or not. You only need to be an honest medical person to confirm this fact. No sane parent would want this choice presented to their children as a lifestyle option.

runner, wait a second here:

Which are you saying -

a) Homosexuality has higher rates of disease because of the lifestyle (a point that can be argued)

or b) homosexual sex acts themselves are more likely to spread disease.

If it's b) then why is it heterosexual sex acts, with someone who has an STD, can spread it just as easily?

You can't support your prejudice when it flies in the face of medical fact.

'Fact.'

Are you aware of this word? You can argue point a). You can't actually argue point b). It's idiocy.

Can you clarify for me - are you actually trying to argue that sodomy itself is more likely to spread disease than heterosexual sex?

Either is capable of it, runner. If you're damning sodomy on the basis of disease spreading, you better damn heterosexual sex while you're at it.

Runners paranoia about sexual activity, appears to indicate his/her relationship life is one great sexual romp! There again it may be the opposite

katie0

I have objectified a class. That is true. This is also what religious people do, turning human aspirations into god. As Feurbach said, it is not god who creates man, but man who creates god.

In my defence, the Australian and other ruling classes can speak as one, often through their State (for example the criminalisation of homosexual activity in the 19th century, the support of the first and second imperialist world wars.)

On another point, it is not only religious fundamentalists who are dogmatic, unswerving in their faith, rigorously "applying" the old texts and so on. Some political sects exhibit the same trait.

I prefer Rosa Luxemburg and her injunction to doubt all.

I agree with Passy in that religious fundamentalists and certain political sects persecute homosexuality with equal vigour. Life as a gay person in Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia was just as unsafe as Iran today - perhaps more so. As I said, that is because the rulers of those countries had particular, rigid ideas of how men and women are supposed to lead their lives. Homosexuality challenges these ideas.

I admire TurnLeftThenRight's attempts to present reasonable points when challenging homophobia. But you're on a hiding to nothing. All the literature on children coming out to their parents show that parents abandon their homophobic views after a profound emotional experience - not reasoned argument. They are put in a position of accepting their loved one or keeping their ideas and rejecting their child. Some people can be reached with reason alone but it is those parents (or siblings or even children) who seem set in their anti-gay ideas who can't be reached with rational argument. They need to learn that the undesirable "other" is part of their own family.

DavidJS

Interesting point about political sects in response to my post. I was thinking more about certain left groups whose whole modus operandi is to convert people to the revealed truth.

Of course Stalinism was very anti-gay and pro-procreation (with the order of Lenin going to women who had many children.) I guess the startig years of primitive capital accumulation (ie state capitalism) under Stalin required a massive increase in the workforce, at cheap cost - hence driving peasants off the land, using millions in slave labor, a low wage economy (eg cutting wages by fifty per cent in the 30s) and the motherhood and family fixation.

Some on the left have illusions in Cuba as being somehow socialist. My understanding is the stalinists there brutally suppress(ed??) gays, and may still do so.

It was the Bolsheviks, before the defeat of the revolution and the rise of Stalin, who de-criminalised homosexual activity (from memory.)

'Can't be reached with rational argument.' It is true that some people's homophobia is a deep-seated pathological condition. Such people need help.
But those who think that morality is decided by God and that his determinations are to be found in a sacred text can be reasoned with if they are willing to listen--at least that was my experience in 36 years of teaching university students. It is much easier if they are willing to examine the basis of their belief that moral truths ought to be (or are) determined by what is in the text. The Ghazali postion in Islamic theology and the similar Occamist position in Christian theology for example, that God determines by his unfettered will what good will be, that God actually makes morality--that position implies that God himself is neither good nor bad. Sincere religious people find this difficult, since it in turn implies that adoration and thanksgiving are absurd.

The idea that morality requires a non-moral foundation is harder to dislodge, although it is supect. (I don't think morality needs or can have one, any more than logic can or does.) But you can generally, in open discussion, show a person that they rely, and must rely, on moral positions which depend on their own judgements; that cannot be determined by the Bible or the Koran (or the Upanishads, or whatever).

A third weak point in the view is the belief that the text is a revelation by God, especially if it is supposed to be guaranteed in every detail. Examining the reasons that are given for this view generally exposes moral beliefs that are not based on the sacred texts.

Whether or not the contributors to ALO would be willing to engage in such a discussion, I do not know. It requires a good deal of patience and openness on both sides.

What an ignorant, crapulently postmodernist, Marxist-doggerel article! The author knows nothing about the origins of homophobia. Typical contribution from someone who doesn't understand that his doctrinaire "socialist alternative" is wrecked - foundered on the rock of human nature. The one thing that offers hope of overcoming the evil in human nature, John, is the message of Jesus Christ. Your "socialism" - whether utopian or totalitarian - is a delusion, a cancer of the human spirit.

Glorfindel

Thanks. Your abuse presumably emanates from your Christian viewpoint and/or ethics.

So what do you attribute homophobia to, since I apparently know nothign about it?

Maybe I shouldn't bite but I will. Glorfindel shows his/her ignorance in a number of ways. Sh/e describes the article as post-modern AND Marxist. Anyone who knows the basics of political theories knows that post-modernism and Marxism are mutually exclusive. It's like describing Cardinal Pell as a typical Islamic Christian.

Secondly, anyone who knows anything about Christ's teachings knows He once said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - and He meant it. So, strike two - ignorance of Christianity (and not so much as a stone throwing but more an avalanche here).

Thirdly, Glorfindel accuses the author of knowing nothing about the origins of homophobia - but neglects to enlighten us if s/he knows the answer (nor tells us what human nature is).

And finally, it proves my point that homophobia can only sometimes be dropped by some individuals when they have a profound emotional experience where a loved one's homosexuality conflicts with their beliefs. Reason will not work.

Indeed, DavidJS, and more:

>>Glorfindel shows his/her ignorance in a number of ways<<

You forgot to mention that s/he is also ignorant of the English language - crapulent does not remotely mean what s/he thinks it does.

It cannot even be squeezed into a metaphor.

But the post is so chock-full of rent-a-quote christian rote-speak that it has to be suspect. Methinks someone has invented a new monicker so that they can stir the pot a bit.

After all, nothing gets the OLO juices going more than a good old display of moral rectitude.

Just a troll. Nothing to see here, move on.

Passy - My original post was directed at John Passant, not you.

I was attempting to express in very few words my irritation at a socialist critique of homophobia. As it happens, I am well acquainted with homophobia and homosexuality. I am certainly NOT homophobic - far from it. The origins of homosexuality itself are a mystery .... and I see absolutely no point in demonizing people of non-"standard" sexuality. Some of the gentlest, most sensitive, and also creative people have been and are gay.
As a Christian - and AS A GAY PERSON MYSELF - I deplore the judgmental, sanctimonious evil of the "Christian Right", which so often reduces "morality" only to matters about sex and reproduction (eg abortion) and gay marriage. Those attitudes are selective, hypocritical, uncompassionate and unreflective; they are also unChristian as they clearly run counter to "Let the one among you who is without sin cast the first stone".

(Yes, DavidJS, I am very well acquainted with Christ's words to the mob who brought the woman taken in adultery to Jesus, as a setup by the Pharisees and Sadduccees, trying to induce him to say something contrary to Jewish law. He didn't - he merely asked the mob to examine their own consciences before judging another sinner. That's a pretty salutary lesson.)

It is true that a *literal* reading of the scriptures yields strictures against homosexual practice. I'm not a fundamentalist. Each reference to gay behaviour needs to be read against the historical and situational context at the time it was written. Theologians have written different commentaries on the subject. I have heard the former Moderator of the Uniting Church in Brisbane say that he agrees with every word of Christ in the New Testament on the subject of homosexuality - which is absolutely zero.

The present Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, expressed pretty liberal views of homosexuality before he was enthroned as Archbishop. In his paper 'The Body’s Grace', delivered in 1989 to the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, he asserted:

"In a church that accepts the legitimacy of contraception, the absolute condemnation of same-sex relations of intimacy must rely either on an abstract fundamentalist deployment of a number of very ambiguous biblical texts, or on a problematic and nonscriptural theory about natural complementarity, applied narrowly and crudely to physical differentiation without regard to psychological structures."

Also in 1989 he founded the 'Institute for the Study of Christianity and Sexuality' (which in 1996 became the 'Centre for the Study of Christianity and Sexuality'). This was an effort to make the Anglican Church's moral stance on homosexuality more accepting. His views are shared by MANY non-fundamentalist Christians.

And now, to the ORIGINS of homophobia.

I was quite irritated at John Passant's comment, in his eclectic recital of history, "This is precisely the thinking that led the ruling elite under capitalism to attack homosexuality." I used together the words postmodernist and Marxist in my "abuse" of the article because it seemed to me quite inappropriate to apply to this subject the same, tired, doctrinaire leftist, "critical literacy" deconstruction which so tiresomely enjoins students to examine "discourses" through the standard filters of feminism and Marxism.

I don't believe that homophobia can be attributed to any particular economic system. (I also have difficulty with Passant's characterization of the economic system in fourth century Roman Empire as 'capitalist'. The term seems rather pointless before the rise of forces which were capable of generating significant 'surplus value'.)

The three Abrahamic faiths all have traditions opposing homosexuality, going back to the story of Lot and the men of Sodom (Genesis 19). Christianity appropriated the Jewish scriptures as its Old Testament. In Islam, the Koran makes specific recognition of the people "to whom we gave the Book" [the Jewish scriptures] and includes in itself repeated paraphrases (albeit wildly inaccurate ones!) of content from the Jewish scriptures. It also recognizes the Injeel (gospel) but shows no influence from it or from Christ's teachings - being a precipitate rush back to "eye for eye and tooth for tooth", belief in retaliation rather than forgiveness.

Heh - what a fascinating analysis. I particularly like Glorfindel's succinct and subjective rejection of Passy's economic reductionism.

While I can't imagine what it would be like to be a gay Christian and all the necessary rationalisation that would entail, it seems to me that there's a bit more to homophobia than Passy's historical materialist analysis allows.

Sorry Glorfindel, I am John Passant.

Fou say:

"I don't believe that homophobia can be attributed to any particular economic system. (I also have difficulty with Passant's characterization of the economic system in fourth century Roman Empire as 'capitalist'. The term seems rather pointless before the rise of forces which were capable of generating significant 'surplus value'.)"

First, I haven't re-read my article, but where do I say Roman society is capitalist? I would not say that.

Second, most seem to have misconstrued my point that the drive against homosexuality in Victorian England may have harnessed homophobia in its religious guise for another purpose - to strenghten the family unit as a cheap means of producing the next generation of workers.

So, allow me a question. Was there a drive against homosexuality in Victorian England?

It may be my speculative ramblings could have been better expressed but they are definitely not post-modernist, or reductionist for that matter.

Crapulent by the way means over indulging or resulting from alcohol. I can assure you I was sober. It reads sort of soberly.

A joke. What do you get if you cross a post-modernist with the mafia. An offer you can't understand. Boom boom.

Hi Passy, thanks for the clarification. And the joke :-) To add to my unfinished posts:

Within Zoroastrianism, a non-Abrahamic monotheistic faith, a majority discourage homosexuality.

While Hinduism has no scriptural strictures against homosexuality, there is plenty of anti-homosexual tradition within it.

Theravada Buddhism tends to see homosexuality and other alternative forms of sexuality as karmic punishments for heterosexual misconduct in a past life. It doesn't much support gay rights. Tibetan Buddhism is ambivalent but the Dalai Lama has said the purpose of sex in general is for procreation, so homosexual acts do seem a bit unnatural.

Confucianism disapproves of homosexuality as not conducive to reproduction which would discharge responsibility to ancestors and country.

Taoism sees heterosexuality as according with harmony between yin and yang.

Japanese Shintoism does not appear to be homophobic.

I don't see any of these as related to capitalism, or requiring Marxist analysis!

I know 'crapulent' means 'intemperant'. But what a waste of the juicy sound of this word! Let me recall to you:
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

Now, to get back to Marxist analysis of 'capitalism and gays'. John, I find your fixation on Marxism - a rigidly materialistic world view - one-dimensional, a shortchanging of the richness of life and the complexities of human behaviour. It gives no moral compass to one's life (except the frightening 'whatever serves the revolution'), and reflects a depressing poverty of the human spirit.

Dostoyevsky and Solzhenitsyn (warts and all) pointed to the vital importance of non-materialist, transcendental values in giving meaning to life. Solzhenitsyn in his Harvard address in 1978 spoke of "the calamity of an autonomous, irreligious humanistic consciousness" which “has made man the measure of all things on earth—imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects.

We are now paying for the mistakes which were not properly appraised at the beginning of the journey. On the way from the Renaissance to our days we have enriched our experience, but we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility.” [end of Solzhenitsyn quote]

Marxism and other ideological -isms can appeal to the (non-materialist) idealism in well-meaning people. But the depressing reality has so regularly been that human nature's tendency to selfishness, callousness and desensitization fouls the nest.

John, that's why I react to your sustained crusade for socialism with irritation. Let me say, I lived for a year in the Soviet Union in the late sixties, and despise today’s Socialist Alliance as Totalitarian Left scum.

I DO believe in social justice and community, and I hate economic rationalism's identification of 'efficiency' as the fundamental objective of public policy, rather than 'the well-being of people in our community'. Of course I voted for Rudd.

But I believe that personal transformation of individuals, the internalization into our personal selves of moral principles, is an essential element of our quest for a better society. Jesus was absolutely on-message when he said "The kingdom of God is WITHIN YOU.

Glorfindel

You say:

""Marxism and other ideological -isms can appeal to the (non-materialist) idealism in well-meaning people. But the depressing reality has so regularly been that human nature's tendency to selfishness, callousness and desensitization fouls the nest.

John, that's why I react to your sustained crusade for socialism with irritation. Let me say, I lived for a year in the Soviet Union in the late sixties, and despise today’s Socialist Alliance as Totalitarian Left scum."

Stalin murdered those in my poltical current. Stalinism was the defeat of the revolution becuase it failed, narrowly, to win in Germany.
I am not a member of Socailist Alliance but don't see how you can describe them as totalitarian left scum, since you appear to know little about them (or Socialist Alternative, the group I am a member of.) Those of us who opposed and oppose stalinism in all its forms and value demcoratic rule and production for meeting human need aren't totalitarian. Others can judge whether we are leftists and/or scum.

To give a current example. I oppose the Russian invasion of Georgia (just as I opposed the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan). Short of a world in which competing imperialisms are no more (ie socialism, not stalinism) I want the Ossetians and Georgians to be free of both brands of imperialism. Only struggle against both oppressors can achieve that.

The fact that various religions (perhaps left overs from an age of superstition, ignorance and mass poverty except for the ruling class) display homophobic tendencies can be explained in materialist terms relating to those times. Those tendencies are then adapted for the purposes of the propogation of the family in capitalist times. (I think there's a joke in there somewhere.)

The idea that human nature is immutable is just wrong. What is natural to one society is not to another. The present economic system brings out and emphasises greed and this is as true of western capitalism as it was of state capitlaism. Even then the humanity of people breaks through despite the seemingly overwhelming pall of despair and self interest cast over us.

"But I believe that personal transformation of individuals, the internalization into our personal selves of moral principles, is an essential element of our quest for a better society" says Glorfindel.

Unfortunately, this is not possible if human nature is fixed. If it is fixed, nobody can be transformed in terms of their thinking. Homophobia, for instance, will always be with us if you believe that. Fortunately, I know that to be untrue. For starters, sexual orientation (let alone homosexuality) was a concept unknown prior to the 19th Century. Something had to change within human thinking in order to understand such concepts. Some societies, such as Spain used to be virulently homophobic. Now Spain recognises same-sex marriage. Something significant changed when that society went from accepting a Catholic dictator to voting in a government which regarded same-sex marriage as a human right.

Actually, I do believe there are things that make up human nature - reason and emotion. And what we regard as reasonable and what we get emotional about changes from time to time.

Good point DavidJS.

If human nature is fixed then aspirations for change are tilting at windmills. That would be as true for me as it would be for Glorfindel

I suspect Glorfindel's answer will be that we can change if we embrace [insert name of chosen god here.]

My response is that humans do change and their nature (while it may be hot wired) is multi-layered and subject to shifting emphases depending on the underlying economic nature of that society.

And economic nature of society itself changes over time through the conscious actions of human beings.

Passy - you denied being postmodernist, but surely your statement of relativism is just that?

You said: "What is natural to one society is not to another." Up to a point that’s true, but discernment is needed of what is dismissible as relative and what isn't. Can you say of female genital mutilation, and of general monstering of women, "It's OK in their culture"?

You describe religions as " left overs from an age of superstition, ignorance and mass poverty except for the ruling class". Really? Pursuit of the numinous is far from dead. The New Age phenomenon, egregiously gullible and commercially-driven, is one manifestation. But religion itself is certainly not dying - see Samuel Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations, Chapter 4, section ‘La Revanche de Dieu’.

State-associated Christianity, since Constantine, has been a disaster, a betrayal of what Christ taught. Martin Luther King Jr said rightly: “The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool.”

You say "The idea that human nature is immutable is just wrong." Brave! Give me a SINGLE example of a successful utopia. New Australia - defunct. The USSR - a cesspit; Trotsky, though less coarse, was no less totalitarian than Stalin. Mao called millions dead "manure of history". Pol Pot. EVIL – same as The Grand Inquisitor! If you're interested in Russia immediately after the revolution, have you read Yevgeny Zamyatin's brilliant short novel "We" (1921)? Unnervingly prescient of the logical consequences of “scientific socialism”; written before Stalin.

The Soviet Union tried to create a 'new Soviet man' free from the shackles of past acculturation. Moral vacuum after 1991!

A few years ago in Melbourne I observed the demonstration protesting the second anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. The Socialist Alliance stand in front of the State Library was manned by a young man sporting a DDR t-shirt. Great - emblem of a regime that shot people who didn't want to live there!

Passy, you say you "value democratic rule and production for meeting human need". But you don't envisage pluralist democracy. Socialist Alternative's website describes itself as "revolutionary Marxist".

After digging a fair bit into Socialist Alternative, the other half-dozen or so Trotskyist groups in Australia, and Socialist Alliance, I have to say in relation to ALL of you: I reach for the silver spike and hammer. WRONG WAY GO BACK, John. With an agenda like that, and the bizarre view that you Marxists have of the Australian people and their aspirations, I can think only of Brutus's words to Cassius (yes, out of context) : "all the voyage of their [YOUR] life is bound in shallows and in miseries."

I think MANY of the issues your SA website espouses are misconceived. Your attitude toward “Islamophobia” is crazy. Islamists would bury YOU, chum, including your championing of gay rights and feminism. Do you know anything about Islamic theology? I do.

The Current Edition contains an article by Liam Byrne "Was there a parliamentary alternative in Russia in 1917?" The article omits to point out that the Provisional Government which had ruled from March 1917 until the Bolshevik coup on 25 October had been acutely aware of its lack of legitimacy, because the Fourth Duma had been elected on a very restricted franchise. In late autumn, it staged free and fair elections for a Constituent Assembly with unchallengeable legitimacy as the will of the people. This finally met on 18 January 1918. Its 707 members included 370 Socialist Revolutionaries (SRs – 52%), 40 Left SRs (6%), 170 Bolsheviks (24%), 34 Mensheviks (5%), and 93 deputies from other parties (13%). It met on 18 January 1918 and Lenin had troops disperse it the following day. Even with allies from the Left SRs, the Bolsheviks were still barely 30% of the people's will. SO MUCH FOR DEMOCRACY.

Count me as implacably on opposing barricades to you!

I would have thought that capitalists would be more accepting of homosexuals than non-capitalists, such as the Marxists.

Capitalists don’t like to loose a customer, so they wouldn’t be readily turning a homosexual away, (at least if the homosexual had money to spend).

Marxists and various other non-capitalists on the other hand don’t seem to care much about anyone. They will put a bullet in someone whether they are homosexual, heterosexual, man, woman or child. This was done to many millions last century.

HRS “would have thought that capitalists would be more accepting of homosexuals than non-capitalists.”

I would agree.

Lets face it, socialist / communists believe no person should be allowed to stand out.

They should be allowed to wear only the same drab and dour garb.
(Theirs is not the place for creatively minded and artistic male fashion designers and hair dressers who talk with a lisp).

Alternatively the capitalists value and rely on the individuality and innovation of the creatively minded (gay or otherwise),

And your point about customers is true too, a capitalist will seek to service (poor choice of words on my part) the gay market no differently to the heterosexual market,

Agree with your comments too about the ability of the socialist/communists to our-count Hitler in terms of killing people in the name of their politics.

Passant’s article is just an example of the wedge politics of the failed who refuse to accept their political time had come

and now has gone

Glorfindel, I suggest people read an interesting 2005 article on the homosexuality issue by Rachel Morgan. http://www.sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=519&Itemid=106

In your more recent posts you say that we socialists are totalitarian leftist scum apparently because one demonstrator wore a DDR T shirt. That's an interesting way to form your views.

You say that you'll be on the other side of the barricades to me. That puts you with the imperialist butchers and all the homophobes.

You hold up the Constituent Assembly as the democratic alternative to the Bolsheviks.

First, these were elections for an assembly to develop a bourgeois constitution, not a parliament. Second, the workers, peasants and soldiers councils were more democratic since constiuents had the right of immediate recall of delegates. Third the Constituent Assembly elections were held before the ripening of the revolution.

The Social Revolutionaries' ticket was dominated by the right SRs. Few left SRs were on the ballot. The ripening of the revolution after the Constituent Assembly elections saw a swing to the left SRs on the ground and their split from the right SRs.

They were in the Bolsheviks' first government.

The working class was a small minority in Russian society. But given their social and economic power, they pulled the rest of society behind them. Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution was vindicated by the events of February to Novemebr 1917 with the culmination of the transfer of power to the councils. See Sandra Bloodworth's When Workers took power in russia.

The defeat of the German revolutions meant the Russian revolution did not have the material base to survive and led to the rise of Stalin.

If the Russian revolution was a Bolshevik coup, then it seems strange that the working class and peasantry fought a civil war for three years against the return of the capitalist class and landed aristocracy. The reds successfully defeated not only the reactionaries (who if they had won would not have set up democracy but fascism) but also 14 foreign armies, including Australia.

Coups don't have mass support.

Glorfindel

Socialism cannot exist without democracy, and democracy cannot exist without socialism. I suggest you read Marx on the Paris Commune for example to understand the link, or even the Communist Manifesto where he talks about socialism beign the movement of the majority for the majority.

CJ described you as a troll. You are not. You are an elf. (That is a bad joke for those in the know.)

As to those who think capitalism wlecomes all consumers, including homosexual conusmers, how do you explain the criminalisaton of homesxual activity? For some time it was a capital offence in Australia. The last hanging was in 1830.Homosexual activity was decriminalised in the UK in 1967, and around the same time in NSW. Not sure about othe states. Was homosexual activity only recently de-criminalised in Tasmania?

The pink dollar is an important issue, but my view is that pink capital further ghettoises homosexuals. Rather than confronting homophobia the pink capitalists see the market for their products as other gays. They create pockets of gay consuemrs and so reinforce the idea of separation from society.

Passy: << CJ described you [Glorfindel] as a troll. >>

Not me, old chap. Quite the reverse, in fact - I applauded Glorfindel's rejection of the economic reductionism inherent in your historical materialist analysis.

Passy,
I think that certain consumer items such as clothes are now becoming a mild pink. If someone doesn't like capitalism, then they should live in a society where there is no capitalism. I don't think they would live for very long.

But because someone is heterosexual, it does not mean that they are homophobic. The repeated use of the word homophobia now defines people as being either heterosexual or homosexual.

Passy - I am indeed "an elf-lord revealed in his wrath", fighting spiritually dead Nazgul in thrall to Evil.

In 2x350 words a day, I can't adequately deal with Rachel Morgan's article on homosexuality. But Bible-literalists oppose homosexuality for theological, not economic reasons. There is also "culture" in this. After brief experimentation with sexual liberation after the Russian revolution, right throughout the Soviet period which nearly extirpated religion, and up to now, Russia remains culturally very homophobic.

I remind you too that the Marxist ruler of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, is violently homophobic!

Rachel writes "To challenge homophobia, we need to challenge the material basis underpinning it - the family, the laws, the state and the BOSSES WHO BENEFIT, all of which has shaped a society in which oppression of lesbians and gay men is virulent and systemic." The reference to bosses is pitiful. Green cheese, anyone? If homosexuality is seen as undermining the economic basis of society, for heaven's sake, what about all the Victorian old maids, and unmarried priests? Why didn't the owners of capital go after them too?

Rachel writes "[Australian] Muslims are unlikely to be any less tolerant of lesbians and gay men than other religious people." I don't believe it. Islam in Australia is growing by reproduction and immigration. Immigration generally (except from Turkey) is from VERY homophobic cultures with draconian punishments for homosexual activity. Indeed, Islamic, especially Arab, South Asian and Iranian cultures are pathologically obsessed with sex, because of the tremendous obstacles they put in the way of any social dealings between the sexes before marriage, and often after as well.

George Bernard Shaw wrote “There is no harder scientific fact in the world than the fact that belief can be produced in practically unlimited quantity and intensity, without observation or reasoning, and often in defiance of both, by the simple desire to believe founded on a strong interest in believing.” For a different context, but equally applicable to your own uncritically Marxist filter on reality.

You align me with "imperialist butchers". Really? Like all the Left-ideological murderers of the last century?

Passy - you say "Socialism cannot exist without democracy, and democracy cannot exist without socialism." I despise Derrida, but quote "There is nothing beyond the text" and ask what YOU mean by "democracy".

Do you mean "democratic centralism", as applied by a party with a permanent monopoly on power, to the population? Lenin, not Stalin, instituted a "temporary" ban on factions within the CPSU in 1921, making democratic procedures an empty formality.

Through the "economism" of Labour parties in the bourgeois-democratic system, the economic life of many millions of people has been improved without loss of physical and intellectual freedom.

There's not been many Trotskyist socialist regimes one can judge, but Hugo Chavez calls himself a Trotskyist. I watch with interest to see his legacy by 2012 when his term runs out. In 2007 he narrowly (51%) lost a referendum to remove the constitutional limit on presidential terms - surely that proposal was a worry? Reckon he'll do a Putin?

You say of the Russian revolution "the working class and peasantry fought a civil war for three years against the return of the capitalist class and landed aristocracy. The reds successfully defeated not only the reactionaries (who if they had won would not have set up democracy but fascism)..."

The peasantry never sought collectivization (a disaster later). And it's untrue that Whites ("reactionaries") would have established fascism. Most intellectuals were in the White camp - including Miliukov, leader of the Kadets - vehemently left-liberal. Actually, one sees much fascism in POST-SOVIET political culture.

You say the Constituent Assembly elections were for an assembly to develop a bourgeois constitution, not a parliament. Leaving aside the jargon "bourgeois" (which here means only "democratic"), of course this was a first step - to parliamentary democracy.

You say "the workers', peasants' and soldiers' councils were more democratic since constituents had the right of immediate recall of delegates." - What meaningful democratic recall remained later? And "Third the Constituent Assembly elections were held before the ripening of the revolution." Ripening is a misnomer. The Provisional Government failed because it didn't stop the war.

Glorfindel

You accuse me of postmodernism then quote Derrida at me! I am not into deconstruction, although I was tempted to disguise a book proposal as deconstructing tax law in Australia. (No, it hasn't been published becasue it is an idea still in my head.)

The Whites were not Liberal Democrats. The white Terror was fascism.

The defeat of the revolution saw the rise of Stalin and with it the rise of pro-family propaganda about breeding for the revolution (really breeding future generations for state capitalism.) The rise of Stalin saw too attacks on homosexuality, on women and on wages, all consistent with building state capitalism in Russia.

Lenin did temporarily ban factions in the Communist party to save the revolution. Whether he was right to do so is a debatable question. But by then the councils were shells since the working class no longer existed as a class in 1921 and the Bolsheviks were attempting to save the revolution through substituing themselves for the class, hoping for revolutions in the West to save their revolution. That didn't happen and the revolution destroyed itself from within, ie Stalin came to power and then built state capitalism.

Mugabe is not a marxist. His homophobia comes from his Catholicism.

Chavez is not a marxist. He is a left wing populist wedded to the wage slave system.

Castro is not a marxist. The state caplitalism he created is homophobic.

The working class is central to Marx's concept of socialism. It is the agent of its own change - thus marx's idea about the class of and for itself.

In the Paris Commune he wrote about smashing the state, a concept Lenin finally understood in State and Revolution in 1917 when he saw the Workers, peasants and soldiers Councils as the alternative state. All power to the Soviets was not an empty slogan but an expression of the reality of the time and a joining of marxist theory and practice. These democratic organs surpassed the fake democracy of the constituent assembly, whose abolition went unremarked and unlamented at the time.

Glorfindel

The guard is tired.

(This is an obscure historical reference.)

I think we can continue this and a range of other debates when other articles of mine are published.

Or when you publish something.

Thanks Passy - and good 1918 reference :-)

No *personal* offence was intended to be given, or taken either, in our interchanges.

I'm not tribal in my politics. The only thing that really upsets me is repressive intolerance of different views. I also focus on ends rather than technical means. So I equally dislike doctrinaire "socialization" prescriptions, and the neoliberal broken records played in the Australian's letters column over years by Victor Diskordia of Mackellar ACT. At an environmental economics conference in Sept 1990 I heard Alan Moran (Tasman Institute) deliver himself of the breathtaker: The solution to problems like the Franklin River is to put the river up for sale, see who buys it, and let the market decide. Duuhhhh !

Life and people are rarely just black or white. I generally despise the economic views of Jane Albrechtsen in the Oz, but see good sense in her writings against postmodernism in education and the craven cowardice of the West in dealing with aggressive fundamentalist Islam.

Radical socialists are surely scions of the Enlightenment; so I am bewildered at the Left's attitude toward Islam. Nick Cohen (What's Left? how liberals lost their way, 2007) said it all. If it's seen as anti-American, it can be forgiven ANY monstrous outrages of its own. That's intellectual hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy!

As I said before, I think we are individually and collectively LOST if we don't have an internal moral compass. "Whatever serves the revolution" is NOT an acceptable criterion for good vs bad. Dostoyevsky (Brothers Karamazov) puts it well: If God doesn't exist, then everything is permitted. Kant is a bit more subtle, perhaps: There can be no physical proof of the existence of God, but it is in ALL our interests to behave AS IF he does.

Another good book I like is Francis Wheen: How mumbo-jumbo conquered the world, 2004.

By the way, academically I'm a Russian specialist - language, history, culture, literature.

Thanks Glorfindel. Apart from your first post I enjoyed the debate.

As to a moral compass, where do these come from? From our minds, influenced and shaped by the society around us?

If they are external, then what explains the moral compass that produces for example on the one hand "thou shalt not kill" and on the other the just war, or which hangs (or used to hang) people for homosexual activity?

I haven't read it for some time, and forget the context in which it was written and its basic premise to be frank, but I'll have a look at Their Morals and Ours again.

The revolution right or wrong? The Communist Party right or wrong? I don't buy those prescriptions.

Of course socialists are children of The Enlightenment. I think you misjudge Socialist Alternative's views on Islamism. Chris Harman's the Prophet and the Proletariat is a good place to start. The argument we have is with islamophobia and its racism, and the use of the fear of the "other" to weld working people to the bosses' system.

I despise postmodernism. The current discussion in the Australian's Higher Education Supplement was started by a leftist who attacked postmodernism. What's that saying? Facts are difficult things?

That doesn't detract from the view that different societies have different values, I don't think, nor the conclusion that George Bush and his economic clique (or Obama or McCain) are the biggest threat (along with Putin and Hu and the European leaders) to peace.

I suggest you read Sandra's pamphlet on the 1917 revolution. I know you will vehemently disagree with the basic premise, but I think it makes a cogent case for the sorts of ideas I have been arguing here.

What was it Marx wrote? Men make history, but not of their own choosing?

Sandra Bloodworth Russia 1917: When workers took power (not sure about the title, but you can find it on the socialist alternative website www.sa.org.au I am sure.)

Glorfindel

I liked Don Watson's Weasle Words. And the head of the Commonwealth Attorney general's Department retired recently after 8 years and lambasted the public service for its bizzare and obfuscatory use of English.

I reviewed Francis Wheen's book on Marx many years ago. I think I was a bit harsh on him at the time.

Glorfindel

I liked Don Watson's Weasel Words. And the head of the Commonwealth Attorney general's Department retired recently after 8 years and lambasted the public service for its bizzare and obfuscatory use of English.

I reviewed Francis Wheen's book on Marx many years ago. I think I was a bit harsh on him at the time.