No real reason for this except it’s my absolute favourite off the third Glee CD.
Here’s the original.
Related
17 Comments on “Safety Dance”
Fr.Gadgetvicar loves Glee too! Am unsure if anti-gay evangelical ministers liking musicals so is worryingly ironic or a step in the right, fabulous direction ;-)
Peter, I always use 'post-gay' when talking of your ideology, but, as you yourself have spoken of how it's a unique or at least unusual paradigm , I could hardly use it accurately to refer to evangelical approaches to sexuality more generally. 'Homophobic' is a term that causes offence and often generates more heat than like, but 'anti-gay' genuinely seems like a usefully neutral term in these debates. Being opposed to the formulation 'same sex attraction = 'gay', which is a morally neutral aspect of identity' is 'anti=gay'. What term would you offer in its place? And that's not to mention those in the evangelical camp (no pun intended!) like Gagnon, 'Christian' Institute (who are no such thing of course) who don't use the term 'gay' as a neutral descriptor as they regard it as inherently ideological.
“Anti-gay” implies an hostility towards those that are gay. That simply isn’t the case with most of those who are traditional in their understanding of sexual morality. Try “Conservative” or “Traditionalist” as these words have less emotive conotations.
In a Christian context, the former seems suggestive of the Religious Right (Buchanan et all) and the latter's a bit vestment-y, neither of which really are as accurate as 'anti-gay' (gay as ideology, I agree that there certainly isn't necessarily hostility towards gay people from the evangelical camp). Traditionalist seems to me to suggest RC style opposition to (e.g.) masturbation, feminism etc, which isn't necessarily true of those evangelicals who oppose same-sex practise and unions. And you'll know that Andrew Sullivan , for one, claimed that gay marriage is conservative so I'm not sure that the term is naturally suggestive of opposition to homosexual practise. What about heterosexist? That seems largely acceptable to me (as believing that male-female Marriage is God's plan and morally acceptable whereas gay relationships are not obviously proclaims the superiority of straight over gay relationships). However, it's certainly not my intention to in any way demonise the evangelical team, so point taken.
The problem with the terms conservative and traditionalist in this context is that they are also used by others outside of the evangelical team – FiF for example. And if you consider dioceses like London and Chichester they have significant numbers of quite actively gay clergy in that constituency. And Staggers is not called Staggers for nothing…..
And as we've seen before here, just because you hold an 'orthodox' line about sexuality, it doesn't make you orthodox – in just the same way that swinging a thurible or putting on a chasuble does not make you a 'catholic'.
And I'm very conservative and traditionalist about some things – just different things to Peter, for example. No terms really work here.
I think in the context of discussing human sexuality we all now what "conservative" and "traditionalist" indicate. That was the issue, not the wider use of the word.
You're absolutely right. We should never ever ever try to be clear on a particular subject. Let's all just obfuscate whenever we don't like the subject. Thanks for that lesson Andrew.
I don't see what your objection is here, Andrew. Describing a particular position on a particular issue with a particular term is perfectly compatible with an open mind.
For instance, everyone understands that when, in the context of the abortion debate, someone describes themselves as "pro-choice", that doesn't mean that they are always in favour of all conceivable choices. It has a specific meaning in that specific context.
The issue is that members of FiF would see themselves as 'conservative' and 'traditionalist' but you only have to work in the Dioceser of London or Chichsster (two examples) to know that many traditionalist or conservative clergy are actively homosexual. It's about using the words with integrity.
The issue was to do with what language to use as regards views on sexual practice. In that regard it's very clear what "conservative" means.
Do you at least accept that the "traditional" sexual moral is the one that the church has broadly accepted for the past 2000 years, and is the official stance of the Church of England?
I knew nothing about Glee at all until I found all the women in my family watching it last week and joined them. I can certainly see its quirky, camp appeal!
Wow! Thanks for posting the YouTube version of the earlier song, which I've just watched. I consider myself an afficionado of '80s pop, but I'd completely missed this one. The video was so bad that I assumed that the band was Belgian, or possibly Dutch, despite it being obviously filmed in England. I was surprised that the band were 'Man in Hats', which Wikipedia tells me was a 1-hit-wonder Canadian new wave band, of which I'd never heard!
I don't remember the '80s as being quite so tacky!
Philip – It's actually 'Men Without Hats' – and yes, the 80s were every bit as tacky as that and more so. After all, it was the decade of 'Frankie Goes To Hollywood'…
Peter – I didn't think you were old enough to remember this sort of thing! As far as I recall the song was hardly off the radio for several months some time in 1983. However, I don't remember the video – if I'd seen it at the age of 12 it would probably have scarred me for life.
When I was a 23-year old student I thought FGTH were really quite cool!
>>>if I’d seen it at the age of 12 it would probably have scarred me for life<<<
I was wondering why I found this video so creepy and, on a second view, it struck me why. Maypoles, dancing villagers, midgets … It was 'The Wicker Man', the witchcraft murder thriller from 1973 starring Edward Woodward!
Fr.Gadgetvicar loves Glee too! Am unsure if anti-gay evangelical ministers liking musicals so is worryingly ironic or a step in the right, fabulous direction ;-)
You really have got to get over this "anti-gay" thing. It doesn't help your argument in any way.
Peter, I always use 'post-gay' when talking of your ideology, but, as you yourself have spoken of how it's a unique or at least unusual paradigm , I could hardly use it accurately to refer to evangelical approaches to sexuality more generally. 'Homophobic' is a term that causes offence and often generates more heat than like, but 'anti-gay' genuinely seems like a usefully neutral term in these debates. Being opposed to the formulation 'same sex attraction = 'gay', which is a morally neutral aspect of identity' is 'anti=gay'. What term would you offer in its place? And that's not to mention those in the evangelical camp (no pun intended!) like Gagnon, 'Christian' Institute (who are no such thing of course) who don't use the term 'gay' as a neutral descriptor as they regard it as inherently ideological.
“Anti-gay” implies an hostility towards those that are gay. That simply isn’t the case with most of those who are traditional in their understanding of sexual morality. Try “Conservative” or “Traditionalist” as these words have less emotive conotations.
In a Christian context, the former seems suggestive of the Religious Right (Buchanan et all) and the latter's a bit vestment-y, neither of which really are as accurate as 'anti-gay' (gay as ideology, I agree that there certainly isn't necessarily hostility towards gay people from the evangelical camp). Traditionalist seems to me to suggest RC style opposition to (e.g.) masturbation, feminism etc, which isn't necessarily true of those evangelicals who oppose same-sex practise and unions. And you'll know that Andrew Sullivan , for one, claimed that gay marriage is conservative so I'm not sure that the term is naturally suggestive of opposition to homosexual practise. What about heterosexist? That seems largely acceptable to me (as believing that male-female Marriage is God's plan and morally acceptable whereas gay relationships are not obviously proclaims the superiority of straight over gay relationships). However, it's certainly not my intention to in any way demonise the evangelical team, so point taken.
The problem with the terms conservative and traditionalist in this context is that they are also used by others outside of the evangelical team – FiF for example. And if you consider dioceses like London and Chichester they have significant numbers of quite actively gay clergy in that constituency. And Staggers is not called Staggers for nothing…..
And as we've seen before here, just because you hold an 'orthodox' line about sexuality, it doesn't make you orthodox – in just the same way that swinging a thurible or putting on a chasuble does not make you a 'catholic'.
And I'm very conservative and traditionalist about some things – just different things to Peter, for example. No terms really work here.
I think in the context of discussing human sexuality we all now what "conservative" and "traditionalist" indicate. That was the issue, not the wider use of the word.
That suggests a single issue mind. The problem is that people don't live their lives in boxed off partitions…..
You're absolutely right. We should never ever ever try to be clear on a particular subject. Let's all just obfuscate whenever we don't like the subject. Thanks for that lesson Andrew.
I don't see what your objection is here, Andrew. Describing a particular position on a particular issue with a particular term is perfectly compatible with an open mind.
For instance, everyone understands that when, in the context of the abortion debate, someone describes themselves as "pro-choice", that doesn't mean that they are always in favour of all conceivable choices. It has a specific meaning in that specific context.
The issue is that members of FiF would see themselves as 'conservative' and 'traditionalist' but you only have to work in the Dioceser of London or Chichsster (two examples) to know that many traditionalist or conservative clergy are actively homosexual. It's about using the words with integrity.
The issue was to do with what language to use as regards views on sexual practice. In that regard it's very clear what "conservative" means.
Do you at least accept that the "traditional" sexual moral is the one that the church has broadly accepted for the past 2000 years, and is the official stance of the Church of England?
I knew nothing about Glee at all until I found all the women in my family watching it last week and joined them. I can certainly see its quirky, camp appeal!
Peter
Wow! Thanks for posting the YouTube version of the earlier song, which I've just watched. I consider myself an afficionado of '80s pop, but I'd completely missed this one. The video was so bad that I assumed that the band was Belgian, or possibly Dutch, despite it being obviously filmed in England. I was surprised that the band were 'Man in Hats', which Wikipedia tells me was a 1-hit-wonder Canadian new wave band, of which I'd never heard!
I don't remember the '80s as being quite so tacky!
Philip – It's actually 'Men Without Hats' – and yes, the 80s were every bit as tacky as that and more so. After all, it was the decade of 'Frankie Goes To Hollywood'…
Peter – I didn't think you were old enough to remember this sort of thing! As far as I recall the song was hardly off the radio for several months some time in 1983. However, I don't remember the video – if I'd seen it at the age of 12 it would probably have scarred me for life.
I loved Frankie. Don't say bad things about Frankie!
Justin
When I was a 23-year old student I thought FGTH were really quite cool!
>>>if I’d seen it at the age of 12 it would probably have scarred me for life<<<
I was wondering why I found this video so creepy and, on a second view, it struck me why. Maypoles, dancing villagers, midgets … It was 'The Wicker Man', the witchcraft murder thriller from 1973 starring Edward Woodward!