I expect simple behaviours here. Friendship, and love. Any advice should be from the perspective of the person asking, not the person giving! We have had to make new membership moderated to combat the huge number of spammers who register
Location: US/Canada
Registered: September 2009
Messages: 733
By Brody Levesque (Bethesda, Maryland) July 11 | There's been discussions regarding religious claptrap before numerous times here at IoMfAtS, thus I am going to just simply add this to the mix without further comment:
Location: Worcester, England
Registered: January 2005
Messages: 1560
Brody Levesque wrote:
> By Brody Levesque (Bethesda, Maryland) July 11 | There's been discussions regarding religious claptrap before numerous times here at IoMfAtS, thus I am going to just simply add this to the mix without further comment:
Umm ... I think you're trying to provoke another fight.
I don't think any of us would seek to defend those who persecute others - whether they do so because of their religious beliefs (as in the clip), or because of purely atheist beliefs (as was common in the former USSR, the regime of Pol Pot, etc).
It would help some of us feel less unwelcome here if you were more careful and more charitable in understanding the diversity of gay people - and, I suspect, less off-putting to any young lurkers who may come from religious families and be struggling to reconcile upbringing with their sexual orientation.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
Location: tampa bay,USA
Registered: August 2005
Messages: 371
Excuse me for being 'thick headed' but what in the hell does this video have to do with anything here ?
I can get on the CNN website as well as any member/lurker. If anyone can stumble onto this website, like I did 6 years ago, they can surely find all they want about the injustices of the Indian caste society. That video was not needed.
aqua
There is a sacredness in tears. They are not the mark of weakness, but of power. They speak more eloquently than ten thousand tongues. They are the messengers of overwhelming grief, of deep contrition, and of unspeakable love. Washington Irving
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
I've been wondering about this video, so I watched every minute of it.
I started with aqualino's reaction. His post prompted me to watch it. He asks, not unreasonably why the video is here. That's for Brody to tell us, though he left it here uncommented upon. But I have drawn my own conclusions.
If you watch no other part of it, do two things. First note that the people are killed for allegedly bringing dishonour to their families. And now watch from about 2 minutes 40 towards the end.
I wonder if you will reach the conclusion I reached about relevance.
I see that the video is about fundamentalism. It's not that clear at first, but it becomes clear. Whether this is religious fundamentalism or not is outside my knowledge, but it is certainly about social fundamentalism. "The boy called on my daughter at midnight." that brought shame upon her family, so they killed him. And they killed her.
Nothing gay there, so it's not relevant, right?
I think Brody needs to interact with us better. He has a lot to say and doesn't always say it well. I'm working with him on that. But then he's not a tabloid journalist, he has different skills. Oddly, communication is not one of his best ones, at least in this forum!
And no, there's nothing gay in this video unless you extrapolate it.
"He came to visit my son at midnight. I caught them in an embrace!"
And why not? This news item happens to be heterosexual, but it could be homosexual too.
Now turn your attention to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Uganda. Look at religious fundamentalism. And tell me whether you feel the video has relevance, now? It's awkward relevance, yes, I grant you that. I ask so often for a commentary when things are posted. This would have benefited from one
NW, I don't think Brody is trying to pick a fight. I just think his words and posts here are often less than (can't find the right word here). I'm not saying anything I haven't said to him directly. Maybe we need to, not cut him slack, but lead him into the light. He's a decent bloke, but expresses himself unwisely rather too often.
Location: U.S.
Registered: November 2009
Messages: 630
I don't wonder anymore when Brody posts something out of the blue, it appears for a reason. In this case I would imagine it is from a sense of disbelief that these killings still happen in the modern age. India is a world class power with a third world mindset, things like this do not bode well for their future.
But why is it here you ask? Do gay and bisexual men only speak to their own small set of issues? Are we to ignore the greater problems of the world around us? If we did that then we would be no different in our ignorance than those involved in this outlandish behavior fostered by the caste system in India.
As a gay man I ask others to see me as normal, to accept me for who I am. We are all bound by the human condition, surrounded by those who hate themselves so much they must hate us to hide that fact. To ask for acceptance while watching others suffer from mindless discrimination makes us look absurd.
Don't you think the gay world has its own caste system? Is that man too gay, too feminine, too old? Do we not make value judgements of other gay men based upon appearance, the car they drive, the way they talk? I think we do and it is so disgusting it makes me want to spit.
If we internalize the despair we feel when we discover incidents like this honor killing and don't share it with others then we fail in our attempt to communicate the lack of humanity in issues like this. It is just too easy to ignore what we don't want to see.
I don't like being told that the world is one big society while we ignore the slavery of children who make our shoes, stand by as tens of thousands die from working in factories that churn out the goods at Walmart or listen to politicians make excuses. India is supposed to be the up and coming new world order, the US has outsourced so much to that place and only succeeded in overlooking the human rights issues because of our greed.
I trust Brody placed the video news bite for a good reason. It would be better to ask how it makes him feel rather than snapping at him. If you doubt his contributions to a gay forum then you don't know him very well.
Age appears to be best in four things; old wood best to burn, old wine to drink, old friends to trust, and old authors to read. (Sir Francis Bacon 1561-1626)
Location: Worcester, England
Registered: January 2005
Messages: 1560
Shortly after Brody started posting here, we had some kind of heated debate about just re-posting stuff from elsewhere without any kind of personal link, reaction, or input. It's something I've picked up on at least once subsequently, as well.
I really don't see this as the place to baldly re-post news with no personal input, and I absolutely have not seen it as somewhere that is prescriptive: that assumes all LGBTQQ people share the same religious or political views. The exploration of difference and diversity has for me always been one of the strengths here.
Sadly, I haven't felt for a while that this was any longer the case, and my posts have therefore been a lot less frequent.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
Location: Worcester, England
Registered: January 2005
Messages: 1560
timmy wrote:
(snip) I see that the video is about fundamentalism. It's not that clear at first, but it becomes clear. Whether this is religious fundamentalism or not is outside my knowledge, but it is certainly about social fundamentalism.
Brody said "There's been discussions regarding religious claptrap before numerous times here at IoMfAtS, thus I am going to just simply add this to the mix without further comment:"
Nothing there about fundamentalism - merely a side-swipe at religion. Brody is a wordsmith by trade - if he'd meant "fundamentalism" I'd expect him to say that: having a firm grasp of one's primary tool of communication (language) is surely a professional essential!
Despite what some would have us believe, many varieties of many religions embrace and value LGBTQQ people ... and many of us have some religious affiliation, though many of us do not. Fundamentalist atheists can be just as bigotted and intolerant of diversity as fundamentalists of any other persuasion ...
If this truly is to be a place of safety, both those who have some religious belief and those who definitely do not must be able to feel welcome and valued here. Those who are old and those who are young. Those who have been "out" for all their adult lives - decades in some cases, and those who have never come out to anyone. Those who are pacifists, and those who are not. At the moment, I'm starting to feel that that's not the case: there seems to be a developing orthodoxy about the "right" way to be gay, and I don't subscribe to any such notion.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
I hope I am not guilty of encouraging polarisation. The only correct way to be gay, if there is such a thing, is to be one's self.
I am on the side of campaigning for, well, not gay rights as much as simple human rights. I don;pt see that as being gay, I see that as something I wish to do in order to attempt to give something to the generations that follow. And yet I am deeply critical of some gay rights activists.
If I return, briefly, to the clip, I can see how it can be understood to be religious fundamentalism, but I don;t understand hinduism at all, so am not competent to make a real comment. All I really see is that some cultural things are unacceptable.
If we extrapolate this, for example, to the perplexing world of the US fundamentalist missionary christian (I use the lower case c on purpose) and the interference in Uganda, for example, then I can see that one might conflate the two things (that word has to be newly minted, surely?) and be able to discuss honour murders i the same paragraph, but I see no simple linkage between the two.
Or, apart from pure fundamentalism there is no easy linkage.
But does that mean I am fundamentalist in my dogmatic opposition to fundamentalism?
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
I'm not really sure that was helpful, Nigel. It feels like those games lessons where captains picked sides. You have the skill and vocabulary to say what you feel yourself rather than hanging on coat tails.
Where you see something is wrong it is helpful to work towards a resolution. Now we don't all do that all the time. Indeed why should we? But, when we see something that goes against the grain and feel strongly enough about that to comment, then I think we should comment differently.
Location: England
Registered: November 2003
Messages: 1756
Timmy, I am sitting here sucking my thumb and looking up at you with my big blue eyes. I understand that I am being rebuked, but not sure I understand why.
Perhaps my message was misunderstood, or its purpose. For the years I have been here I have read NW's posts with interest and respect, but… our personal philosophies are poles apart and I rarely engage with him for lack of common ground. My intention was to appreciate something NW wrote and agree with him.
When we had the meeting of the magnificent six and a half in London on the 1 December 2008 NW was the one person I didn't have a personal conversation with, and I have always regretted that. Fear of the unknown?
I didn't view what I said as hanging on coat tails. I always try to be concise in words and actions and therefore see no point in repeating what someone has said before me far more eloquently.
I can no longer give chapter and verse, but I am sure I have written many times over the years about clashes of personality, and felt that I have been officially ignored.
Finally, two apologies, one for doing it the wrong way and secondly for talking about NW rather than to him.
Hugs
Nigel
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
The sole problem is that it appeared very much like taking sides.
We should have no sides here. We have people. Some we like and get along with, others we like but have no common ground with, others we not only have no common ground with, we dislike. And there are many other shades of that, too. We will always have personality clashes. The mark of whether we succeed here is how we handle those.
We should be able to agree and disagree without feeling the need to be backed up or back others up. The art of doing this is subtle. We can't just do "what he said" posts and feel we have done our bit. We each have something unique to add.
If we use Brody's post(s) as a case in point there is something that each of us will derive from it (them) that others did not or do not, or can not, or will not. We can be hostile to a post or welcome it, but we know for sure that the poster had a reason, even a tenuous one, for posting it.
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
I think it also comes down to imperfections. Sometimes other folk have imperfections we find difficult to get along with. I have loads. I'm sure you do, too, so have we all.
Location: England
Registered: November 2003
Messages: 1756
I think you are being too altruistic here, Timmy. Newton told us that you cannot have action without friction = heat and that stretches beyond the world of physics. Extrapolate that and you wouldn't have discussion without argument, the board would not be here.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think I have only made protestations (= clash of personality) when someone has been rude. You can argue, discuss, disagree without being rude, as we are now. If you are part of an argument, can you avoid taking sides? Otherwise you stay out of it.
Yes, we all have imperfections and I have a father who has always kept me thoroughly up to date about mine, and still does. The art is to turn those imperfections into strengths.
I think slowly I am getting what you are driving at, but I am not yet at the stage where I can see what is wrong with giving others support. Okay, to put it another way that must mean taking sides. You may rest assured that if I think I have something to contribute, I shall contribute it.
Hugs
Nigel
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
I'm not particularly virtuous, but I try very hard to be altruistic. I dont think one can be too altruistic. One can be naïve, of course. I try hard in a discussion to hold my own and to argue my own viewpoint and only my own. I'm happy to quote "When Fred said X I found I agreed with him" but I am unlikely to say that I support Fred.
Yes, the distinction is subtle, but it is, to me, important.
And no, I don't always get it right.
Your statement "You may rest assured that if I think I have something to contribute, I shall contribute it." is something I applaud because it echoes my own sentiments. We should each contribute the things we have to contribute. I simply can't extend it in my mind to simple posts of agreement. In that manner cliques form.
Interestingly, or perhaps not, the preceding paragraph is an example of reinforcing someone's comment without taking sides or backing it to the hilt. I do appreciate the double edged nature of your statement, too.
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Honor Killings With Torture, Electrocution (Commentary) 
