Alright people, it’s time to talk about sex. Specifically, it’s time to talk about Mr. Halford’s sexual orientation. Kids and homophobes, please leave the room.
Rob Halford apparently came out in an MTV interview in 1998. In VH1’s Behind The Music on Judas Priest, he stated that he wasn’t comfortable coming out until that point, and that hiding his homosexuality caused him to suffer from depression that he medicated with alcohol and drugs. Between modern society’s general prejudice toward homosexuality, the metal scene’s attitudes about gender and sexuality, and the unjustified ‘gay-plague/GRID’ scares in the ’80s, I totally understand why he waited to come out until ‘98, well after he’d left Priest behind.
The problem is, regardless of what Rob Halford says, I think he actually came out in 1977 in a Judas Priest song. It’s called “Raw Deal” and it’s on the Sin After Sin album. Based on the song, I don’t understand why anybody was surprised he was gay when he finally did come out in ‘98.
The first time I listened to Sin After Sin, I already knew that Rob Halford was gay and was under the vague assumption that he’d actually come out sometime in the early ’90s. I was therefore surprised when I heard the following lyrics in “Raw Deal”:
“All eyes hit me as I walked into the bar
And seeing other guys were fooling with the denim dudes
A couple cards played rough stuff, New York, Fire Island”
…
“The mirror on the wall was collecting and reflecting
All the heavy bodies ducking, stealing eager for some action
The scene screwed me up, I saw some contact
then the big boys saw me and knew that”
Look, my gaydar’s not very well-tuned, but I knew exactly what Halford was talking about: he was in a gay club, doing what people of all sexual orientations and preference do during a night out on the town. Another key point here is the ‘Fire Island’ reference. Since the ’60s, Fire Island has been a famous gay summer resort and community. Every year, since 1977, there’s been a 4th of July celebratory drag queen parade commemorating a 1976 drag queen protest in the community.
It’s not like Fire Island is some kind of secret gay meeting place. If people listened to the song back in the day and understood that reference, I’m not sure how they didn’t wonder why a supposedly straight man was singing about walking into a gay club where dudes were “fooling with each other” and “making contact”. Maybe Fire Island really wasn’t well-known back in the day; I have no idea because I was born in the ’80s. I know we have some old-timers in the IO commentariat, and I’d like to hear their take on this whole situation. Between “Raw Deal”, Halford’s on-stage clothing choices, and “Jawbreaker”, did anybody think he was gay before 1998? Was everybody really that shocked when he came out?
I’m not done yet with “Raw Deal”, however. I’m going to take this a step further. Let’s review the rest of the lyrics.
“I was barely holding on to this crying bawdy symphony
I guess I dream in pictures, not colors
The true free expression I demand is human rights
Right
I gave my life, I am immortal
I’m going, no loss
Nightmare, just a bunch of goddamn, rotten, streaming raw deal”
To me, that sounds like a gay rights song. A heavy metal gay rights song in 1977. Also, the song’s a killer track. It’s a crying shame that the only Priest song anybody seems to care about from Sin After Sin is “Starbreaker”, because “The Sinner”, “Raw Deal”, and especially “Dissident Aggressor” are far better and heavier.
Is the lack of attention toward “Raw Deal” partially in response to the references to Halford’s homosexuality? As metalheads, we’re used to society shunning us. We hide our taste in music on first dates so as not to freak the girl or boy out. We hide our CDs, shirts, and tattoos at work so that we can fit in with the mainstream professional world. We congregate in obscure, hole-in-the-wall clubs and special internet sites to indulge in our musical preference. Some straight metalheads may not want to admit it, but we understand more about gay culture than we care to admit.
If I ever snag an interview for Invisible Oranges, I want it to be Halford, because I want to know exactly what he was talking about in “Raw Deal”. Ultimately, if Halford insists he didn’t come out until 1998, I suppose we have to take him at his word. I can’t help wondering though if he’s telling us the straight truth on this one.
. . .
Judas Priest – “Raw Deal”
. . .
BUY SIN AFTER SIN
Amazon (CD)
Word. Halford’s sexuality, or his struggle with remaining closeted is evident on every Priest record, and rightly so. In a genre for and by those who don’t quite fit, is it at all surprising that one of our foremost icons is gay? It’s sadly comic how much homophobia there is in metal, as historically homosexuality is a premier landmark on the left hand path.
Musically speaking, Call For The Priest/Let Us Prey is also a fantastic ripping number, especially for 1977, even if Call For the Priest is a bit too much a Queen homage… Really, anyone terribly surprised when Halford came out cannot have had any sense of text or subtext.
You’re right. I’m not sure how anyone could have missed it. For me personally, it’s tough to listen to any of his lyrics without hearing the context. In high school (in the late 90’s) there were girls who got grossed out by Melissa Etheridge’s (sp?) “Come to My Window”, but only after she came out. Once you know, it’s tough not to think about it.
It’s interesting you point out that homosexuality is on the left hand path (which is true). I’m not sure what significance you attribute to that, but it would seem contrary to what society currently wants us to think about the subject, i.e., that it’s just the same as heterosexuality.
Interesting article, by the way. It’s hard to ignore the irony that metal’s ultra-macho image is taken in large part from Halford’s gay culture influence. To be fair, the leather comes as much from biker culture as it does gay, but Halford’s really the first one to eschew the hippy in black look of Sabbath.
I think the author’s grouping of homosexuality with the “left hand path” is tongue-in-cheek. Yours sounds fairly sincere, am I correct?
Homosexuality is on the left hand path? You are equating it with witchcraft? Huh? This is a metal blog, not The Family Research Council. Feel free to lob zingers like that on their site. That type of backwards thinking is promoted by the same folks that would say you aren’t a Christian because you listen to metal and post on a site that routinely features black metal. It’s the thinking of censors and bigots. If you disagree with me invite those folks over and show them your record collection.
Gay is also not a “culture” or a choice. Even if it was who cares? If you have issues with gay people you are going to have a tough time in the 21st century, bro.
“Gay is also not a ‘culture’ or a choice.”
Being Chinese is not a choice. Am I now expected to believe there’s no such thing as Chinese culture?
Based on my understanding of the Left Hand Path, I was not making that comparison at all. What I was saying is that homosexuality is not viewed in a positive light in modern society. I find this very unfortunate. As metalheads, we do understand society’s prejudicial attitude towards homosexuality because we experience something similar, but only up to a point. As an example, I have a gay coworker. I was the first person at work that he came out too, and only one other coworker knows. He was for a long time the only person at work who knew I was a metalhead, even though he didn’t really understand what that meant.
RSJ, I got your point…that was for Full Metal…
@jmnorton I know man, thanks for clarifying. I’d give you the secret IO handshake, but we can’t talk about that in public. Wait, shit…
jmnorton: It’s hardly bigotry to call an act of the will wrong. Choice? No, no more than any other strong inclination. I’m not stupid, nor do I ignore the evidence presented to me. It’s convenient how society can, when it chooses. I’m not going to get any further into the topic than that, but rest assured I am quite tolerant. I see the distinction between what is moral and what should be legal.
FMA
I don’t believe that homosexuality is intrinsically linked to the left hand path. Someone’s sexuality is way too dynamic a thing to categorize so definitively. However, I do believe that it can be a pretty strong feature of the LHP. For one, it can be a fairly counter-culture lifestyle. For another, in the case of black metal (a very iconoclastic ideology), homosexuality can be a powerful tool of offense to Christianity.
jmnorton
I think you are partially right about homosexuality not being a choice. Sexual desire may not be a choice but sexual activity is a choice every time we act. A heterosexual person can choose to participate in homosexual activity and vice versa. I personally believe there is a gay-bi-straight continuum and we all lie upon it somewhere. Choice is what defines which extreme we occupy (at least in the minds of others, and sometimes ourselves).
I generally agree with what you have said. As I understand it, though, the LHP is the path where you choose to do what is wrong as if it were right. “Homosexuality” is then not itself on the LHP, but the lifestyle which follows it is.
Great article!
If people hadn’t picked up on his sexual orientation on hearing “Raw Deal”, then the filmclip for “Hot Rockin” must have clinched it!!
Seriously though, I agree on that “Raw Deal” is one of their most overlooked tracks from that era.
I’m sure there’s quite few references to his sexuality in his lyrics if one wanted to look for them. Of course it’s always possible to read more into them than what was intended. However, Troubleshooter has long struck me as kind of revealing http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/judaspriest/pointofentry.html#9
There’s surely some irony in that many of these references were ignored in the mid 80s while their lyrics were scrutinized forwards and backwards for alleged violent and harmful content.
I wondered the same thing about the same song. I just chalked it up to how much in denial society was through this period. People held on to the basic assumption that others were straight. All Priest’s leather stuff also seems closely aligned with a part of gay culture now, but at the time it was read as very macho and, following the thinking, therefore straight.
@Brett there are indeed numerous references. Thanks for pointing out Troubleshooter, because it seems so obvious now. Like i said, a poorly tuned gaydar…
@bloodfiredeath – exaaaaactly…”Hot Rockin’” was pretty obvious…
You might be interested in this interview from 2000:
ROB HALFORD IS GAY?!??!?
“Just Merry.”
Fire Island references aside, Halford looks like a Tom of Finland drawing.
We’ve known for years that Rob Halford is gay; we’ve known for his entire career that he is an untouchable performer. Do we really benefit from analyzing old lyrics to look for early evidence that he liked guys? He’s come out and said it about 10,000 times now. He’s not some closeted religious nut trying to convert people like Michelle Bachmann’s husband who should be exposed for hypocrisy. He’s out and proud.
I’m not sure what saying “see, he was really telling us way back when,” proves. The only sad thing is he couldn’t come out sooner and be his true self in public.
To get under the fingernails of this piece even more, I think it’s hard to hide your truth. I’ve noticed homosexual overtones in many other Priest lyrics, if not as overt as those above.
“You don’t know what it’s like / you don’t have a clue…”
I greatly enjoyed your article; I’ve been listening to Sin After Sin for longer than I care to admit, and never once did I pick up on what Halford was singing in “Raw Deal” (my copy does not have lyrics on the inner sleeve). This has always been one of my favorite Priest albums, and I think it’s far better- and heavier- than Stained Class, the album to which its most often compared: “Dissident Aggressor” is still the baddest ass song they ever wrote.
Pointing out the blatantly obvious and acting like you discovered does not make a good article.
I dunno, bud. This article has a pretty simplistic take on what constitutes ‘gayness’. Human sexuality can’t be boiled down to the reductive stance of gay or not-gay, and neither can thoughts, feelings, actions, lyrics, etc. Nor should they be. Does it really matter who your favorite singer wants to fuck? Shouldn’t she or he be allowed to without being constantly reminded of their choice by fans who are continually hung up on the morbid curiosity of their choice of bed partners?
I’ll just leave FMA’s “left hand path” stuff alone for the moment (can of worms: squared). But despite the “kids & homophobes” preface, there’s a thread of squeamish/squirmy homophobia underlying this article. It treats homosexuality like some kind of curiosity, something to be pointed at while others say “eeewww, weird!” In college philosophy classes we’d call this kind of thinking “problematic”.
Sure, it’s all fair game: nothing should be off the table, we’re all adults, who cares, and so on. But once you open that door, the rest of us can and will call it as we see it.
minor typo above: my double use of the word “choice” in the first paragraph should read: “choice or inclination”. not trying to spark the nature/nurture argument, I just happened to pick an accidentally loaded word the first time around.
I’d like to know what about the piece makes you feel that there’s a threat of homophobia under it. i do not want to be tarred with the homophobe brush.
err, thread. not threat. ugh.
Well… I think homophobia as a word has gotten a particularly harsh connotation due to the way it gets thrown around. Most of the time people use it to mean gay-hating’, but technically it only means ‘fear of homosexuality’.
I don’t for a second think you hate gay people, or are even afraid of them on any conscious level. Rather, it’s the subtext of the article that irks me — that we need to scratch away to find the “gay secrets” buried within Halford’s lyrics. Like I said before, it’s treating homosexuality as a morbid curiosity rather than just another way of life. I guess I tend to agree with Justin that it’s not really a subject worth revisiting in Halford’s case.
Thank you very much for clarifying your first post. I wasn’t trying to imply that we need to search for Halford’s gay secrets, but maybe that happened anyway. My intent was to point out that I think that Raw Deal is so obvious that no one should’ve been surprised when Halford did come out, and to see if anyone had any input on that topic.
Gay culture was underground in the 70s and, at least in the small-town midwest, the 80s and early 90s. I was a little too young to be a Priest fan as a teenager – the first song of theirs I heard was “Turbo Lover”, so I didn’t bother checking out their back catalog for another 15 years or so – but I knew how Halford looked, and had no idea that he dressed like/was a leather daddy. In retrospect, it was obvious, but in the mid- to late 80s, not so.
“The first time I listened to Sin After Sin, I already knew that Rob Halford was gay and was under the vague assumption that he’d actually come out sometime in the early ’90s.”
Wow. Dick “Street Jammer” post this right after homeroom? Jesus, fuck.
Besides Sebastian Bach’s t-shirt, I’ve never seen any real evidence of gay-hate in metal.
I do remember talking to other metal/hard rock fans after Rob came out who were completely disgusted by his homosexuality and vowed to never listen to Priest again because of it. The reaction seemed to be based on the idea that they somehow been fooled into dabbling with gay culture by listening to Judas Priest.
Watch “Until The Light Takes Us”, there’s plenty of gay hate going on in some parts of the metal community.
That’s pretty funny, considering how homoerotic the Scandinavian black metal scene is.
I thought the same thing, I think Immortal can give Rob a run for his money costuming wise! lol Yeah, until the light takes us made me absolutely hate Hellhammer… Such overt support for bigotry cannot be tolerated.
I grew up with a cassette of Sin After Sin. No lyric sheet and I never picked up any of the words to that song. I just didn’t know what he was saying until I got the CD with lyrics about 10 years ago.
When I was a kid, I didn’t know that Halford was gay, because how can you tell if a metal band is gay? In the eighties, 90% of metal bands wore either studs and leather, all demin, or drag. You had to choose one of three gay styles based on how extreme or commercial your music was.
By the time he came out I was an adult and anyone I talked to who knew who Rob Halford was also knew what team he played for.
It sounds bad to say it this way, but when he came out, it was probably to get some publicity for his album with Trent Reznor.
TRENT REZNOR IS GAY?!?!??!
What I like the most about gay people is how normal they want to be considered but they always come up with ways to identify them as being different for the same reason. No heteros have to state their preferences in interviews but gays always bring it up.
Heteros don’t bring up their sexuality? What have you been listening to/watching/reading? As a heterosexual, I can only imagine that homosexuals mention it because they aren’t currently treated as normal people by society as a whole. Up until 1.5 months ago, you could officially be thrown out of the US Military for disclosing that you are gay. Making people aware that homosexuality doesn’t only exist at the fringe of society is part of the normalizing process.
well, yeah, because it’s the presumed default. duh.
Im hetero (ok ive looked at shemale porn a couple times…gimme a break =P) but haha anyway SUBSTANCE:
I, as a young child (9 or 10) first learned the lesson that being able and allowed to be yourself is one of the most important rights a person has. I was taught this by my own, even at that age, i-dont-care-what-you-think ‘tude and my then and sorta still hereo Cliff Burton, et al.
Because I am a huge proponent of this human right i am also a huge Gay Rights guy. If there was a gay parade in these parts (so redneck, no way!) i would march.
Here is my point:
I dream for the day when all this gay/LGBT/straight/ curiosity is over with, and nobody gives a fuck who you fuck or why as long as its with consent. I just want people to be able to be themselves without pressure from society to be something you they not born as and can never be.
Whether its sexuality or “race” or wearing black on a sunny day… stop giving a fuck world!
also, for levity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRkIWB3HIEs
An easy counter-point to this is to ask: Does mutual consent give free reign to do anything? It certainly doesn’t in law. (You cannot agree to duel, for instance.) Does it in morals? I don’t mean to answer the question for you. Only consider it.
as far as I’m concerned, mutual consent would cover most situations in my book of morality (so long as both parties of capable of some kind of reasonable consent). and why shouldn’t it? just like assisted suicide should be legal (and practiced often), I believe two people should be able to happily fuck each other in any way they please, so long as they’re both on board.
I’d love to hear an argument against homosexuality that isn’t based on blind faith to some kind of religious text. and i mean that in the sense that if you can prove it’s immoral, well hell, I’ll eat my hat.
Like I said, I’m not going to answer the question here. Some other time, perhaps. But I do want to ask questions. I think it’s quite obvious homosexual activity is immoral. (There’s a big problem with these discussions, i.e., that the terminology we tend to rely on is imprecise.) The belief that it’s not is something that’s learned and has been trained into you and many other people in contemporary society. So I’m interested in the reasoning used to justify it.
What if asphyxiation is part of this mutually consensual activity? Or cutting? I would suspect (without definitively researching the issue) that both are still quite illegal in every state. Does that mean they’re immoral, or is there a thread that justifies calling them both immoral and making them illegal?
And what about animals? You may say, “Well, that’s cruel to the animal, so it’s different.” I say, what if a dog is encouraged to have its way with a human? He’s certainly not complaining. And if you agree that the latter is immoral–then why do you think that? And what is its applicability to homosexuality?
If you answer that all of it is moral, then I can understand but not agree. If you don’t, I’m interested to see your reasoning–or if it’s just based on a gut feeling. A gut feeling, after all, is a pretty good indication that something may be immoral, and might be worth examining.
I hesitate to open a second can of worms, and that is the issue of gay marriage. You may be surprised to find that I’m receptive to arguments that it should be allowed in a legal sense, even though I don’t believe it’s moral. When in private practice, I worked on a case of what I call a “lesbian divorce”. The sheer complexity of the case–all the property and arguments over borrowing versus gifts over a course of many years–gave me a greater appreciation for the simplicity of our divorce laws. Even though I hesitate to open this second can of worms (because it really is a discrete issue), I must ask something. To allow gay marriage, you really must overturn the very basic historical understanding of marriage. I would suspect you make this change on the basis of the morality of mutual consent. From a moral standpoint, then, how can you differentiate between that and polygamy? I don’t necessarily expect an answer, but I think it’s a question that should be considered.
FMA,
I respect your knowledge of the law. I hesitate to base my opinions of right and wrong on the law of the land, but I recognize the deep level of wisdom used in the formation of law. On the other hand, I have to go with my own definition of morality. My point of view is very much “live and let live”. Therefore, mutual consent is pretty important to me. I know it’s a deep philosophical concept that there mankind possesses an innate morality which we use to govern our actions. Philosophically, though, I disagree with that assumption (and it is an assumption. I implore you to prove it). America, the ever faithful society is basing it’s laws on faith that there is an implied morality. I have my own set of morals which I use to govern my own choices, but I am very careful of using those to govern others’. Sure, there comes a point where I can’t stand by and allow somebody’s set of morals to infringe on the rights of others (rape, murder, etc.). That point is pretty well defined as the point we go past mutual consent.
I’ve got no problem with an animal fucking a human as long as the dog enjoys it (proving that the animal is enjoying it might be pretty difficult, though). I don’t think that bestiality is applicable to homosexuality any more than it is applicable to any other form of sexuality.
I have absolutely no problem with polygamy. I think that most people think that abuse is always present in polygamous families and allow that to color their opinion of it. Full disclosure: I’m a former Mormon. However, I was associated with the mainstream of the church which is very much anti-polygamy. Therefore, I really don’t have much more personal perspective on the state of polygamy than the average citizen. In other words, I don’t know any polygamists personally.
Your point of view on gut feelings is very strange to me. Gut feeling? There’s faith again, screwing up our ability to reason through our problems. Fuck gut feelings. Gut feelings are for tv cops and religious fanatics. They’ve got no place in our law making sector.
That’s an internally consistent approach, which I can respect if I do not agree with it. At this point I will only reinforce and elaborate on what I said before regarding morals and laws. I think they inform each other, but they need not be coextensive. A legal system which is based on the principle of “live and let live” and which respects mutual consent is perfectly acceptable to me. Conceivably, the law could also prohibit things which are not immoral–for example, it’s not clear that downloading a movie for free is immoral (that’s a complex issue) but the law has good reasons for making it illegal. But I reject the idea that mutual consent is the sole touchstone of morality, which must also take into account what is good, beneficial, and natural, and encourages a harmonious society. There are sound reasons, both moral and legal, for preventing people from engaging in mutual combat, for example.
Even though only one person has called me a bigot, I’m sure others probably think the same way, so I feel I must defend myself. I reject the idea that accepting a person means you must approve of what they do and what they think is right. My client in the above story had no idea of my beliefs, and I’ve had many a mutually-interesting discussion of this very topic with homosexuals both male and female.
Finally, I will address the person above who complained that gays seem to bring up their sexuality and talk about it at every opportunity. They do this because repeating something a million times will trick a lot of people, and it has already swayed if not a majority of Westerners to that point of view, then a significant and vocal portion. But it doesn’t make it true.
FMA, I never meant to say you were a “bigot.” That’s a huge hurdle, especially for someone I don’t know personally and only interact with on IO. I just think comparing sexuality to witchcraft is bigoted thinking. I think you are a very bright guy — I just vehemently disagree with your thinking on this issue and probably a few more. At the same time, I’d fight for your right to think or say whatever you please. So I’ll leave it at that.
It’s terrifying that so many people probably think God is guiding their decisions when they choose to follow their “gut feeling”. Gut feelings are subject to biological wiring, hormonal/chemical levels, environmental conditioning, upbringing, independent learning, and so forth. Sure, at the end of the day it’s all any of us have to go on, but to assume that others will have the same ‘gut feeling’ as you would be folly.
Personally, I’m fine with the idea that polygamy, bestiality, cutting, drug use, coprophilia, or anything else, as long as everybody’s down. No, I don’t wanna partake, but by all means, people should be able to fly their freak flag no matter how freaky. So long as there’s consent. From a legal standpoint, it’s not as clearcut: I understand the reasoning why certain things are better off illegal, to curb abuses and so forth. But from a moral standpoint it’s all fair game.
@ jmnorton: Thank you.
@ Wash: Well, at least your position is internally consistent–which is a rarer phenomenon than it should be.
Also, I didn’t mean to suggest that a gut feeling alone can tell us the truth. It’s just a red flag.
FMA – I’ll settle for internal consistency — you seem to have that down as well. For the record, I genuinely enjoy our little debates!
I do too!
I just never read the lyrics or made an attempt to understand the singing. Good song.
Great, some assholes talking about us fags and our “morality” and how we shove our sexuality down everyone’s throats. In 2011. I’m sick of fucking morality; I’m sick to fucking death of people acting like gay marriage is our only issue and one that will lead to the downfall of society. To compare gay marriage to bestiality in terms of morality is fucking asinine. We bring up our sexuality all the time? Well, try being queer and living in a society that shoves heterosexuality down your throat from the minute you’re born. When’s the last time someone you knew was assaulted or killed for being heterosexual? Fuck off.
“Great, some assholes talking about us fags and our ‘morality’ and how we shove our sexuality down everyone’s throats.”
Did I say that?
“I’m sick of fucking morality”
Really? So you think only law is important, or that anarchy is preferable?
“I’m sick to fucking death of people acting like gay marriage is our only issue and one that will lead to the downfall of society.”
That’s quite contrary to what I said. I said I’m receptive to the arguments, but I think there is more than one side to consider. I think government should not be heavy-handed–after all, group consensus is the basis of a democratic form of government. However, government also needs to legislate for the good of society as a whole. I see both sides and I’m not sure where I come down on the issue.
“To compare gay marriage to bestiality in terms of morality is fucking asinine.”
I wasn’t comparing gay marriage to bestiality. I was merely attempting to point out that most people would agree that bestiality is wrong even if they don’t think homosexual activity is wrong. But I am curious as to the basis for distinction. Either is unnatural. One could posit a Darwinian model of morality, I suppose (it’s the only model of secular morality that remotely makes any sense–even though it’s still problematic), but even under that homosexuality is an immoral practice.
“We bring up our sexuality all the time? Well, try being queer and living in a society that shoves heterosexuality down your throat from the minute you’re born.”
Heterosexuality is, quite obviously and without any reasonable disagreement, the natural state of affairs.
“When’s the last time someone you knew was assaulted or killed for being heterosexual?”
I obviously would not approve of assaulting and killing anyone for something as petty as who they like to fuck.
“Fuck off.”
I realize I’ve offended you. But the agenda of trying to force everyone in society to accept something as “OK” or as a beautiful and natural relationship, when it is most certainly not, offends me. Yet you don’t see me getting up in arms about it. I am more than happy to accept you or any other homosexual as a person, even a valuable person who could potentially have much to contribute to society. But I refuse to see homosexuality as your defining characteristic–it’s just one thing about you. It’s also not a positive or even a neutral characteristic. But everyone has their flaws. One of mine would be, apparently, a preference for associating with people who disagree with me on some very basic issues, knowing full well that people as a rule don’t like disagreement or open, honest, civil discussion. (Obviously there are exceptions to that rule, as up until this point people here have mostly been open, honest, and civil. But most people just like to pretend that every intelligent person agrees with them and don’t like it when that belief is challenged.)
Homosexuality is not uncommon in the “natural” animal kingdom. With an unsustainable human population, as we have, it’s patently obvious that further human breeding is immoral. In this case, homosexuality is actually moral and heterosexuality is immoral.
That’s so absurd that it brought a smile to my face. By the terms of your argument, though, wouldn’t heterosexual activity using birth control be equal? And isn’t it more likely that it’s the people who overbreed or breed more than their fair share who are being immoral, thus depriving others of the right to provide their progeny with a fair share of the world’s resources?
It occurs to me, also, that by your reasoning eugenics has become a moral practice. I don’t mean to invoke Godwin’s law here . . . .
As long as you confine yourself to anal/oral sex, there’s no “moral” problem with heterosexuality, but anything that could create a baby should be ruled right out.
You are incorrect about eugenics.
Anyway, we operate in entirely different worlds. I hadn’t realized you were a christian when I first responded. I assumed, this being a nominally metal site, you were more of the back to true European traditions/heathen type, a traditionalist/semi-fascist. They’re a little more interesting to discuss issues with. You pluck your morals from a poisoned tree. You can go to heaven for all I care.
I’ve seen some studies that show that homosexuality in the animal kingdom occurs more often in overcrowded populations. I don’t think it’s much of a logical jump to see that homosexuals are doing the world a favor by not procreating. They are fulfilling the biological need of intimacy while also fulfilling the world’s current need of reducing it’s population.
Also, by your reasoning, any sexual act other than vaginal sex would be unnatural. Contraception would also be considered unnatural, therefore immoral. Also, who’s to say how many children a woman births is her fair share or not? Should we legally put a cap on this?
Your declaration that homosexuality is obviously immoral is not so obviously correct. It’s only immoral according to your set of morals.
@ Todd: You’re a riot.
@ Miskatonic: Comparisons to what goes on in the animal kingdom are problematic, because animals are not conscious in the sense that they can consider the morality of their acts. Of course, if you subscribe to a dim view of mankind, then that kind of thinking makes sense. Your argument is going on the Darwinian model of ethics that I mentioned, which is problematic not only because it puts us on the level of animals, but also because it leads to such troubling conclusions as–well, essentially, Nietsche. (I always have trouble spelling that name.)
Your conclusion about the implications of my position is also off-base, although Catholics would *officially* agree with you (as you know I am not Catholic). Sex between a married couple is not solely for the purpose of procreation. It also helps with bonding, and strengthens the natural family relationship.
I don’t know what a fair share of children is. (I’m thrilled at all the interesting issues this has brought up, by the way.) I’m not an expert in overpopulation and where we stand in terms of sustainability and when the world will reach peak population (from what I understand there is not consensus on the issue). But it seems that at a certain point such a decision would have to be made. I’m not sure on what basis it could fairly be made except perhaps a strict per-woman limit. That raises a whole new set of problems, as seen recently in China, so I don’t know how to deal with it. A troubling moral dilemma, for sure.
“Your declaration that homosexuality is obviously immoral is not so obviously correct.”
I suppose decades of lies on the topic have blurred the issue.
So, basically, your argument is that homosexuality is not *unnatural,* because it occurs naturally in the animal kingdom, but it is *immoral* because…well…Jesus, I suppose.
Good to know.
“I suppose decades of lies on the topic have blurred the issue.”
Yes, yes they have. Just not from the quarters you’re claiming.
You’ve misunderstood me. It is quite unnatural. But it’s also harmful to families, society, and health. I grow weary of this particular line of inquiry, so I’ll just leave it at that. Perhaps some other day I will back up those claims (which shouldn’t be necessary if it weren’t for an expertly-executed if informal propaganda campaign).
So this thing which occurs naturally within the animal kingdom is, in fact, unnatural. Man, I wish I’d have thought of that line of reasoning years ago. A few tweaks, and I’d never have been made to eat broccoli. Of course, I guess people have tried that angle before, and yet shellfish deliciously and stubbornly continue to exist in an immoral state of unnatural nature. If only those folks had managed to organize an informal propaganda campaign, we could remove the blight that is Red Lobster from these hallowed lands. Alas…
Because you feel you are enlightened by God you see my view of humanity as dim. I don’t blame you for that. However, I can’t allow you to accuse me of thinking of humanity as a low thing. I have a humble view of humanity and of myself. I think we are all capable of great things as far as the world goes. But I don’t really expect to have a tremendous influence upon this world.
Human beings are animals. Sure, we have a greater capacity for thought. This has enabled us to conjure up ideas, such as morality.
I think you misunderstood what I said about the purposes of sex. I think that it is useful for far more than just procreation. Sex also strengthens the bond between homosexuals.
“I suppose decades of lies on the topic have blurred the issue.”
If the homosexual propaganda machine has been functioning for a few decades now, I guess that is in contrast to the AEONS the heterosexual propaganda machine has been functioning. If turnabout is fairplay, get ready for the next few aeons.
You are confusing different definitions of the word “natural”. You are using it as “occurring in nature”. However, any number of other definitions of natural are mor appropriate to my meaning: “proper”, “consonant with the character of a thing”, “based upon the innate moral feeling of mankind” (as in natural justice), or even “in conformity with the ordinary course of nature; not unusual or exceptional”.
Also, don’t try to give me the bullshit of saying that since it’s more important to you that you have some special monopoly on the right to talk about the issue. It wouldn’t be too hard for you to find instances of me discussing my religion with people on this web site and others. And I would suspect my religion is even more important to me than your sexuality is to you, or at least as important. Yet I have at all times been quite civil about it, and I make all attempts to see the other side, which is something it doesn’t seem you have done.
@full metal attorney I’m curious how much of your personal beliefs on morality are drawn from the old testament. As i recall the ot prohibits things like eating pork and shellfish, along with other examples of behaviors that i assume you, like most christians, perform. I’ve never heard a rational explanation why it is acceptable to do what i see as picking and choosing what to follow or not follow on the ot.
I also don’t see how opposing homosexuality is in line with Jesus’ messages in the new testament. I am not christian but i was taught enough of the bible that if i were, i would ignore the old testament except for the dirty love poems in psalms. I would draw all moral conclusions from the new testament.
There are getting to be too many threads in this conversation for me to keep up with all of them. There is a passage in Acts 15 where the early Christians were discussing which portions of OT law Gentile Christians should be expected to follow. From verse 20: “we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.” So there you go. The problem with things like blood sausage is kind of forgotten about by most people, but I abstain.
Jesus would have associated with homosexuals just as he did with prostitutes. But he would have told them, “Go and sin no more.”
Also, I think you’re thinking of Song of Solomon (or Song of Songs, depending on which version of the Bible). Gazelles are sexy, I guess.
Your outlook is more harmful to society than who I choose to fuck or be in relationships with. I’ve never said anything about your “natural” family, so mind your straight, Christian business about mine. I don’t give a shit whether my opinions come off as rushed or less than fully articulated; I stand behind them because I am sick to fucking death of people like you condemning others due to a book of fucking stories.
I’m not condemning anyone. I’m sure you’re as good a person as anyone. But I also have a right to say what I believe as much as anyone. Not only a right, but a duty. (See the first part of Ezekiel, but in particular Ezekiel 2:7, “You must speak my words to them, whether they listen or fail to listen, for they are rebellious.”)
In other words, you are asking me to both (a) refuse to speak my mind, and (b) refuse to follow my religion. I’m only telling you that what you’re doing is immoral. Am I coercing you to stop–even by social pressure? No. Are you trying to coerce me through social pressure? Yes. And which rights are more important–the right to think and speak your mind and to have deeply held personal beliefs, or the right to fuck something?
In other words, get off your false moral high horse.
Fuck FMA… FUCK!!!
Don’t you realize that you are asking Shaun to live and let live!?! You are asking him to respect your right to have and express an opinion. Yet you are not willing to allow him what he wants. You want your precious religious freedom. He wants his precious sexual freedom. The problem is that your religious freedom leads directly to barring him from having his sexual freedom. His sexual freedom does not barr you from your religious freedom. If you and other Christians would just let go of your fears, and let people live their lives, it would barely affect your lives. If you keep fighting this it will continue to dramatically affect theirs.
“The problem is that your religious freedom leads directly to barring him from having his sexual freedom.”
No, it doesn’t. I’m not prohibiting him from doing anything. I’m telling hims that homosexual behavior wrong and that those who practice it should choose to stop because it’s wrong. That is quite different from him telling me to stop speaking because it bothers him, and because he is personally morally incensed about it, and “HOW DARE I” tell him how he should live. I am speaking about morals, in general and not personal terms, and he is telling me, personally, to fuck off. I suspected someone would come at me with claims of hypocrisy. But stop to think for a second before you go there.
The rhetoric you are participating in is contributing to the construction and maintenance of laws which make his lifestyle illegal and looked down upon in this society. If you are defending laws that prohibit his lifestyle than you should be proud that those laws are still in effect. You ARE responsible. Now, you need to accept that responsibility. Why are you vacillating here?
He’s getting personal with you because you and those of your ilk have held back those of his ilk for a very long time. You are his personal enemy whether you think of it that way or not. I know you think your actions are saving him, but without his consent, those action are a declaration of war.
Quit pissing on his back and telling him it’s raining.
It’s interesting. This reminds me of a post I did a LONG time ago, back when I was still in law school and my blog focused on social issues instead of music (and what music I had was incredibly mainstream). It was called “Abortion: a Primer on Argument Theory (and Why Most People’s Idea of “Debate” Isn’t Helping)”. In it, I explained to that pro-lifers are not trying to take away women’s rights, and that pro-choicers are not trying to kill babies. If you understand it from their own point of view, then they are doing what is right. (As most people tend to do.) The debate should center, then, on the key deciding question. In that case, it is “What is a human?”, because deciding that is the key to determining which rights are overriding, as the Court noted in Roe v. Wade. (Incidentally, I was making a balancing of rights argument above, not a live and let live argument, although it could be read as a combination.)
He may think I’m his enemy. I am only trying to be his friend. Just as an alcoholic may think I’m his enemy if I tell him he has a problem.
I see your point about the “rhetoric” (I’ll take that in the Aristotelean sense) being used to reinforce laws restricting “gay rights”. (That’s another can of worms, i.e., whether that term really makes sense and whether homosexuals are a group on the same order as people of a certain race or creed and, if so, what rights are appropriate. I won’t get into that here.) Anyway, as I’ve made clear, I’m not trying to coerce anything and I don’t find laws of the kind to be beneficial. Call that splitting hairs, if you wish, or say that I’m somehow contributing to the (perceived) harm even though I don’t intend to. I simply don’t think homosexual relationships and activity are to be treated as “OK” and treated on the same order in society. It should be hushed up and not talked about, as it used to be, because it’s not to be celebrated. Call that bigoted if you wish, but it’s the necessary logical result of everything I understand about the universe. I am as I said receptive to the idea of giving them the “equal legal rights” (another can of worms) many seem to want, and I’m not trying to curtail their right to do what they want behind closed doors. I’m not oppressive; maybe suppressive. But by my logic–which you must admit is sound–that’s quite permissive and tolerant.
There was one time in my early blogging that I addressed the idea of gay marriage: “Gay Marriage vs. Smoking & Gambling”. I don’t think I addressed homosexuality on the blog at any other point, because it’s not something I feel it’s necessary to really harp on. It addresses the gay marriage issue from the perspective of the tension between legislative and judicial branches of government, so it’s a pretty narrow topic. I’m quite surprised to see I have budged very little in the past 5 years on the issue.
On an only very strained tangential issue, I also addressed euthanasia in two parts (one and two). It would be an interesting read because it touches on the idea of mutual consent (not explicitly) and assisted suicide, and also shows an area where my reasoning has taken me to a place that’s at odds with most churches’ official doctrine.
And finally, watersports? Not for me, thank you.
So… If you could tell your unborn child would be gay does that warrant an abortion? Is there a biblical pecking order in terms of which sins outweigh each other, and does one big sin outweigh a potential lifetime of smaller sins?
btw, what denomination do you subscribe to, FMA? I was raised Methodist, for what that’s worth.
“It should be hushed up and not talked about, as it used to be, because it’s not to be celebrated.”
Ah. So it’s fine to tell those icky homosexuals to keep their yaps shut, but telling you to shut the fuck up is out of bounds. I guess because you’re a Soldier Under Command and that impedes on your right to tell other people who they should be allowed to fall in love with and/or fuck. Gotcha.
No that would not warrant an abortion. Very little does (protecting the life of the mother is inarguably one situation, but you hardly need to have any kind of law on the books to defend that–it’s a defense built into the common law). I’m not sure if there is a pecking order. The Bible presents several different ways of looking at it–the Ten Commandments (which are about evil acts), the Seven Deadly Sins (which are about evil attitudes), and the Two Greatest Commandments (which are basic principles to live by). Violating the first of the greatest commandments (Love the Lord Your God) is clearly the worse of those two, but otherwise there seems to be no hierarchy. I’m inclined in part to not put a hierarchy out there, because I tend to think of sin as a condition and sinful actions as expressions of that condition. But morality is more complex than simply right and wrong–surely there must be degrees of evil.
In the end, I will abdicate on the question.
I was also raised in a mainline denomination (Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod) and I have since joined another mainline denomination (Presbyterian Church USA). There’s a guy at work I talk to quite a bit who is Methodist. It’s the reverse of the situation here–he usually agrees with me on moral and ethical issues, but we don’t agree on anything related to entertainment (aside from sci-fi and fantasy). He actually likes disco (he’s under 40, too), watches a lot of old movies (I have a hard time with the pacing in most of them), documentaries on obscure topics (I guess that’s OK), romantic comedies (ugh), and Dynasty. He tends to like light-hearted things and prefers the Roger Moore James Bond. Weird, huh? I guess the takeaway from that is, I don’t like to associate with people who are too much like me. I find that dull.
@ Aleck: On the contrary. I think they have the right to talk about it all they want, and I have not said otherwise. What I am saying is that I don’t think it should be talked about in the way that society currently talks about it. By way of analogy, you probably would not say that Nazis should be deprived of their right to speak their minds. But (probably) you also don’t think people should be spouting those views. I’m sorry if I’ve made any unwarranted assumptions about you or your views. And I also take great offense that Shaun has taken the view I should not be allowed to speak on the subject at all because he has some special knowledge about it that I lack (or that is how I interpreted his statement, and please stop me if that’s unwarranted). However, in my view, that is akin to someone with a gambling problem saying that no one without a penchant for gambling should be allowed to speak to his gambling addiction. Perhaps an addiction is not a perfect analogy, but it does have a lot of similarity.
Also, you would do best to avoid looking for these “gotcha” moments. That method of discussion is not the most productive (a give-and-take is better) and, for what it’s worth, you could search forever in vain for a “gotcha” moment with me. I’m not saying it couldn’t conceivably happen–but it won’t happen on moral issues. I’ve spent far too much time thinking about it and discussing it with people who vehemently oppose me.
Ah, this is such a shit show. Love it though, lively debate.
Ooookay, so I’m coming from the perspective of a middle-class white bisexual 28 year old who grew up in conservative rural Massachusetts and still lives in the NE, now living way below the poverty line (and loving it), dropped out of college, self-educating and always looking for more information, believe people should learn to provide for themselves as fully as possible to keep production and dissemination of food and fuel as personal as they desire, to hopefully also limit vast graft, coercion and domination caused by vesting lots of power in a few.
I grew up in an society that was by turns nurturing and hostile to me just as a person (on the basis of my music choice, dress choice, physical fitness, the words I chose and I how I spoke them: arbitrary hate) and moreso in high school as I came to understand that I was attracted to men. I exclusively identified with this at first (several years later discovering that bitche$ be fine too).
Basic qualifiers laid out, let’s go.
FMA: You have a very specific life experience. Shaun is indeed just ripping it up in his responses, but I will take you up on that pause: he may have been implying that you lack knowledge that he has and I believe he would be right.
First hand experience is the source of morals, facts and reasoned debate are the echo. You can sit from a comfortable position and analyze the existence of homosexuals within the frame of society, but you don’t know a thing about it without living it, in my opinion.
To continue, we have to clarify our terms.
What makes something moral or immoral?
(I know you gave a partial definition of benefit to society, but this is insufficient: a society can be composed of any combination of people with common interests, they will in time grow together and if a society were composed of 33% or 50% homo-/bi- leaning members, I think we can suppose it would not be considered ‘immoral’ to be queer).
What is Nature?
(think microwave ovens, atomic waste, oil spills, combinations of matter that are indigestible by any ecosystem known and yet which sprang from our ‘natural’ minds. Nature encompasses all, reality is a consensual phenomenon that we can make as successful or as failing as we Will.)
That’s a lot to grapple. But I must attack your analogies: alcoholics are dependent on alcohol, faggots (like me) are not dependent upon fucking. Alcoholics drive apart their families and friends in an ever-tightening spiral towards total excess and addiction. Humans who are romantically attracted to other humans with identical plumbing bond and draw families and friends together; the phenomenon is called Love and is generally felt (by the guts of most) to be a Good Thing (c).
2nd: NAZIs were going for unity of their society for the purpose of total domination of the country and then the world for the utter supremacy of a central organization of several elite individuals spinning a shitty dilapidated Weltangschuung as a (eventually narcotic even to them) shield of smoke and mirrors. There is very little order to the various millions of gay / lesbian / queer / tranny / bi / whatvrrrs individuals who speak up to flaunt their sex bling so that agro- bitches don’t be trippin’ so hard when they see two dudes makin’ out. Basically it’s good for ‘people to spout those views’ because there is no Faggot Browncoats smashing in the windows of straight shopkeepers and grafting money from banks to win an economically downtrodden straight country off into the blackest night of TOTAL HOMO WAR. No one’s recruiting, if it doesn’t look fun, don’t join (but if everyone knows it’s there, far less people will be surprised, scared, pissed, angry and reactionary when they see it the first time by chance).
Onward!
I like the idea of keeping too much power out of the hands of the few. Of course that desire is in tension with the desire for a “higher standard of living”, as society defines that, and all the good things that do come with it.
The basis of morals is something we all instinctively know. It’s a natural law (I already mentioned there are many, many definitions of “natural”, but here I mean that it is innate in humankind). Any description I provided above about the good of society is merely illustrative of some of the things that morals protect. Mutual consent is not the be-all, end-all.
As to personal experience being the only way to know morals: I don’t need to try heroin to know it’s bad.
As to the nature of reality, well, you and I have very different understandings of the universe, my friend. Reality is objective. If you believe anything different, you are deluding yourself. But please feel free to do so, as such a basic question of epistemology isn’t really something that can be argued on the basis of logic.
I said alcoholism and homosexuality were an imperfect analogy. The Greeks had many words for what we call “love”, so our language is decidedly imprecise on that topic. I agree that there can be much good that comes out of love–of course it’s a good thing. But when you add lust to the equation in an unnatural way, that is only harmful.
And on Nazis–I’m not sure why you brought that up.
As a bisexual, perhaps you should think about this question: Is not the appeal of homosexuality due to the fact that a part of you knows it’s wrong? That’s true of all sexual perversion, and you’d be lying to yourself if you answered in the negative. This is the reason that sex and porn addiction always follows a pattern of seeking increasingly perverted stimuli
FMA, I don’t think most gay people lust after members of their own gender because they think it’s wrong. There are probably exceptions, say, girls at spring break making out with other girls for a camera crew (they’re not lesbians, just OMG cray-zay), and I don’t doubt some otherwise bisexual folks could possibly act out in a similar fashion. But as a whole, I think you’ll find that most people who identify as gay will say that they’re following their own “natural” path. It’s mostly a matter of wiring, which, if there were a God, would certainly be a part of his natural plan. That some old guy (whose been dead for a few millenia and wrote down some rules to help better govern his tribe) happens to make an arbitrary decision about something he didn’t understand and included it in his arbitrary list of rules, does not make it so. I know that could be seen as attacking your religion, but let’s be serious here. The Bible is a book of stories on how to live, and while much good can certainly come of it, it is not WORD AS LAW, and it’s definitely not written in God’s own hand. I mean, bible scholars know with more than a little certainty that the Bible has many authors, has had countless revisions, and has some boggling internal inconsistencies. Doesn’t mean it can’t guide folks towards doing good, but it’s as much an artifact of past times as it is a tool for religious folk.
Wash: A well-balanced and well-reasoned response.
Human “wiring” is often deficient as a result of the imperfect (sinful) nature of humankind, which affects not just our actions. I simply cannot buy the story that it just feels “natural” to them, and not necessarily because I don’t think they’re being honest with other people, but because I don’t think they’re being honest with themselves. I’ve heard some stories, yes, and they always sound suspect for one reason or another. I don’t suppose I can objectively know for sure, but a close examination of Watcher’s comment seems to bear out what I’m saying here–he just wants to try out different things to indulge whatever lust catches his fancy. Perhaps that’s not the best example, since he identifies as “bi” and you have made a distinction there, but it’s the example I have on hand.
It’s tough to ignore the fact it’s a nearly-universal cultural taboo throughout history. Just because some poeple were wired to like the wrong thing doesn’t change the fact that the rest of us are born knowing it’s wrong.
It’s been an interesting discussion, but I tire of it at this point and don’t think I’ll be back to respond to any other comments. It’s not easy being the sole voice of one side of an argument when there are no fewer than a dozen on the other side, so I hope you’ll understand.
Point by point FMA (and sorry to hear that you won’t be back to continue, I imagine I know why but that’s another ‘can of worms’):
Higher standard of living is subjective. Some people like strip-malls. Some people like unpolluted waterways and knowing that their clothing and food isn’t created and grown through institutionalized poverty, ignorance and abuse. We can’t have both, both are ‘good’ to different parties for different reasons. If you’re white and live in America, ‘high standard of living’ is good. If you’re brown and live in a country producing the trappings that ’standard’ demands, it is bad.
To reiterate: morals are instinctive to people. I agree, mutual consent is not the be-all (which is not the same as saying that activity between two people is anyone elses business, including society’s or any agent thereof).
I don’t need to read the bible to know it makes people do stupid dangerous things (like heroin), that it’s teachings are divisive of people (like heroin), that it has been the cause of war (I don’t think heroin has) and been used to excuse terrible behavior (like heroin). I can infer that it is bad…. or I can accept that it is good for some people under some circumstances: someone in tremendous pain, an author writing amazing poetry. I can even infer this about heroin. Bad for me does not equal capital “B” Bad. (Bad is, in fact, a broken and sophomoric word at this point.)
How is reality objective? Could you show me, not in a work of fiction such as the Bible, where the rules are written? Are you talking about science, because quantum mechanics has demonstrated otherwise, circa 1927 (Heisenberg). You then make a circular pair of statements: I am deluding myself if I believe reality to be other than objective (and known by you, but not me), but then assert that I cannot begin to prove otherwise logically because the issue is so “basic”, leaving me trapped in my delusion. Well I can prove logically that we observe different phenomenon differently and I can prove substantially that I derive the same physical pleasure from homo-sex as you do from hetero-sex and that the same bio-chemical reactions take place in my blood as yours when I experience Love for someone of the same gender as when you do someone of the opposite gender.
These are different perspectives, each correct but each observed from discrete viewpoints.
Nazi’s: brought them up cause you did: Posted November 10, 2011 at 9:58 PM.
Explain the meaning of the word perversion and explain to me how homosexual sex is perverse, keeping in mind that we already established that: the sole purpose of sex is not merely conception but bonding between humans AND that Love is considered to be Good.
Explain how the lust of one woman for another is wrong, or different from the lust of a man for a woman / vice versa.
Explain how you can accept at face value the statement that humankind is imperfect and not question your own reasoning? Could it not be that your inability to believe other people when they tell you their experiences is your own imperfection? Does the repetition of the Church and Bible carry any more weight objectively (in any way other than personally, to you) than the repetition of actual humans in actual relationships?
Your statement about thinking that homosexuals are not being ‘honest with themselves’ in their inner knowledge of being ‘natural’ is what is called ‘problematic thinking’. Whether you think they sound suspect or not is irrelevant, that is the stuff of prejudice. We’re talking about experience and if you can’t take people at their word because you think that they’re “wired wrong”, then you have opened the door to subjectivity again. I say you’re wired wrong and I can back it up with an internally consistent logic about how your need to have “bad” behaviors constitutes an abdication of responsibility and accountability on the part of individuals and groups, as well as a willful ignorance of dynamic interactions of social, economic and spiritual forces that in fact render baseless all arguments of an Objective Reality knowable to humans.
My capacity for loving humans across the gender spectrum is beyond my desire to fuck people. Just as your capacity for loving women is beyond your desire to fuck them.
The fact that people were wired to like something: supersedes any projection of concepts of right and wrong. That wiring IS. What we collectively choose to do with that is a human decision, nothing more. A very very few are wired to like murdering humans: we collectively decide that this is fucked up because only one person benefits: the murderer.
Many more are wired to find love in people with the same body type: societies are deciding if this is fucked up based on opinion, emotion, experience, science… it is a mixed issue. It benefits both of the parties in love and often all their friends and families.
All attempts to prove that it is any more harmful or even more frequently harmful than people of different body types falling in love have been refuted or had inconclusive, completely debatable results.
Society, individuals, are deciding. There is nothing in place already, this is happening right now.
Possibly the fact that you are the only one on your side of the issue indicates faulty wiring on your part.
As I said, I tire of the issue. But I will address only three issues you’ve brought up.
One: My reason for ending my participation in this debate is that it has consumed far too much of my time. I find it to be of little importance in the grand scheme of things, as there are certainly worse things in the world. You can believe what you will, but that is the truth.
Two: The fact I am the only one on this side of the topic is the nature of the forum, as metal has traditionally attracted liberal thinkers. I identify myself as a chaotic moderate (a term of my own) because I tend toward centrist positions as a rule but I also have far right and far left ideas, at least as most would classify them.
Three: Reality is objective, perception is not. The point does not rely on circular logic, but must rest on epistemology alone. In other words, whether reality is subjective or objective cannot be the subject of any kind of rational debate, because they rely on very different premises. But the evidence seems to me to demonstrate that reality is objective. Anyway, that’s how reality is defined. If not, it wouldn’t be real. Parmenides was either a madman or he failed to see that human language does not perfectly reflect reality.
Have you guys seen Priest or Halford lately? The song he sings all the way through (no help from the audience) is “Beyond the Realms of Death.” And he really sells it. He screams, “This is my life, this is my life” pounding on his chest to prove the point. Easily the highlight of his live show now.
“Raw Deal” aside, I think there are at least two more songs from around the same era that may have had hinted at Halford’s homosexuality – “Island of Domination” off of Sad Wings of Destiny LP and “Here Come the Tears” which is also from Sin After Sin LP. With the former, we have lyrics such as;
“Now we are taken unto the island of domination
We gotta get, we gotta get, we gotta get out of this place
There’s a man with a needle who’s pleading to get at my face
Hide me and hold me control free as best as you can
It’s all becoming too much, I can’t cope, for one man”
and
“The fright of your life, the fright of your life
The fright of your life is here guaranteed
This is no illusion confessing confusion you’re freed
Lashings of strappings with beatings competing to win
Oh what a mess I am blessed, dominations set in”
That song’s title alone alludes to some club from an underground gay S&M scene that proliferated in mid to late 70s, while its lyrics describe the feelings and impressions of a first time visitor (Rob Halford in this case) to such an establishment and of the experiences there.
The second song, “Here Come the Tears” seems to specifically address Halford’s loneliness and depression that he suffers due to having been forced to keep his sexual orientation to himself at the time as evidenced by lyrics
“Once I dreamed that love would come and sweep me up away
Now it seems life’s passed me by, I’m still alone today
Here come the tears
Looks like it’ll always be the same
No one here to comfort me
Here come the tears”
And here he specifically addresses what was it like for him keeping his sexuality secret for the sake of keeping up with the ultra-masculine image that was being marketed to the general public and fans by his band;
“All alone, no one cares.
So much to give to you all out there”
Full Metal,
Obviously you are a very learned man. Well spoken and thought out and for that I applaud you. Two things-1.To equivacate in any way,shape, form the act of bestiality to a couple of gay guys getting their ‘heathen’ rocks off is completely and uterly preponderous. Legal aged human beings of any orientation are able to make their consent for these acts ably and knowingly (unless passed out,underage,or forced-then these acts would be examples of nonconsent and illegal), whether they male female, male male, female female. Performing a sex act upon an animal of any kind is illegal because animals do not possess the same abilities as humans to give a sex romp the “A-OK”. Therefore illegal. Children are children and society has deemed them unable to give a green light to this behavior as well.Illegal. Morality is grey at best. We know what we should and shouldn’t do. Most gay people I’ve known have adhered to those same guidelines as long as I’ve known them (including family members). If you check out your local pedophile listing in your area the ratio between guys pinched for little boys is a far lesser number than guys pinched for little girls. Looks like the hetero morality pendulum is swinging our way on that one. Never had a gay dude bother me, or my kid, and what they do behind closed doors is their business, as is your own.
They get shit on and complain about it sometimes. Change what the complaints are about and you’d have harmony. But I fear intellecual small mindedness that you project will prevail for a long time since it gives the really really stupid one’s someone to look up to and go “Yeah, what he said”. Anyway,just a few years left on this dump with you all, so I’ll spend it BLASTING PRIEST.
Well FMA, whatever your reasons, I’m sure we’ll meet elsewhere on the forums eventually.
Two is an unqualified statement. I find many metalheads to be essentially conservative in their viewpoints, if only less passive aggressive in their expression of those views: let the weak die, fuck babes where possible, exclude those who don’t understand the music, merit and might demand attention and define excellence: interference from intermediaries (labels, venues, media) is frowned upon (limitation of governance). Generally supportive of straight white patriarchy, if only a more pure meritocracy.
You are obviously dodging the shit you can’t account for, but let’s go for Three:
Let’s say I embrace your epistemology; Reality is objective. Still you fail to ever make even a convincing ARGUMENT that the discomfort and fear some people have in thinking about homosexuality is anything other than social conditioning and that an inexorable turn towards dissolution of that discomfort and fear would not lead to anything but a betterment of social conditions for all.
Nothing about homosexuality or homosexual sex has been demonstrated to be negative in a purely objective way. You are holding up convention, opinion and superstition as fact, without even really expounding on the biological and social origins for those conventions, which even still, would lead to a dead end in terms of evidence or proof of any kind of objective imperative against queer love or queer sex.
You’re a bigot. Love it. Accept it. Revel in the power of your elitism and stop trying to be a liberal appeasing pussy, you religious extremist. Metalheads love elitism. I do too, I just hate narrow-mindedness because it is an elite of ignorance and therefore weakness. Strength comes from adaptability and abandonment of petty social programming.
What a bunch of marxist lemmings. No wonder the USA are a shithole where jews rule the masses.