Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Steve H on July 02, 2021, 06:08:11 AM
-
https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/heartbreak-and-hallelujahs-as-methodists-vote-to-allow-same-sex-marriage
-
Good news: it will be interesting to see just how many current members jump ship.
-
The CofS may go down the samer road. Whilst not having an issue with secular gay marriage, no matter how I try to interpret it, I cannot bring Scripture to endorse it in the church. If the Kirk does endorse it, I will have to jump ship - reluctantly.
-
Good news: it will be interesting to see just how many current members jump ship.
Very interesting indeed.
-
The CofS may go down the samer road. Whilst not having an issue with secular gay marriage, no matter how I try to interpret it, I cannot bring Scripture to endorse it in the church. If the Kirk does endorse it, I will have to jump ship - reluctantly.
But there are all sorts of things in scripture which aren't endorsed by various christian denominations any more, including the CofS. Why are you making an exception for gay marriage - sounds as if this is more about you rather than whether gay marriage is endorsed or not by scripture.
But on topic, great news and well done the Methodists for showing some moral courage to do the right thing.
-
But there are all sorts of things in scripture which aren't endorsed by various christian denominations any more, including the CofS. Why are you making an exception for gay marriage - sounds as if this is more about you rather than whether gay marriage is endorsed or not by scripture.
But on topic, great news and well done the Methodists for showing some moral courage to do the right thing.
I'm not making exceptions.
Several deliverences by General Assemblies over the past few years have departed from what I understand as the accepted doctrine of the faith.
Whilst the Kirk tries to be a broad church, the limits have been stretched and exceeded.
-
Churches need to move with the times, there is nothing wrong with being gay, so why shouldn't they have a church wedding if they wish? I know I have said it boringly often, but I do hope that guy Jesus had been gay, and enjoyed a good sex life.
-
I'm not making exceptions.
Several deliverences by General Assemblies over the past few years have departed from what I understand as the accepted doctrine of the faith.
Whilst the Kirk tries to be a broad church, the limits have been stretched and exceeded.
Except you kind of are, because you didn't jump ship over the previous departures. So why choose this one?
-
Except you kind of are, because you didn't jump ship over the previous departures. So why choose this one?
Exactly
-
It is excellent news.
I know and have known a lot of people from many Christian denoms, including clergy. They have mostly been in favour of this but it isn't up to them, the hierarchy makes the final decision.
These things take time and you'd be surprised at the number of people who change their minds over the years, realising their fears and misgivings are unfounded.
-
It is excellent news.
I know and have known a lot of people from many Christian denoms, including clergy. They have mostly been in favour of this but it isn't up to them, the hierarchy makes the final decision.
These things take time and you'd be surprised at the number of people who change their minds over the years, realising their fears and misgivings are unfounded.
Absolutely.
Prior to a change happening the post-change situation often seems odd which is why people sometimes hang onto the current status quo. But once the change has been made, and certainly after a few years, the pre-change position can seem bizarre in the extreme.
In the CofE we've had women priests for a couple of decades now - and the idea of a woman vicar seems entirely normal. And the notion that a woman was banned from being a vicar seems completely bizarre and unacceptable, indeed almost horrifying in its lack of equality. I'm sure in time christian denominations (once they have accepted that gay people can marry within their churches as I've no doubt most ultimately will) will look back in horror at a time when they turned a couple away simply because they were same sex.
-
But there are all sorts of things in scripture which aren't endorsed by various christian denominations any more, including the CofS. Why are you making an exception for gay marriage - sounds as if this is more about you rather than whether gay marriage is endorsed or not by scripture.
But on topic, great news and well done the Methodists for showing some moral courage to do the right thing.
I think he has made himself clear. He has no issue with secular Gay marriage and he isn't making an exception for Gay marriage but gay holy matrimony, it seems to me. The question of whether a marriage is Holy is one for God and not some committee or mass deputation.
-
Churches need to move with the times
Which times are these ? 'done Brexit, the rich-poor divide, modern slavery, climate change, Alienation within an increasingly secular society' ? zeitgeist, shitegeist.
-
The question of whether a marriage is Holy is one for God and not some committee or mass deputation.
So leave it to God then and not the Churches. If the deity is everything it's cracked up to be, I'm sure the deity will sort out any wrongdoers at the Pearly Gates.
-
I think he has made himself clear. He has no issue with secular Gay marriage and he isn't making an exception for Gay marriage but gay holy matrimony, it seems to me. The question of whether a marriage is Holy is one for God and not some committee or mass deputation.
And yet the issue of whether it is allowed in a faith is decided by people as this decision shows. A god is irrelevant till you show such a thing is even logically coherent, and you haven't managed that in so many many years.
-
Which times are these ? 'done Brexit, the rich-poor divide, modern slavery, climate change, Alienation within an increasingly secular society' ? zeitgeist, shitegeist.
Why are you so homophobic?
-
Except you kind of are, because you didn't jump ship over the previous departures. So why choose this one?
It isn't just this one, TV. The liberalisation of doctrine in general is not the way I think we should go.
I'm no fundamentalist - nor ever will be - but there are ceryain issuse - unrelated to the gay marriage thing, or, for that matter, sexuality of any strand, which have concerned ceryain of the more evangelical types in the Kirk.
There's an ongoing stushie over baptism which is equally, perhaps more important, and these things just add up.
My problem is : where do I go?
I hesitate to go to the Baptist church - I'm a bit iffy toward their ministry team; the congregational church seems a possibility as does a local independent Christian fellowship.
The time's coming when I may be forced to decide.
-
It isn't just this one, TV. The liberalisation of doctrine in general is not the way I think we should go.
I'm no fundamentalist - nor ever will be - but there are ceryain issuse - unrelated to the gay marriage thing, or, for that matter, sexuality of any strand, which have concerned ceryain of the more evangelical types in the Kirk.
There's an ongoing stushie over baptism which is equally, perhaps more important, and these things just add up.
My problem is : where do I go?
I hesitate to go to the Baptist church - I'm a bit iffy toward their ministry team; the congregational church seems a possibility as does a local independent Christian fellowship.
The time's coming when I may be forced to decide.
What a dilemma
-
Why are you so homophobic?
I deny Homophobia.....since until very recently it wasn't an issue. I am not against gay marriage and gay holy matrimony is a matter for God. There are even churches where they will happily marry gays which is a huge blow to atheists who weaponise homosexuality for their own purposes.
Moving with the times is in certain cases tantamount to committing the fallacy of modernity, that is all.
-
So leave it to God then and not the Churches. If the deity is everything it's cracked up to be, I'm sure the deity will sort out any wrongdoers at the Pearly Gates.
Well wrong doing and I guess wrong doers need sorting out in at least one sense. How do you mean ''sorted out''?
We have a split in the church on Gay holy matrimony but I am no expert in this.
I have to admit the idea of a group of people writing down what God should be thinking and giving God orders for the Day rather comical. We laugh at crazed televangelists ordering God about in the US. How is the idea of a load of snotty sounding home counties liberals and humanists listing what God should do any less amusing?
-
And yet the issue of whether it is allowed in a faith is decided by people as this decision shows. A god is irrelevant till you show such a thing is even logically coherent, and you haven't managed that in so many many years.
If people do not believe in God, and think God irrelevant why would they be worried about Holy matrimony?
That sounds like wanting cake and eating it. God finds logical coherence in the new form of the Kalam cosmological argument, simulated universe theory. That is probably the most comprehensible argument for atheists who have been wallowing in shite philosophy for the last two or three decades.(Longer for Humeians)
-
Except you kind of are, because you didn't jump ship over the previous departures. So why choose this one?
At the risk of playing Devil's Advocate, it could be the straw that breaks the camel's back, no?
O.
-
I deny Homophobia.....since until very recently it wasn't an issue. I am not against gay marriage and gay holy matrimony is a matter for God. There are even churches where they will happily marry gays which is a huge blow to atheists who weaponise homosexuality for their own purposes.
Moving with the times is in certain cases tantamount to committing the fallacy of modernity, that is all.
So you fully support civil gay marriage, and gay marriage in your church?
-
I don't necessarily move with the times, only if I consider something that I'm being asked to move to is as far as possible, sensible, rational, humane and productive to the health of the society I live in. In this case, if the community of any church decide that their church should accept gay marriage, I happily concur.
-
So you fully support civil gay marriage, and gay marriage in your church?
I recall a previous discussion on this. In fact many. I seem to recall saying I had no objection to Gay marriage and then things got silly as I was then asked if I really, really had no objection to Gay marriage. Of course everybody has a right to marriage.
I suspect your wording of ''fully support'' even the face of me registering exactly my position to be verging on similar inquisitorial silliness.
If you are a doughty defender of the gay community then they are lucky to have your dedication, interest and expertise and if you thence classify anything less than that Homophobia then I guess there is little I can do about it.
-
So you fully support civil gay marriage, and gay marriage in your church?
Since I classify Civil Gay Marriage and Gay marriage as the same would I want civil marriage in the church?
Maybe if the funds so gained were turned into the evangelistic effort.
-
How is the idea of a load of snotty sounding home counties liberals and humanists listing what God should do any less amusing?
Are they?
You are just deflecting. Like Anchorman you seem to be in a position of wanting your cake and eating it.
"I agree with everyone's right to marriage."
"I agree with the Church's right to discriminate on the issue of marriage."
Circle meet square.
PS not from the home counties and not a humanist.
-
At the risk of playing Devil's Advocate, it could be the straw that breaks the camel's back, no?
O.
Yep. The straw's been fraying for about two decades now.
Numbers in the Kirk have dropped - partly because many have left to join other denominations and independent congregations.
The Free Church - now a bit (though not much....( more flexible, has increased its' number of congregations - and the one in Aye has split...not because of the usual schism, but because the building only seats four hundred, and they need new premisis, so a new congregations formed.
My local independent Fellowship, once a rather austere Bretheren assembly, kicked itself in the backside a few years ago, became far more friendly, and now has a serious problem with limited accomodation as the congregation has doubled.
-
Since I classify Civil Gay Marriage and Gay marriage as the same would I want civil marriage in the church?
Maybe if the funds so gained were turned into the evangelistic effort.
Evasive homophobia
-
Are they?
You are just deflecting. Like Anchorman you seem to be in a position of wanting your cake and eating it.
"I agree with everyone's right to marriage."
"I agree with the Church's right to discriminate on the issue of marriage."
Circle meet square.
PS not from the home counties and not a humanist.
Sorry, of course, you are from the East Midlands(twinned with Mordor)
There is one steaming inaccuracy in your post.
I never said "I agree with the churches right to discriminate on the issue of marriage"
I agree with the right to discriminate on the issue of HOLY matrimony.
If you have an objection to that I suggest that you want God not to exist for some purposes and for him to exist as the perpetrator in certain issues.
-
Evasive homophobia
Drivel
-
Sorry, of course, you are from the East Midlands(twinned with Mordor)
There is one steaming inaccuracy in your post.
I never said "I agree with the churches right to discriminate on the issue of marriage"
I agree with the right to discriminate on the issue of HOLY matrimony.
If you have an objection to that I suggest that you want God not to exist for some purposes and for him to exist as the perpetrator in certain issues.
Outright homophobia
-
Sorry, of course, you are from the East Midlands(twinned with Mordor)
There is one steaming inaccuracy in your post.
I never said "I agree with the churches right to discriminate on the issue of marriage"
I agree with the right to discriminate on the issue of HOLY matrimony.
If you have an objection to that I suggest that you want God not to exist for some purposes and for him to exist as the perpetrator in certain issues.
Mordor. Pah. As any fool knows Tolkein was referencing the Black Country. Nothing to do with the East Midlands. You philistine.
I'm quite clear. God doesn't exist,(I specifically said the Churches, or did you miss that?) but for the sake of argument say God does exist, my point stands - he's a big boy, he can sort out the baddies when he chooses to, so lets the rest of us play nice and recognise that humans should just do unto others...etc. Or is that too fucking complicated for religion?
-
Outright homophobia
How so?
Aren't you smarting because I said the idea of people like yourself...and indeed myself giving God his orders on arecently trumped up/evolved issues.Gay Marriage and Gay Holy matrimony completely comical.
Rather than any supposed Homophobia.
Do I believe churches and individual celebrants should decide what their religious position on Gay holy matrimony.
You bet your bippy on that.
-
How so?
Aren't you smarting because I said the idea of people like yourself...and indeed myself giving God his orders on arecently trumped up/evolved issues.Gay Marriage and Gay Holy matrimony completely comical.
Rather than any supposed Homophobia.
Do I believe churches and individual celebrants should decide what their religious position on Gay holy matrimony.
You bet your bippy on that.
I agree they should decide, but that doesn't stop it from being homophobic. Why would I be 'smarting' about what you think about something that I don't believe in?
-
Do I believe churches and individual celebrants should decide what their religious position on Gay holy matrimony.
You bet your bippy on that.
So if you believe that individual celebrants should be able to decide whether to conduct a marriage ceremony for a same sex couple then presumable you do not think that a religious organisation (e.g. CofE) should have a blanket ban on conducting a marriage for a same sex couple in their church. Otherwise the views of an individual celebrant to conduct such a marriage isn't being respected, is it.
So can either think that a religious organisation should be able to make the decision or individual celebrants, but you cannot consistently think both should as the views of one may conflict with the views of the other.
-
Vlad,
There is one steaming inaccuracy in your post.
I never said "I agree with the churches right to discriminate on the issue of marriage"
I agree with the right to discriminate on the issue of HOLY matrimony.
Ah, so now you're saying that you're not a homophobe but the god you think exists is.
Thanks for clarifying.
-
Vlad,
Ah, so now you're saying that you're not a homophobe but the god you think exists is.
Thanks for clarifying.
I think the point is that Littlehilside passing Judgment on God makes me chuckle.
-
I think the point is that Littlehilside passing Judgment on God makes me chuckle.
Lying homophobia
-
Vlad,
I think the point is that Littlehilside passing Judgment on God makes me chuckle.
A homophobic god was your claim, not mine.
Not sure how you square that though with your claimed non-homophobia. If you think there's a god that's all wise, then on what basis do you know better than this god so you aren't homophobic too?
-
Lying homophobia
You should outline your evidence for the charges you are making.
In the meantime can you address my suggestion that Churches should perform civil marriage as defined by law and the moneys raised directed to evangelism.
-
Vlad,
A homophobic god was your claim, not mine.
Not sure how you square that though with your claimed non-homophobia. If you think there's a god that's all wise, then on what basis do you know better than this god so you aren't homophobic too?
I never said God was homophobic. That conclusion came together in your own mind and within your own definitions or someone else's you have acquired.
-
Poor Vlad, one does have to feel rather sorry for him, he makes such crazy comments. He claims not to be homophobic, yet his posts give the lie to that. The documents making up the Bible weren't written by a god, they were written by humans who created their idea of god to suit their take on life.
-
Evasive homophobia
Can we please quit with this tactic. It does two things: it seeks to stifle the discussion and it cheapens the term.
-
Poor Vlad, one does have to feel rather sorry for him, he makes such crazy comments. He claims not to be homophobic, yet his posts give the lie to that. The documents making up the Bible weren't written by a god, they were written by humans who created their idea of god to suit their take on life.
In your opinion.
-
You should outline your evidence for the charges you are making.
In the meantime can you address my suggestion that Churches should perform civil marriage as defined by law and the moneys raised directed to evangelism.
Why don't the churches just marry anyone who is legally entitled to marry where the couple, and presumably for religious reasons, elect for a religious as opposed to a civil service?
Given your suggestion, have you established the extent to which clerics would be queuing up to perform civil marriages?
What has funding evangelism got to do with clerics performing civil marriages, (assuming they would: but I'll await your confirmation that they are known to be so inclined)?
-
Why don't the churches just marry anyone who is legally entitled to marry where the couple, and presumably for religious reasons, elect for a religious as opposed to a civil service?
Given your suggestion, have you established the extent to which clerics would be queuing up to perform civil marriages?
What has funding evangelism got to do with clerics performing civil marriages, (assuming they would: but I'll await your confirmation that they are known to be so inclined)?
Evangelism is the prime mission of the Church. I wouldn't expect governmental registrars to turn fees into evangelistic support.
-
Except you kind of are, because you didn't jump ship over the previous departures. So why choose this one?
People are entiled to be inconsistent about their beliefs but then people are also entiled to judge them on their inconsistencies. This is how it should be.
I guess as a none believer, I find it ridiculous that religions have sexuality so high on their agendas when their are plenty of other things in the world they can be focused on. So many injustices. I personally don't understand it at all.
I guess I view (however rightly or wrongly) that people who believe in supernatural beings as irrational. It may be a character flaw but I can't help it.
-
Why don't the churches just marry anyone who is legally entitled to marry where the couple, and presumably for religious reasons, elect for a religious as opposed to a civil service? Given your suggestion, have you established the extent to which clerics would be queuing up to perform civil marriages? What has funding evangelism got to do with clerics performing civil marriages, (assuming they would: but I'll await your confirmation that they are known to be so inclined)?
Clerics certainly cannot perform civil marriages in Scotland. Part of the pact with the state for mutual non-interferance states that clerics can only perform religious marriages. Even then, in the CofAS at present, the Kirk Session - the minister and elders - have to agree that the building can be used for a marriage. Should the minister - technically an elder who teachews - wish to perform a marriage outwith a Kirk, the Kirk Session, and Presbytery may hear any objection and, if necessary, haly it. This has happened in my local Presbytery area twice in the last seven years.
-
Vlad,
I never said God was homophobic. That conclusion came together in your own mind and within your own definitions or someone else's you have acquired.
Yes you did. You said: “I agree with the right to discriminate on the issue of HOLY matrimony.”
Do you see that word “discriminate” there? You believe there’s something you call “god” (albeit a belief you can’t justify with reason). You also it seems think this god gets to decide what is and isn’t “holy”. These supposedly holy positions are you tell us sufficient to discriminate against gay people enjoying the same rights as heterosexual people.
That’s called homophobia. According to your own claims and assertions, you therefore worship a homophobic god.
I was merely wondering how you manage to think yourself to be non-homophobic while simultaneously believing there to be a god who’s right about everything and who you tell us is homophobic.
-
Vlad,
Yes you did. You said: “I agree with the right to discriminate on the issue of HOLY matrimony.”
Do you see that word “discriminate” there? You believe there’s something you call “god” (albeit a belief you can’t justify with reason). You also it seems think this god gets to decide what is and isn’t “holy”. These supposedly holy positions are you tell us sufficient to discriminate against gay people enjoying the same rights as heterosexual people.
That’s called homophobia. According to your own claims and assertions, you therefore worship a homophobic god.
I was merely wondering how you manage to think yourself to be non-homophobic while simultaneously believing there to be a god who’s right about everything and who you tell us is homophobic.
Unfortunately the idea of you or anyone deciding to change the definition of holy matrimony commonly by all held to be between a man and a woman vaguely comical and by an atheist bent on weaponising homosexuality for the purposes of church bashing overtly comical.
-
Times change and religion needs to change with them. There is a lot in the Bible that isn't acceptable in this day and age, like woman being treated like chattels.
-
Vlad,
Unfortunately the idea of you or anyone deciding to change the definition of holy matrimony commonly by all held to be between a man and a woman vaguely comical and by an atheist bent on weaponising homosexuality for the purposes of church bashing overtly comical.
Yes I knew you’d just flat out lie again rather than address the problem you’ve given yourself (you always do), but the problem remains nonetheless. No-one is trying to change your definition of “holy” matrimony. It’s your definition, so you stick with it if you like. The problem though is that you also think there’s a god who decides what’s holy, and in this case it’s homophobic.
I don’t care what you bellieve – it’s all nonsense on stilts. But I still don’t see how you can claim to be non-homophobic while at the same time worship an all-wise god who is.
-
Times change and religion needs to change with them. There is a lot in the Bible that isn't acceptable in this day and age, like woman being treated like chattels.
Not everything has to change and certainly not at the pace of an impatient antitheist.
-
Evangelism is the prime mission of the Church. I wouldn't expect governmental registrars to turn fees into evangelistic support.
Do you even think before you reply?
Anchorman has addressed your apparent suggestion in your #40 that "Churches should perform civil marriage": here in Scotland that isn't permitted (see Anchorman's #48).
But in your #40, that I partially quoted above, your full sentence was "In the meantime can you address my suggestion that Churches should perform civil marriage as defined by law and the moneys raised directed to evangelism. Since the implication here is that you are suggesting that clerics perform civil marriages, and we now know that in Scotland at least they can't, why are you suddenly introducing secular "governmental registrars" into a point about evangelism?
You make no sense, Vlad.
-
Not everything has to change and certainly not at the pace of an impatient antitheist.
Yes, but the point is marriage even Holy Matrimony has not remained fixed on what is viewed acceptable for it to take place. Go back to the 15th C. and you were thought foolish to marry for love. It was about finances, property and wealth - how unusual for the Church to concern itself with such earthly, base matters. ::)
Why make an exception on the grounds of homosexuality now. We all are aware that the institution changes. Your support of retaining it in some form speaks to a prejudice held surely?
PS You keep liking to introduce random stereotypes but I'm not an impatient antitheist, I really don't know how you can square the circle of claiming to support marriage even of the holy matrimony kind, but then say it's ok to deny it to people (not me, don't want it, never will want it) who deem it important for themselves and their families, as many gay people do.
-
Vlad,
I don’t care what you bellieve –⁸ it’s all nonsense on stilts.
Funnily enough gaslighters in historical municipalities used stilts. Now hat put me in mind of gaslighting?
-
Do you even think before you reply?
Anchorman has addressed your apparent suggestion in your #40 that "Churches should perform civil marriage": here in Scotland that isn't permitted (see Anchorman's #48).
But in your #40, that I partially quoted above, your full sentence was "In the meantime can you address my suggestion that Churches should perform civil marriage as defined by law and the moneys raised directed to evangelism. Since the implication here is that you are suggesting that clerics perform civil marriages, and we now know that in Scotland at least they can't, why are you suddenly introducing secular "governmental registrars" into a point about evangelism?
You make no sense, Vlad.
I wasn't aware that the world ended at the Carter Bar Gordon.
-
Vlad,
Funnily enough gaslighters in historical municipalities used stilts. Now hat put me in mind of gaslighting?
Avoidance noted. So anyway - about you worshipping a homophobic god (using your own definition of "holy") while at the same time claiming to be non-homophobic yourself. Who's right about that then - you or your god?
-
I wasn't aware that the world ended at the Carter Bar Gordon.
Is it 'evasion Saturday' by any chance?
-
Is it 'evasion Saturday' by any chance?
The Church in Scotland doesn't allow it's clergy to do civil weddings..............and?
I only make a suggestion.
-
Vlad,
The Church in Scotland doesn't allow it's clergy to do civil weddings..............and?
I only make a suggestion.
So about you worshipping a (according to your own assertions) homophobic god while claiming to be non-homophobic yourself...
...which of you is correct about that would you say?
-
Vlad,
Avoidance noted. So anyway - about you worshipping a homophobic god (using your own definition of "holy") while at the same time claiming to be non-homophobic yourself. Who's right about that then - you or your god?
You are just putting words in people's mouths. Believing that guys should be able to marry is homophobic? How?
Believing that the definition of HOLY matrimony doesn't change on the whim of people weaponising homosexuality is homophobic? How?
-
Vlad,
You are just putting words in people's mouths.
No, I’m just reflecting your own words back to you and you don’t like how ugly they are.
Believing that guys should be able to marry is homophobic? How?
No-one has said that.
Believing that the definition of HOLY matrimony doesn't change on the whim of people weaponising homosexuality is homophobic? How?
No-one has said that either.
Again:
1. You believe there to be something you call “god”. Yes?
2. You believe this god to be morally inerrant. Yes?
3. You believe this god determines what is and isn’t “holy”. Yes?
4. You believe that one of the positions this god has decided to be holy is that homosexual people should be denied holy matrimony, but heterosexual people should not. Yes?
5. You understand that discriminating on the ground of same-sex attraction is homophobic. Yes?
6. You worship this god. Yes?
7. You claim to be non-homophobic. Yes?
So, once again – who’s right about this then: you or your god?
Incidentally, there is a way out for you here – you need to be a theist and an anti-theist: essentially, “I still think there’s a god but, but I really wish I was wrong about that”.
You’re welcome.
-
The Church in Scotland doesn't allow it's clergy to do civil weddings..............and?
I only make a suggestion.
Then your suggestion that clergy perform civil marriages is flawed (here in civilisation anyway).
-
Not everything has to change and certainly not at the pace of an impatient antitheist.
It does have to change if it is WRONG like not allowing gays to have a religious marriage if they so wish.
-
Vlad,
No, I’m just reflecting your own words back to you and you don’t like how ugly they are.
No-one has said that.
No-one has said that either.
Again:
1. You believe there to be something you call “god”. Yes?
2. You believe this god to be morally inerrant. Yes?
3. You believe this god determines what is and isn’t “holy”. Yes?
4. You believe that one of the positions this god has decided to be holy is that homosexual people should be denied holy matrimony, but heterosexual people should not. Yes?
5. You understand that discriminating on the sole ground of same-sex attraction is homophobic. Yes?
6. You worship this god. Yes?
7. You claim to be non-homophobic. Yes?
So, once again – who’s right about this then: you or your god?
Incidentally, there is a way out for you here – you need to be a theist and an anti-theist: essentially, “I still think there’s a god but, but I really wish I was wrong about that”.
You’re welcome.
I am not settled on this and you have less skin in this issue than you would have your performance suggest but you have to admit no where is gay holy matrimony mentioned in the bible or anywhere else for that matter.
Matrimony refers universally to a contract involving a man and a woman and that was it. A harmless label up until weaponisation by certain people. Now to me the argument that Christians cannot claim copywrite over the term marriage is well made. But to expect an antitheists view to be snapped to by God or others is a matter of linguistic totalitarianism. In other words, Why should we accept antitheistic ruling on what is holy.
That isn't supporting guys that is just wishing to punk the Church.
Now about our skin in the game. I am married to a lady and you have too. We have therefore no experience of being a gay Christian considering marriage and since this is a matter between the individual and God logically an atheist has the least understanding of the process and probably doesn't care about personal feelings in the matter anyway.
-
It does have to change if it is WRONG like not allowing gays to have a religious marriage if they so wish.
They can have a religious wedding in a range of churches which as the thread title suggests has increased somewhat.
-
Then your suggestion that clergy perform civil marriages is flawed (here in civilisation anyway).
Meaningless nonsense. If you believe that the law was settled you would never campaign for change.
-
I am not settled on this and you have less skin in this issue than you would have your performance suggest but you have to admit no where is gay holy matrimony mentioned in the bible or anywhere else for that matter.
Matrimony refers universally to a contract involving a man and a woman and that was it.
This is the same bible that tells you where to get and how to treat your slaves, and whose god character commits, and orders others to commit, genocide and other crimes against humanity, that one, yes?
Christians generally don't commit genocide or keep slaves any more, so why cling to the homophobic view of matrimony?
A harmless label up until weaponisation by certain people. Now to me the argument that Christians cannot claim copywrite over the term marriage is well made. But to expect an antitheists view to be snapped to by God or others is a matter of linguistic totalitarianism. In other words, Why should we accept antitheistic ruling on what is holy.
You don't have to do or believe anything. You can believe what you want but if you think "holy matrimony" should be denied to homosexual couples, that's discrimination - even if you blame it on the god you believe in.
-
Evangelism is the prime mission of the Church. I wouldn't expect governmental registrars to turn fees into evangelistic support.
Can't argue with that.
-
This is the same bible that tells you where to get and how to treat your slaves, and whose god character commits, and orders others to commit, genocide and other crimes against humanity, that one, yes?
Christians generally don't commit genocide or keep slaves any more, so why cling to the homophobic view of matrimony?
You don't have to do or believe anything. You can believe what you want but if you think "holy matrimony" should be denied to homosexual couples, that's discrimination - even if you blame it on the god you believe in.
You are categorising historic slavery an historic warfare with the historically universal definition of marriage.
Not a good comparison.
-
Meaningless nonsense. If you believe that the law was settled you would never campaign for change.
Do you plan to actually discuss what you suggested earlier (in #40) or do you just plan to wriggle and evade?
-
Do you plan to actually discuss what you suggested earlier (in #40) or do you just plan to wriggle and evade?
TO BE HONEST IVE FORGOTTEN WHAT IT IS YOU THINK I'M EVADING.
-
You are categorising historic slavery an historic warfare with the historically universal definition of marriage.
Not a good comparison.
Because you don't like it? If you're perfectly free to ignore some parts of the bible (explain away, re-interpret, or whatever you want to call it) why cling to others when it's clearly discriminatory?
-
Because you don't like it? If you're perfectly free to ignore some parts of the bible (explain away, re-interpret, or whatever you want to call it) why cling to others when it's clearly discriminatory?
And you are free not to admit that until recently Gay Marriage was a non issue. Unlike slavery and genocide.
This isn't a clinging issue for me this is a linguistic totalitarian issue for you.
-
And you are free not to admit that until recently Gay Marriage was a non issue.
Why would I not admit it? Marriage may be recent but the discrimination against gay people has been an issue for a lot longer.
Unlike slavery and genocide.
Drivel. They clearly didn't bother people much in biblical times. Slavery (not to mention racism and violence against minorities) clearly didn't bother many Christians much more recently.
This isn't a clinging issue for me this is a linguistic totalitarian issue for you.
Laughable.
-
Vlad,
I am not settled on this…
Not settled on what – whether to keep claiming to be non-homophobic, or to decide that your god (who by your own description is homophobic) is right after all?
…and you have less skin in this issue than you would have your performance suggest…
Irrelevant.
…but you have to admit no where is gay holy matrimony mentioned in the bible or anywhere else for that matter.
And nor does it mention abortion, euthanasia or climate change. More to the point though, I don’t have to “admit” that at all – you do though if you think not mentioning something makes it unholy, and thus you must accept too that you worship a homophobic god. This is your problem remember, not mine.
Matrimony refers universally to a contract involving a man and a woman and that was it. A harmless label up until weaponisation by certain people. Now to me the argument that Christians cannot claim copywrite over the term marriage is well made. But to expect an antitheists view to be snapped to by God or others is a matter of linguistic totalitarianism. In other words, Why should we accept antitheistic ruling on what is holy.
That isn't supporting guys that is just wishing to punk the Church.
Incoherent gibberish.
Now about our skin in the game. I am married to a lady and you have too. We have therefore no experience of being a gay Christian considering marriage…
Still irrelevant.
…and since this is a matter between the individual and God…
Very funny. What it’s actually about is you claiming to be non-homophobic and at the same time also asserting there to be an inerrant god who is homophobic.
Which side of the fence are you on then – yours or your god’s?
…logically an atheist has the least understanding of the process and probably doesn't care about personal feelings in the matter anyway.
There’s no logic in that nonsense at all.
Look, as you just ran away from it last time here are the premises I posted:
1. You believe there to be something you call “god”.
2. You believe this god to be morally inerrant.
3. You believe this god determines what is and isn’t “holy”.
4. You believe that one of the positions this god has decided to be holy is that homosexual people should be denied holy matrimony, but heterosexual people should not.
5. You understand that discriminating on the ground of same-sex attraction is homophobic.
6. You worship this god.
7. You claim to be non-homophobic.
Based on the (albeit incoherent, vague, self-contradictory and often inconsistently expressed) things you’ve said here in the past your answers to all these questions is “yes” right?
That being the case, once again – who’s right about this then would you say: non-homophobic you or your homophobic god?
-
Vlad,
Not settled on what – whether to keep claiming to be non-homophobic, or to decide that your god (who by your own description is homophobic) is right after all?
Irrelevant.
And nor does it mention abortion, euthanasia or climate change. More to the point though, I don’t have to “admit” that at all – you do though if you think not mentioning something makes it unholy, and thus you must accept too that you worship a homophobic god. This is your problem remember, not mine.
Incoherent gibberish.
Still irrelevant.
Very funny. What it’s actually about is you claiming to be non-homophobic and at the same time also asserting there to be an inerrant god who is homophobic.
Which side of the fence are you on then – yours or your god’s?
There’s no logic in that nonsense at all.
Look, as you just ran away from it last time here are the premises I posted:
1. You believe there to be something you call “god”.
2. You believe this god to be morally inerrant.
3. You believe this god determines what is and isn’t “holy”.
4. You believe that one of the positions this god has decided to be holy is that homosexual people should be denied holy matrimony, but heterosexual people should not.
5. You understand that discriminating on the ground of same-sex attraction is homophobic.
6. You worship this god.
7. You claim to be non-homophobic.
Based on the (albeit incoherent, vague, self-contradictory and often inconsistently expressed) things you’ve said here in the past your answers to all these questions is “yes” right?
That being the case, once again – who’s right about this then would you say: non-homophobic you or your homophobic god?
Let me make my position clear. Should guys be allowed marriage. Of course, Christianity has no copywrite.
Do I believe your prime concern in redefining words in order to redefine the boundaries of term homophobia, yes.
What then is hard to understand about my position?
Also why do you keep saying that I accept that God is homophobic or even that your definition is valid ?
-
Let me make my position clear. Should guys be allowed marriage. Of course, Christianity has no copywrite.
Do I believe your prime concern in redefining words in order to redefine the boundaries of term homophobia, yes.
What then is hard to understand about my position?
Also why do you keep saying that I accept that God is homophobic or even that your definition is valid ?
"redefining words in order to redefine the boundaries of term homophobia"
Well done
-
"redefining words in order to redefine the boundaries of term homophobia"
Well done
Is someone who has gay sex committing a 'sin'?
-
Is someone who has gay sex committing a 'sin'?
It is my understanding that sex outside marriage is sin.
-
It is my understanding that sex outside marriage is sin.
Mine too, but it all depends on how you define marriage. I'd say that any life-long (at least by intention), loving, mutually serving, faithful relationship is a marriage, whether or not formalised in a religious or civil ceremony, and whatever the sex of the partners (and perhaps even their number: I don't see any fundamental objection to group marriages).
-
Let me make my position clear. Should guys be allowed marriage. Of course, Christianity has no copywrite.
Super: then we are agreed that marriage is a social construct and, therefore, varies accordingly.
Do I believe your prime concern in redefining words in order to redefine the boundaries of term homophobia, yes.
No doubt; but that would be misrepresenting what others have said.
What then is hard to understand about my position?
Just about everything, since your 'position' is invariably one of evasive incoherence.
Also why do you keep saying that I accept that God is homophobic or even that your definition is valid ?
It is the definition of marriage that some of you 'God' enthusiasts adopt that you should review, Vlad. You talked of 'holy marriage' earlier, thereby implying that the conditions for this 'holy marriage' are determined by this 'God', and we're told by 'God' enthusiasts that 'God' doesn't agree with same-sex marriage: and that is overt discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which leads to the conclusion that 'God' (and it's representatives) are homophobic in that they seek to restrict access to marriage in line with their religious superstitions.
-
It is my understanding that sex outside marriage is sin.
Yes. Set the rules and then don't allow some people to play by them. All very fair and equal.
-
It is my understanding that sex outside marriage is sin.
So you, Spud, and Vlad, want to treat gay and lesbian people differently, because even if they are covil married, you still think they sin. Smells like homophobia to me
-
Can we please quit with this tactic. It does two things: it seeks to stifle the discussion and it cheapens the term.
You can do whatever you want. I'm not seeking to stifle discussion. That's just your opinion
And if you think that treating homosexuals differently just because they are homosexual isn't homophobia, then I think you don't understand the term.
-
Is someone who has gay sex committing a 'sin'?
Yes, and Leviticus makes the distinction between that and adultery. By redefining the word 'marriage' to include two of the same-sex you're blurring that distinction
-
Yes, and Leviticus makes the distinction between that and adultery. By redefining the word 'marriage' to include two of the same-sex you're blurring that distinction
Back to Leviticus. Really?
https://hill-kleerup.org/blog/2012/06/13/76-things-banned-in-leviticus-and-their-penalties.html
Hope you are following all these rules.
Now you are going to come out with some pathetic bollocks to explain why some of these no longer apply, but the one on gay sex does. Don't bother. You are just cherry picking to justify your prejudice.
And on a purely pedantic note:
Having sex with a man “as one does with a woman”
How can I do that? Any man I have sex with doesn't have a vagina. So that rule is null and void.
-
So you, Spud, and Vlad, want to treat gay and lesbian people differently, because even if they are covil married, you still think they sin. Smells like homophobia to me
There are churches where gay people are able to be married. What's your difficulty?
-
Yes, and Leviticus makes the distinction between that and adultery. By redefining the word 'marriage' to include two of the same-sex you're blurring that distinction
So homophobia. Btw how hard can you beat a slave?
-
There are churches where gay people are able to be married. What's your difficulty?
That you think they shouldn't be married in your church. If you were a baker and wouldn't serve gay people, it's not a defence to say the baker across the road will serve them.
-
That you think they shouldn't be married in your church. If you were a baker and wouldn't serve gay people, it's not a defence to say the baker across the road will serve them.
I am not against Gay Marriage and the idea of Gay holy matrimony you seem to be using is a construct by
Linguistic totalitarianism. A condition which is most definitely sinful.
If by baking a cake you mean changing gods mind or automatically knowing God's mind you already know what
I Feel about about that. So not so much won't bake a cake more don't bake cakes and don't have what you want in stock.
-
I am not against Gay Marriage and the idea of Gay holy matrimony you seem to be using is a construct by
Linguistic totalitarianism. A condition which is most definitely sinful.
If by baking a cake you mean changing gods mind or automatically knowing God's mind you already know what
I Feel about about that. So not so much won't bake a cake more don't bake cakes and don't have what you want in stock.
You don't want homosexual marriage in your church.
The baker analogy shows why saying they can get married elsewhere doesb't work.
-
You don't want homosexual marriage in your church.
The baker analogy shows why saying they can get married elsewhere doesb't work.
Nope. I made the suggestion that civil marriage could be performed ......on church property by clergy without the religious paraphenalia and the proceeds go to tvangeliism.
Also it occurs to me that I would as a baker serve gay people so on that score your cake analogy is shaky.
-
Nope. I made the suggestion that civil marriage could be performed ......on church property by clergy without the religious paraphenalia and the proceeds go to tvangeliism.
So you did, and Anchorman pointed out that in Scotland clergy cannot conduct non-religious/civil marriages.
I take it you have established that elsewhere in the UK clergy can indeed conduct civil marriages in religious settings and that said clergy would be willing, or be allowed, to conduct these: I asked you this earlier but you never addressed the questions, which makes me wonder if your are making ill-informed assumptions. So, are you certain, and provided what you suggested can actually happen, that those opting for a civil marriage would be prepared to pay fees that would then be used to evangelise?
I'm sure you'll have done a spot of due diligence before you announced your scheme, so you should be in a position to conform that your above suggestion is a practical proposition.
-
Nope. I made the suggestion that civil marriage could be performed ......on church property by clergy without the religious paraphenalia and the proceeds go to tvangeliism.
Also it occurs to me that I would as a baker serve gay people so on that score your cake analogy is shaky.
Fuck knows what you are saying with your first paragraph.
Your last sentence misses the point entirely. The point is that your 'argument' that gay people can get married elsewhere does nothing to cover your homophobia. That baker Vlad would bake a cake for gay people doesn't stop the fact that religious Vlad does not want gay people to be married in his homophobic church.
-
Fuck knows what you are saying with your first paragraph.
Your last sentence misses the point entirely. The point is that your 'argument' that gay people can get married elsewhere does nothing to cover your homophobia. That baker Vlad would bake a cake for gay people doesn't stop the fact that religious Vlad does not want gay people to be married in his homophobic church.
And again how am I homophobic if until very recently no one talked about gay marriage let alone gay holy matrimony and the declaration of homophobia is based on an act of Linguistic imperialism? Would I let gatsby married by a clergyman. Yes a clergyman could preside over a civil marriage and there are churches which will marry gay people.
-
So you did, and Anchorman pointed out that in Scotland clergy cannot conduct non-religious/civil marriages.
I take it you have established that elsewhere in the UK clergy can indeed conduct civil marriages in religious settings and that said clergy would be willing, or be allowed, to conduct these: I asked you this earlier but you never addressed the questions, which makes me wonder if your are making ill-informed assumptions. So, are you certain, and provided what you suggested can actually happen, that those opting for a civil marriage would be prepared to pay fees that would then be used to evangelise?
I'm sure you'll have done a spot of due diligence before you announced your scheme, so you should be in a position to conform that your above suggestion is a practical proposition.
Due diligence? I think you might be mistaking this discussion and opinion forum for something more serious it is an opinion.
-
Due diligence? I think you might be mistaking this discussion and opinion forum for something more serious it is an opinion.
Which is you running away from your own badly thought through 'suggestion' (in your #40, in case you've forgotten).
-
Vlad,
Let me make my position clear.
You already have: you claim to be non-homophobic, but at the same time you tell us you believe in an inerrant god who is is homophobic.
Should guys be allowed marriage. Of course, Christianity has no copywrite.
It’s “copyright”, and by “marriage” what you’re actually saying is “one type of marriage” right?
Do I believe your prime concern in redefining words in order to redefine the boundaries of term homophobia, yes.
There is no redefinition.
You’ve told us you think there’s something you call “god” (your word).
You’ve told us that this god decides what is an isn’t “holy” (your word).
You’ve told us that this includes only some types of marriage being “holy matrimony” (your words).
You’ve told us that that this god “discriminates” (your word) against gay people by denying them holy matrimony.
Here’s Wiki om homophobia:
“Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination…”
Discrimination on the ground of sexual orinatioan is homophobic. That’s what the word means. You believe (according to your words) in a homophobic god. QED
What then is hard to understand about my position?
How you reconcile your claimed non-homophobia with your worship of a homophobic god.
Also why do you keep saying that I accept that God is homophobic…
Because you keep telling us he is in your description of him.
…or even that your definition is valid ?
Because discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation is homophobic. That’s what the word means. You can twist in the wind about this as much as you like, but it won’t go away.
So again, who’s right: you for being non-homophobic, or your (according to you) homophobic god?
-
Spud,
"redefining words in order to redefine the boundaries of term homophobia"
Well done
Wrong. It's Vlad who's trying to redefine the word by carving out from it the discrimination part.
-
Vlad,
There are churches where gay people are able to be married. What's your difficulty?
Our bus company allows back people to sit at the back. Some other bus companies allow black people to sit wherever they like. What’s your difficulty?
-
Blue
I think Muphry's Law just struck home on your, otherwise, excellent post.
It’s “copyright”, and by “marriage” what you’re actually saying is “one type of marriage” right?
Discriminate on the grounds of sexual orinatioan is homophobic
-
Trent,
I think Muphry's Law just struck home on your, otherwise, excellent post.
Thanks. I plead typo though M'lud rather than not knowing how to spell the word!
-
Vlad,
You already have: you claim to be non-homophobic, but at the same time you tell us you believe in an inerrant god who is is homophobic.
It’s “copyright”, and by “marriage” what you’re actually saying is “one type of marriage” right?
There is no redefinition.
You’ve told us you think there’s something you call “god” (your word).
You’ve told us that this god decides what is an isn’t “holy” (your word).
You’ve told us that this includes only some types of marriage being “holy matrimony” (your words).
You’ve told us that that this god “discriminates” (your word) against gay people by denying them holy matrimony.
Here’s Wiki om homophobia:
“Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination…”
Discriminate on the grounds of sexual orinatioan is homophobic. That’s what the word means. You believe (according to your words) in a homophobic god. QED
How you reconcile your claimed non-homophobia with your worship of a homophobic god. Which of you do you think is right about that?
Because you keep telling us he is in your description of him.
Because discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation is homophobic. That’s what the word means. You can twist in the wind about this as much as you like, but it won’t go away.
So again, who’s right: you for being non-homophobic, or your (according to you) homophobic god?
Historically, No one, gays included thought that marriage was anything other ,in the context of relationships thought holy matrimony meant anything more than the union of one man and woman and this is true universally of marriage. Historically then no animus between anyone on this score.
When gay marriage became a thing those people who invented and popularised the idea effectively through a piece of Linguistic piracy also broadened in their own view the meaning of the word homophobic.
Now the argument that Christians have no monopoly on marriage is sound. Therefore if that is sound, neither do word pirates whose main mission is anti religious also do not have a monopoly on marriage and I think the law of the UK recognises this. Regarding holy matrimony since I nor anyone decides that you should, as faithful Christians have done, take this up with God.
Questions arising from your revisionist historical perspective, should be taken up with the right authorities.
-
Vlad,
Our bus company allows back people to sit at the back. Some other bus companies allow black people to sit wherever they like. What’s your difficulty?
I have no difficulty with "Back people" Sitting at the back of the bus. Or gay people being married.
What I do object to is atheists pirating the language and weaponising homosexuals.
And being monopolistic over what marriage is.
-
I have no difficulty with "Back people" Sitting at the back of the bus. Or gay people being married.
What I do object to is atheists pirating the language and weaponising homosexuals.
And being monopolistic over what marriage is.
Your posts are nonsensical! ::)
-
I have no difficulty with "Back people" Sitting at the back of the bus.
Err....you do know what you are saying here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks
-
Vlad,
Historically, No one, gays included thought that marriage was anything other ,in the context of relationships thought holy matrimony meant anything more than the union of one man and woman and this is true universally of marriage. Historically then no animus between anyone on this score.
Irrelevant, and in any case clearly not true as many societies did and still do practice polygamous marriage. Have a look at "google images", “polygamous marriages” for some nice wedding photos to cheer you up.
When gay marriage became a thing those people who invented and popularised the idea effectively through a piece of Linguistic piracy also broadened in their own view the meaning of the word homophobic.
Utter bollocks. It became a “thing” as some societies developed to think that discriminatory practices are indefensible. The same happened with the abolition of slavery, the emancipation of women etc – both of which were previously the Zeitgeist too.
Now the argument that Christians have no monopoly on marriage is sound.
And irrelevant.
Therefore if that is sound, neither do word pirates whose main mission is anti religious also do not have a monopoly on marriage and I think the law of the UK recognises this.
Gibberish.
Regarding holy matrimony since I nor anyone decides that you should, as faithful Christians have done, take this up with God.
A homophobic god is your claim, not mine. I merely ask how you square that belief with your claim to be non-homophobic. So far, answer have I none.
Questions arising from your revisionist historical perspective, should be taken up with the right authorities.
There haven’t been any. So again:
You’ve told us you think there’s something you call “god” (your word).
You’ve told us that this god decides what is an isn’t “holy” (your word).
You’ve told us that this includes only some types of marriage being “holy matrimony” (your words).
You’ve told us that that this god “discriminates” (your word) against gay people by denying them holy matrimony.
Here’s Wiki on homophobia:
“Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination…”
Discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation is homophobic. That’s what the word means, and you don't have the right to redefine it because it doesnt suit you. You believe therefore (according to your words) in a homophobic god. QED
So once more, who’s right: you for being non-homophobic, or your (according to you) homophobic god?
-
Vlad,
I have no difficulty with "Back people" Sitting at the back of the bus. Or gay people being married.
Fuck me - when you miss the point you really go all in don’t you. The point here is that black people could sit only at the back (because the seats at the front were denied to them); gay people can have only “non-holy” marriage (because the “holy” version is denied to them).
What I do object to is atheists pirating the language…
The only person who’s tried to “pirate” the language here is you.
…and weaponising homosexuals.
Which no-one has done.
And being monopolistic over what marriage is.
Which no-one has done either. Have as many types of marriage as you like – holy, not holy, monogamous, polygamous, knock yourself out - I don't care at all. What this is about though is you claiming on the one hand to be non-homophobic, while at the same time defending denying marriage of a certain type to people of one sexual orientation.
You know, just like denying bus travel of a certain type to people of one skin colour.
-
Vlad,
Fuck me -
I usually expect dinner and a show first.
-
Vlad,
I usually expect dinner and a show first.
But not holy matrimony? Sinner!
-
Spud,
Wrong. It's Vlad who's trying to redefine the word by carving out from it the discrimination part.
Ah, what I thought Vlad meant was that people have redefined the word marriage so that instead of meaning man and woman it means person and person. So then anyone who doesn't agree with the new definition is deemed homophobic.
-
Spud,
Ah, what I thought Vlad meant was that people have redefined the word marriage, so that anyone who doesn't agree with the new definition is deemed homophobic.
No. He's basically claiming to be not homophobic while at the same time also espousing a homophobic faith belief. His cheat is to claim that others are redefining the term "homophobia", whereas in fact he's the one doing the redefining (presumably because he doesn't like what its actual meaning says about his beliefs).
-
Spud,
No. He's basically claiming to be not homophobic while at the same time also espousing a homophobic faith belief. His cheat is to claim that others are redefining the term "homophobia", whereas in fact he's the one doing the redefining (presumably because he doesn't like what its actual meaning says about his beliefs).
Homophobia means fear of the same although fear of homosexuality or homosexuals would probably stand.
And yet in your opinion and going by the meaning I have just outlined a homophobic god is afraid of homosexuality. Why should God be afraid of anything?
Now it is obvious that some jiggery poker has to happen for a fear of homosexuality to become discrimination against homosexuals just as there has to be jiggery pokery in changing the term holy matrimony from what THE CHURCH CALLS THE UNION OF A MAN AND A WOMAN, INTO an act of violence against gay people.
So I call heavy duty word repurposing here.
To put it into context it's as if the whole world rests peacefully together in the context of their understanding of HOLY matrimony and someone gets up and shouts start extending holy matrimony to gays you bloody homophones.
Just for the hell of it.
For the record there are churches and priests who will celebrate gay matrimony.
-
Vlad,
Homophobia means fear of the same although fear of homosexuality or homosexuals would probably stand.
And yet in your opinion and going by the meaning I have just outlined a homophobic god is afraid of homosexuality. Why should God be afraid of anything?
Now it is obvious that some jiggery poker has to happen for a fear of homosexuality to become discrimination against homosexuals just as there has to be jiggery pokery in changing the term holy matrimony from what THE CHURCH CALLS THE UNION OF A MAN AND A WOMAN, INTO an act of violence against gay people.
So I call heavy duty word repurposing here.
I did wonder whether you’d scuttle into this evasive fuckwittery rather than actually engage with your (or your god’s) homophobia and sure enough you couldn’t resist could you. Yes, the root of the word “phobia” is from the Greek meaning “fear of”. It has never though meant just “fear of”, and has always encompassed “prejudice against” too. Here’s a Wiki article to educate you about this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia#Origin_of_the_term
To put it into context it's as if the whole world rests peacefully together in the context of their understanding of HOLY matrimony and someone gets up and shouts start extending holy matrimony to gays you bloody homophones.
Just for the hell of it.
“The whole world” excluding gay people presumably?
Statement 1:
To put it into context it's as if the whole world rests peacefully together in the context of their understanding of slavery and someone gets up and shouts start extending freedom to slaves.
Just for the hell of it.
Statement 2:
To put it into context it's as if the whole world rests peacefully together in the context of their understanding of women not having the vote and someone gets up and shouts start extending voting to women.
Just for the hell of it.
Can you see anything wrong with these statements?
For the record there are churches and priests who will celebrate gay holy matrimony.
For the record there were bus companies and drivers that did let black people ride at the front of the bus too. And?
Look, you can keep twisting in the wind as much as you like about this but it still comes down to a simple question: do you think it’s morally fine to deny rights to gay people that you wouldn’t deny to straight people solely on the basis of sexual orientation?
If your answer is “yes”, you’re a homophobe (as is your god); if your answer is “no”, then it’s just your god who’s the homophobe.
I’m fully aware that you’ll never, ever answer a question but it’s still your question to answer nonetheless.
-
Vlad,
I did wonder whether you’d scuttle into this evasive fuckwittery rather than actually engage with your (or your god’s) homophobia and sure enough you couldn’t resist could you. Yes, the root of the word “phobia” is from the Greek meaning “fear of”. It has never though meant just “fear of”, and has always encompassed “prejudice against” too. Here’s a Wiki article to educate you about this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia#Origin_of_the_term
“The whole world” excluding gay people presumably?
Statement 1:
To put it into context it's as if the whole world rests peacefully together in the context of their understanding of slavery and someone gets up and shouts start extending freedom to slaves.
Just for the hell of it.
Statement 2:
To put it into context it's as if the whole world rests peacefully together in the context of their understanding of women not having the vote and someone gets up and shouts start extending voting to women.
Just for the hell of it.
Can you see anything wrong with these statements?
For the record there were bus companies and drivers that did let black people ride at the front of the bus too. And?
Look, you can keep twisting in the wind as much as you like about this but it still comes down to a simple question: do you think it’s morally fine to deny rights to gay people that you wouldn’t deny to straight people solely on the basis of sexual orientation?
If your answer is “yes”, you’re a homophobe (as is your god); if your answer is “no”, then it’s just your god who’s the homophobe.
I’m fully aware that you’ll never, ever answer a question but it’s still your question to answer nonetheless.
Cakes, bakers, buses,bad analogy.
I think we can agree that there is more than one model of marriage. The universal traditional models include man/ woman, men/women and man/women. The Christian model is a version of this universal tradition whereby a man and a woman take up the challenge of a partnership consisting partly of sociological, psychological and biological distinctiveness and difference which involves God at all stages.I think we can agree tthat this model holds no de facto monopoly on or claim to a definitive description or soul model of matrimony. Therefore I feel free to accept the notion of same sex marriage which is a gender neutral model. You are now claiming that this should have the monopoly.
-
To put it into context it's as if the whole world rests peacefully together in the context of their understanding of slavery and someone gets up and shouts start extending freedom to slaves.
That's interesting, given the Israelite practice of owning slaves.
When the early Church began shaking off the Old Covenant regulations they stipulated that those involving idolatry and sexual immorality remained in place for all time (Acts 15).
-
Acts also stipulated every man should be circumcised.
Acts 15:1-6: "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."
Elsewhere in the Bible (Corinthians, Galatians) that is contradicted. So why should Acts be correct on one issue and incorrect on another?
Still picking that cherry I see.
-
That's interesting, given the Israelite practice of owning slaves.
When the early Church began shaking off the Old Covenant regulations they stipulated that those involving idolatry and sexual immorality remained in place for all time (Acts 15).
Thanks for flagging this statement of BHS. There was of course no such universal concensus over the rectitude of slavery not least because the millions in slavery were opposed to it. From the get go Christians were questioning the rectitude of slavery.
-
Still picking that cherry I see.
Thanks for reminding me - I have got some ripe cherries which need picking!
-
Acts also stipulated every man should be circumcised.
Acts 15:1-6: "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."
Elsewhere in the Bible (Corinthians, Galatians) that is contradicted. So why should Acts be correct on one issue and incorrect on another?
Still picking that cherry I see.
Caught cherrypicking yourself because acts describes the events which led to declaring circumcision not to have anything to do with Salvation.
-
When the early Church began shaking off the Old Covenant regulations they stipulated that those involving idolatry and sexual immorality remained in place for all time (Acts 15).
So what?
Whatever the "early church" thought about anything isn't binding, and in any event who decided that the views of "early church" on sexual morality were in any sense authoritative?
-
So what?
Whatever the "early church" thought about anything isn't binding, and in any event who decided that the views of "early church" on sexual morality were in any sense authoritative?
The question may be asked of the gender neutral view of marriage
-
Caught cherrypicking yourself because acts describes the events which led to declaring circumcision not to have anything to do with Salvation.
Not really. Just highlighting the inherent contradictions within the good book that undermine my ability to take it at all seriously as a coherent guide to living a good life.
This whole debate is tiresome in the extreme.
I'll leave you all to it with this final thought. Jesus never did say anything about gay people and yet some Christians are fixated on gay people but not on financial snake oil salesman on which Jesus did have some words. In fact the evangelism of which you speak earlier now seem to have morphed into a monster that relies on said snake oil salesman. And yet some of you good Christian folk take aim at a group of people the suppression of whom act as a dog whistle to the adoring evangelical crowd. I realise this is to some extent a US phenomenon, but look at the amount of money being poured by said US evangelism into the persecution of gay people in Africa. You should actually hang your head in shame that you claim to have Christianity in common with these people. Christians talk of morality and allow this to happen:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/africa-us-christian-right-50m/
Get your own house in order.
With that, I'm fucking off for awhile. You are pissing me off royally. I mean as in, I'm a queen and I'm really annoyed.
-
Not really. Just highlighting the inherent contradictions within the good book that undermine my ability to take it at all seriously as a coherent guide to living a good life.
This whole debate is tiresome in the extreme.
I'll leave you all to it with this final thought. Jesus never did say anything about gay people and yet some Christians are fixated on gay people but not on financial snake oil salesman on which Jesus did have some words. In fact the evangelism of which you speak earlier now seem to have morphed into a monster that relies on said snake oil salesman. And yet some of you good Christian folk take aim at a group of people the suppression of whom act as a dog whistle to the adoring evangelical crowd. I realise this is to some extent a US phenomenon, but look at the amount of money being poured by said US evangelism into the persecution of gay people in Africa. You should actually hang your head in shame that you claim to have Christianity in common with these people. Christians talk of morality and allow this to happen:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/africa-us-christian-right-50m/
Get your own house in order.
With that, I'm fucking off for awhile. You are pissing me off royally. I mean as in, I'm a queen and I'm really annoyed.
A shame. I would have loved to have discussed the disgracing of Christianity by it's professing members. You will note that I'm not even using the word apparent.
-
A shame. I would have loved to have discussed the disgracing of Christianity by it's professing members. You will note that I'm not even using the word apparent.
It is you who is disgracing the faith with your nonsensical posts! ::)
-
The question may be asked of the gender neutral view of marriage
The question "who decided that the gender neutral view of marriage was in any sense authoritative?"?
Society at large - the interpretation of successive courts and governments on the interpretation of the stated human right to equal treatment regardless of sex, gender or sexual identity has consistently been that a gender neutral (and religiously neutral) view of marriage should be adopted.
O.
-
Vlad,
Cakes, bakers, buses,bad analogy.
No, it's a good analogy. Either you think some rights available to straight people (eg, “holy” matrimony) should be denied to gay people because of sexual orientation or you don’t. The question is analogous to whether you think some rights available to white people (eg sitting at the front of the bus) should be denied to black people on the ground of race.
Your frankly embarrassing defence (“yes, but some churches do allow the full Monty to gay people even though mine doesn’t”) is exposed by the analogy too – you could equally say, “yes, but some bus companies allow black people to sit at the front even though mine doesn’t” as if that somehow made your bus company fine and dandy.
I think we can agree that there is more than one model of marriage.
I’ve said as much several times here.
The universal traditional models include man/ woman, men/women and man/women.
You’ve already been corrected on this – various societies practiced polygamous marriage (and still do) so there’s no universality about it, and in any case so what? Marriage is a human-made construction, not some kind of universal law.
The Christian model is a version of this universal tradition whereby a man and a woman take up the challenge of a partnership consisting partly of sociological, psychological and biological distinctiveness and difference which involves God at all stages.
Not according to you it isn’t. “The Christian model” as you put it these days seems to involve some denominations that practice equal “holy” marriage (but not yours), and some that retain their homophobic practices (yours).
I think we can agree tthat this model holds no de facto monopoly on or claim to a definitive description or soul model of matrimony. Therefore I feel free to accept the notion of same sex marriage which is a gender neutral model. You are now claiming that this should have the monopoly.
Why have you just lied about that? As I said perfectly clearly – have as many types of marriage as you like. I really don’t care, let alone suggest that one of them should have a monopoly. What I am saying though is, regardless of the type of marriage concerned, if you allow it for straight people and deny it to gay people that’s homophobic. Once again therefore: how do you square your claim to be not homophobic with your espousal of a church (and therefore its god narrative) that is homophobic?
-
Vlad,
No, it's a good analogy. Either you think some rights available to straight people (eg, “holy” matrimony) should be denied to gay people because of sexual orientation or you don’t. The question is analogous to whether you think some rights available to white people (eg sitting at the front of the bus) should be denied to black people on the ground of race.
Your frankly embarrassing defence (“yes, but some churches do allow the full Monty to gay people even though mine doesn’t”) is exposed by the analogy too – you could equally say, “yes, but some bus companies allow black people to sit at the front even though mine doesn’t” as if that somehow made your bus company fine and dandy.
I’ve said as much several times here.
You’ve already been corrected on this – various societies practiced polygamous marriage (and still do) so there’s no universality about it, and in any case so what? Marriage is a human-made construction, not some kind of universal law.
Not according to you it isn’t. “The Christian model” as you put it these days seems to involve some denominations that practice equal “holy” marriage (but not yours), and some that retain their homophobic practices (yours).
Why have you just lied about that? As I said perfectly clearly – have as many types of marriage as you like. I really don’t care, let alone suggest that one of them should have a monopoly. What I am saying though is, regardless of the type of marriage concerned, if you allow it for straight people and deny it to gay people that’s homophobic. Once again therefore: how do you square your claim to be not homophobic with your espousal of a church (and therefore its god narrative) that is homophobic?
If a totalitarian antitheist government ordered churches to give holy matrimony services to gay people who would be there to measure the holiness? Would the gender neutral model of marriage have the monopoly?
-
Vlad,
If a totalitarian antitheist government ordered churches to give holy matrimony services to gay people who would be there to measure the holiness? Would the gender neutral model of marriage have the monopoly?
What the hell latest incoherent diversionary tactic is this? You espouse a church that has a type of marriage service that it makes available to straight people and denies to gay people. That’s homophobic.
Do you or do you not think that the homophobic practices of your church are morally acceptable?
It’s a simple enough question isn’t it?
-
Vlad,
I would have loved to have discussed the disgracing of Christianity by it's professing members.
By which you can only mean the non-homophobic ones then.
-
Vlad,
What the hell latest incoherent diversionary tactic is this? You espouse a church that has a type of marriage service that it makes available to straight people and denies to gay people. That’s homophobic.
Do you or do you not think that the homophobic practices of your church are morally acceptable?
It’s a simple enough question isn’t it?
No, no, no you don't get out of the charge of antichristian, antireligious and wanting to stop religious expression in public forums that easily.
It's all very well calling for gender neutral religious matrimony but how does that look. Since , under the law of the land I am not homophobic. How should things change to "dehomophobe holy matrimony. " How can your fantasy situation be realised beyond your mere sloganising?
-
Vlad,
No, no, no you don't get out of the charge of antichristian, antireligious and wanting to stop religious expression in public forums that easily.
Utter fucking bollocks. Either you think it’s morally fine for your church to be homophobic or you don’t. Which is it?
It's all very well calling for gender neutral religious matrimony but how does that look.
It looks like institutions functioning non-homophobically.
Since , under the law of the land I am not homophobic.
It’s not about “the law of the land”, it’s about the meanings of words and your church (and it seems you) functioning according to those words.
How should things change to "dehomophobe holy matrimony. "
By making it available equally to straight and to gay people. Obviously.
How can your fantasy situation be realised beyond your mere sloganising?
Easily, but irrelevant in any case.
Yet again: do you or do you not think that the homophobic practices of your church are morally acceptable?
Why do you keep throwing all the diversionary incoherence you can at this simple question rather than just answer it?
-
No, no, no you don't get out of the charge of antichristian, antireligious and wanting to stop religious expression in public forums that easily.
It's all very well calling for gender neutral religious matrimony but how does that look. Since , under the law of the land I am not homophobic. How should things change to "dehomophobe holy matrimony. " How can your fantasy situation be realised beyond your mere sloganising?
If you weren't homophobic you would expect all churches, including your own, to perform same sex marriages. If the Biblical god character, should it exist, is homophobic, it doesn't deserve to be worshipped.
-
Vlad,
Utter fucking bollocks. Either you think it’s morally fine for your church to be homophobic or you don’t. Which is it?
It looks like institutions functioning non-homophobically.
It’s not about “the law of the land”, it’s about the meanings of words and your church (and it seems you) functioning according to those words.
By making it available equally to straight and to gay people. Obviously.
Easily, but irrelevant in any case.
Yet again: do you or do you not think that the homophobic practices of your church are morally acceptable?
Why do you keep throwing all the diversionary incoherence you can at this simple question rather than just answer it?
so the take away here is a non homophobic church running holy matrimony looks like a non homophobic
Organisation. Fucking meaningless.
-
If you weren't homophobic you would expect all churches, including your own, to perform same sex marriages. If the god Biblical god character, should it exist, is homophobic, it doesn't deserve to be worshipped.
Isn't it time you left this board again?
-
Isn't it time you left this board again?
I think this forum would benefit if you were no longer a member.
-
I think this forum would benefit if you were no longer a member.
Yes have a religion and ethics message board, then get rid of the religious.
-
Yes have a religion and ethics message board, then get rid of the religious.
Your posts don't display your faith in a very good light. 'Depart from me for I never knew you', might be the message you would receive should you try to enter the pearly gates.
-
Vlad,
so the take away here is a non homophobic church running holy matrimony looks like a non homophobic
Organisation. Fucking meaningless.
No, the take away is exactly the opposite of that: a church that precisely is homophobic because it offers “holy” matrimony services to straight people but denies them to gay people looks like (and is) a homophobic church.
You for some reason are a fan of this homophobia, while at the same time claiming to be non-homophobic yourself. When asked how you square that circle so far you’ve tried every diversionary stunt in the Vlad playbook – you’ve ignored the question, lied about the question, tried to re-define the terms you don’t like to suit your purpose, tried the “some of my best friends are Jewish” defence, and attacked the motives of the person explaining the facts – all to avoid the facts themselves. Finally and when all else has failed, you’ve collapsed into baldly re-stating the facts to be the complete opposite of the facts.
So now you’ve exhausted every lying escape clause you can think of, here it is again: do you or do you not think that the homophobic practices of your church are morally acceptable?
-
Vlad,
Yes have a religion and ethics message board, then get rid of the religious.
No, have a religion and ethics message board then "get rid of" the liars. As generally I'm not a fan of getting rid of anyone though, exposing the lying is the next best option.
-
Vlad,
No, have a religion and ethics message board then "get rid of" the liars. As generally I'm not a fan of getting rid of anyone though, exposing the lying is the next best option.
Do you want gender neutral marriage to be the only type of marriage and how logically can non gender neutral models be turned into gender neutral models. In other words how are you going to police these non gender neutral to see that they are general neutral? Deny it a not you are in a bind.
-
And while we are about it how do you intend to police ANY marriage to see that it is properly gender neutral?
-
Vlad,
Do you want gender neutral marriage to be the only type of marriage and how logically can non gender neutral models be turned into gender neutral models.
"Gender neutral" meaning non-homophobic you mean? Yes, as a general principle I thinks affording rights to straight people while denying the same rights to gay people is indefensible. Why don't you?
In other words how are you going to police these non gender neutral to see that they are general neutral? Deny it a not you are in a bind.
Another dishonest evasion. There is no bind - how you'd enforce something is entirely a separate matter from whether or not it's morally defensible.
So, and yet again: do you or do you not think that the homophobic practices of your church are morally acceptable?
If you intend never to answer that, why not just say so? After all, it'd save you a lot more lying evasiveness if you did.
-
Vlad,
"Gender neutral" meaning non-homophobic you mean? Yes, as a general principle I thinks affording rights to straight people while denying the same rights to gay people is indefensible. Why don't you?
Another dishonest evasion. There is no bind - how you'd enforce something is entirely a separate matter from whether or not it's morally defensible.
So, and yet again: do you or do you not think that the homophobic practices of your church are morally acceptable?
If you intend never to answer that, why not just say so? After all, it'd save you a lot more lying evasiveness if you did.
Gender neutral because that is the only incontrovertible thing about it.
Homophobic in this context has the curse of Linguistic fascism and gerrymandering about it. Particularly when you are about .
-
Gender neutral because that is the only incontrovertible thing about it.
Homophobic in this context has the curse of Linguistic fascism and gerrymandering about it. Particularly when you are about .
Vlad
Please answer this question: if your preferred Christian grouping is prepared to marry mixed-sex couples but outright refuses to marry same-sex couples, then are they being overtly homophobic?
A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice as an answer.
-
Vlad
Please answer this question: if your preferred Christian grouping is prepared to marry mixed-sex couples but outright refuses to marry same-sex couples, then are they being overtly homophobic?
A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice as an answer.
Daft question and expected response.Since some refusals will be homophobic and some won't.
-
Daft question and expected response.Since some refusals will be homophobic and some won't.
It is your responses that are daft and meaningless. ::)
-
Daft question and expected response.Since some refusals will be homophobic and some won't.
Nope, a direct and reasonable question: I see you've conceded that homophobia is an issue in your church?
-
Vlad,
Gender neutral because that is the only incontrovertible thing about it.
No it isn't. The other thing is that if you offer a right to straight people and deny the same right to gay people solely on the ground of sexual orientation that's homophobia.
Homophobic in this context has the curse of Linguistic fascism and gerrymandering about it. Particularly when you are about .
Just scuttling back to an earlier lie that's already been exposed and corrected won't help you here. By your own description of what your church does, it's homophobic. There's no escaping that, and using the plain meanings of words that show that to be the case isn't "linguistic fascism and Gerrymandering" at all.
So, and yet again: do you or do you not think that the homophobic practices of your church are morally acceptable?
-
Vlad,
Daft question and expected response.Since some refusals will be homophobic and some won't.
This casuistry doesn't get you off the hook either. If a right is offered to straight people and the same right is denied to gay people solely on the ground of sexual orientation, that's homophobia. That's what the word means. You don't get to decide that some such denials are homophobic and others aren't.
-
Daft question and expected response.Since some refusals will be homophobic and some won't.
To avoid the sophistry card of disliking the 'homophobia' term, shall we instead ask if it's discriminatory towards homosexual couples?
O.
-
To avoid the sophistry card of disliking the 'homophobia' term, shall we instead ask if it's discriminatory towards homosexual couples?
O.
Is the holy matrimony model discriminatory toward the gender neutral model?....yes.
Is the gender neutral model discriminatory toward the holy matrimony model? Yes.
Do I recognise the argument that the holy matrimony model has no monopoly claim on the term marriage?Of course.
Are those here arguing for a gender neutral arguing for a monopoly claim over the holy matrimony model?........You bet your sweet bippy .
-
Vlad,
This casuistry doesn't get you off the hook either. If a right is offered to straight people and the same right is denied to gay people solely on the ground of sexual orientation, that's homophobia. That's what the word means. You don't get to decide that some such denials are homophobic and others aren't.
I think the church, including the Methodists are equally discriminatory toward the polygamy model. They are discriminating against that model. Do Humanists celebrate polygamous marriages? Would they celebrate religious polygamy. No THEY would recommend someone who would.
-
Vlad,
No it isn't. The other thing is that if you offer a right to straight people and deny the same right to gay people solely on the ground of sexual orientation that's homophobia.
And if you do not offer the right to polygamous straight people?
-
Is the holy matrimony model discriminatory toward the gender neutral model?....yes.
Is the gender neutral model discriminatory toward the holy matrimony model? Yes.
How is the 'gender neutral' - or, rather, sexuality neutral - model discriminatory to the 'holy' matrimony model? Does it preclude you opting for that model if it suits you as an individual? Does it deny you the marriage you want?
Do I recognise the argument that the holy matrimony model has no monopoly claim on the term marriage?Of course.
Good.
Are those here arguing for a gender neutral arguing for a monopoly claim over the holy matrimony model?........You bet your sweet bippy .
How is suggesting that marriage should be opened up to a broader range of people making a monopoly claim? What practical benefit does throwing in meaningless terms like 'holy' add to the discussion, other than to try to make claims immune to argument?
O.
-
On the issue of churches being homophobic, this current story on the BBC is relevant - it seems some clerics do indeed have scruples about homophobic attitudes within organised religion (in this case the Church of Ireland).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-57726768
-
I think the church, including the Methodists are equally discriminatory toward the polygamy model. They are discriminating against that model. Do Humanists celebrate polygamous marriages? Would they celebrate religious polygamy. No THEY would recommend someone who would.
Marriage is a socio-legal construct, Vlad, and as things stand here in the UK marriage is confined to two people and there seems to be no current social drift towards polygamy that would result in legislative changes.
However, if polygamy were ever to be legislated for, I would hope and expect that the numbers and sexualities of those committing to a polygamous marriage would be a personal matter for those involved, so that there could be mixed-sex and same-sex polygamous marriages as required.
It seems unlikely in the short term, so this looks like a slippery-slope issue that you've introduced no doubt to divert from the question you've avoided answering - which is whether you would agree that in your Church there is discrimination against homosexual people who wish to marry in a Christian ceremony.
-
How is the 'gender neutral' - or, rather, sexuality neutral - model discriminatory to the 'holy' matrimony model? Does it preclude you opting for that model if it suits you as an individual? Does it deny you the marriage you want?
It is discriminatory in the sense that it is not the holy matrimony model and visa versa. As the law stands in the UK people involved in wedding can opt only to deliver the holy matrimony model. I think people have been arguing that the holy matrimonial model be scrapped
Good.
How is suggesting that marriage should be opened up to a broader range of people making a monopoly claim? What practical benefit does throwing in meaningless terms like 'holy' add to the discussion, other than to try to make claims immune to argument?
This makes it seem that the gender neutral model has been the preeminent universal model for marriage and then along come pesky man/woman model supporters and holy matrimony model supporters and chuck in meaningless terms like holy.
That is complete 180 degree revisionism with the gender neutral model actually being the recent addition.
Effectively you’ve started your post as a reasonable pragmatic posing the question why can all models
Not just exist together and ended as just another person who sees no point in the existence of other models also the word holy is not included for cosmetic reasons as you seem to suggest.
-
Marriage is a socio-legal construct,
That’s one model Vlad, and as things stand here in the UK marriage is confined to two people and there seems to be no current social drift towards polygamy that would result in legislative changes.
However, if polygamy were ever to be legislated for, I would hope and expect that the numbers and sexualities of those committing to a polygamous marriage would be a personal matter for those involved, so that there could be mixed-sex and same-sex polygamous marriages as required.
It seems unlikely in the short term, so this looks like a slippery-slope issue that you've introduced no doubt to divert from the question you've avoided answering - which is whether you would agree that in your Church there is discrimination against homosexual people who wish to marry in a Christian ceremony.
It isn’t a question of slippery slope, Gordon... The Christian holy matrimonial model can never be and was never a polygamous mode as it will never be the model where marriage is between two people. There is evidence in scripture that there were polygamous Christians since there is a passage which rules that Bishop’s must be the husband of but one wife.
So this gives a picture of man/woman monogamy existing next to polygamy in the same congregation. But no mention of gender neutral marriages at this time or injunction against them ......anywhere in fact.
-
As the law stands in the UK people involved in wedding can opt only to deliver the holy matrimony model.
I don't think that is true.
Under UK law a marriage is only legally valid if it is conducted by a legally appointed registrar and the ceremony includes the required legal elements for a civil marriage. So although in the CofE and RCC many priests are also registrars and therefore a marriage is legally valid provided the correct civil wording is included, that isn't the case in many denominations and other religions. In that case a couple needs to have a civil ceremony and then a separate religious ceremony. In the eyes of the law only the civil ceremony has any legal validity in terms of the marriage.
So put it this way - civil marriage ceremony alone - legally married.
Religious marriage ceremony alone (without the required civil elements plus a registrar) - not legally married.
And this is, of course, correct as marriage has always been a construct of civil and legal society. Sometimes it is also a construct of religion but that is an add on.
-
I think people have been arguing that the holy matrimonial model be scrapped
No they haven't: they've been arguing that "holy" weddings should be available to any couple who wish that form of wedding (provided that they meet the other legal requirements).
Stop misrepresenting what is being said.
-
That’s one model
Certainly in the UK that is the only model - without the elements for a socio-legal civil marriage there is no legal marriage. Religious elements are a non-required add on, just like all sorts of other elements that couples choose to include in their wedding ceremonies, from speeches to discos - from honeymoons to wedding presents. None are required in the UK, just like the non requirement of any religious element.
-
No they haven't: they've been arguing that "holy" weddings should be available to any couple who wish that form of wedding (provided that they meet the other legal requirements).
Stop misrepresenting what is being said.
There is the issue that the Christian definition of holy matrimony is between one man and one woman.
How are you going therefore to preserve that and have it gender neutral? Make it gender neutral and it isn’t holy matrimony. I thought that was just common sense.
-
That’s one model
It's the only one that counts: if your marriage doesn't conform to core legal requirements then you ain't legally married. Any other activities that surround the wedding may be important to the people involved but in isolation they don't constitute a legal marriage.
It isn’t a question of slippery slope, Gordon... The Christian holy matrimonial model can never be and was never a polygamous mode as it will never be the model where marriage is between two people.
Your sentence is clunky to read, so I'll have a guess at what you are trying to say. If polygamous marriage ever became legal then Christian organisations would just have to accept that change whether the approved or not - just like everyone else - and no doubt they would elect to discriminate against religious people holding polygamous marriage intentions.
[quote}There is evidence in scripture that there were polygamous Christians since there is a passage which rules that Bishop’s must be the husband of but one wife.
So this gives a picture of man/woman monogamy existing next to polygamy in the same congregation. But no mention of gender neutral marriages at this time or injunction against them ......anywhere in fact.[/quote]
So what? Social attitudes have changed a little over the intervening centuries: perhaps some Christians and Christian organisations haven't noticed this as yet!.
-
Certainly in the UK that is the only model - without the elements for a socio-legal civil marriage there is no legal marriage. Religious elements are a non-required add on, just like all sorts of other elements that couples choose to include in their wedding ceremonies, from speeches to discos - from honeymoons to wedding presents. None are required in the UK, just like the non requirement of any religious element.
I take it then that people who think gays should have holy matrimony are the sort of people who would kick up a stink if a gay couple couldn’t have a disco.
What is your point and how does it relate to what we are talking about.
-
There is the issue that the Christian definition of holy matrimony is between one man and one woman.
Then perhaps they need to modify their definition in line with societal changes: all you're expressing here is a fallacious argument from tradition and authority.
How are you going therefore to preserve that and have it gender neutral? Make it gender neutral and it isn’t holy matrimony. I thought that was just common sense.
Don't preserve it but amend it to avoid discrimination by saying that 'holy' marriage is a marriage between two people: and if 'holiness' is fixed to the extent it is discriminatory then maybe "holy matrimony" is no longer a relevant and equitable model for marriage.
-
It is discriminatory in the sense that it is not the holy matrimony model and visa versa.
That it isn't your model doesn't make it discriminatory - you can still get married in that particular understanding of the traditional fashion in the sexuality neutral understanding, it doesn't exclude you (although your own sense of entitlement might, but that would be on you). The 'holy matrimony' model, on the other hand, excludes people based on their sexuality, that IS discriminatory.
As the law stands in the UK people involved in wedding can opt only to deliver the holy matrimony model.
Yes, the law as it stands is not entirely sexuality-neutral in that it gives certain providers the choice to discriminate.
I think people have been arguing that the holy matrimonial model be scrapped.
No, in the main I think people have been arguing that the law is fine; some people, both within and outside of these religious traditions have been balancing their take on the principles espoused by the religion against the doctrine and finding the doctrine wanting. They don't want to scrap the 'holy matrimony' model they want to update, adapt or adjust it to be more inclusive. Others want to keep homosexuality out of their sacred space - that's what the modern definition of homophobia that you were railing against is, it's the deliberate differentiation of treatment of people based upon their sexuality in a manner that is not justified. Your particular interpretation of scripture might consider it justified - others disagree.
This makes it seem that the gender neutral model has been the preeminent universal model for marriage and then along come pesky man/woman model supporters and holy matrimony model supporters and chuck in meaningless terms like holy.
It does nothing of the sort, it acknowledges that marriage, and the cultural corollaries of it in other cultures, have occurred in a range of forms and fashions over time, and that Christianity in general doesn't have a proprietary claim to it, let alone a particular sect, cult or take from within Christianity. People haven't suddenly started throwing in terms like holy, they've been in use for a considerable time, but they are meaningless concepts that are just there to try to insulate a claim or argument from enquiry - if you can make something sacred you can remove it from the realm of rational discourse.
That is complete 180 degree revisionism with the gender neutral model actually being the recent addition.
Ancient Greece called and wants to talk to you about the sequence of events here. After they've finished, the Polynesians, Chinese and a few of the African cultures would like a word, too.
Effectively you’ve started your post as a reasonable pragmatic posing the question why can all models not just exist together and ended as just another person who sees no point in the existence of other models also the word holy is not included for cosmetic reasons as you seem to suggest.
It's not that I don't see that they can't coexist, it's just that I don't see any heterosexual couple's desire to have the heterosexual ceremony overseen by a religious figure of their choosing is in any way incompatible with the next couple, who happen to be homosexual, having their ceremony overseen by a religious figure of their choosing. I get that individual religious figures might have an objection, but I don't see that it isn't homophobia and perfectly acceptable to point that out.
If you are religiously homophobic the law, currently, permits you to discriminate on those grounds, the Equalities Act conflates religious belief with traits like inherent traits like ethnicity or sexuality, and sets it up as some sort of differentiated philosophy; I think that's wrong, but it is the current situation and it's not likely to change in the short term.
O.
-
There is the issue that the Christian definition of holy matrimony is between one man and one woman.
'A' Christian definition, not 'the' Christian definition, as is apparent from the number of Christians seeking other forms of marriage and the number of individual Christians and Christian institutions having debates about whether to conduct them.
How are you going therefore to preserve that and have it gender neutral?
Individual Christians are going to have to consider if the important parts are the love, commitment before God, commitment to each other, and approved genitals, or if actually that last part probably doesn't really matter. They're going to have to *gasp* think for themselves.
Make it gender neutral and it isn’t holy matrimony.
No, make it gender neutral and you don't think it's holy matrimony - other Christians do.
I thought that was just common sense.
It's religious doctrine - if there were common sense about it, it would be between Goldilocks and Rapunzel in the fairy story collection and it would get skipped a lot because it's objectively a terrible story.
O.
-
Outy,
To avoid the sophistry card of disliking the 'homophobia' term, shall we instead ask if it's discriminatory towards homosexual couples?
We could, but there’s no need to. Pretty much any online dictionary you care to look at defines it as “dislike of or discrimination against gay people” or similar. That’s why denying rights to gay people that you permit to straight people is homophobic (the “discrimination against” part).
Vlad doesn’t like the implications of that though, so in one of a serious of diversionary tactics he’s tried the “ah, but “phobia” means "fear of", therefore…” etc. It’s as if I said his church’s homophobia is awful, and he replied “ah, but “awful” derives “from full of awe”, so what you’re actually saying…” etc. Countless words have meanings at variance from their roots, and “homophobia” is just one of many such.
Oh, and he also has the sheer brass neck then to accuse other people of “linguistic fascism”!
-
Outy,
We could, but there’s no need to. Pretty much any online dictionary you care to look at defines it as “dislike of or discrimination against gay people” or similar. That’s why denying rights to gay people that you permit to straight people is homophobic (the “discrimination against” part).
Vlad doesn’t like the implications of that though, so in one of a serious of diversionary tactics he’s tried the “ah, but “phobia” means "fear of", therefore…” etc. It’s as if I said his church’s homophobia is awful, and he replied “ah, but “awful” derives “from full of awe”, so what you’re actually saying…” etc. Countless words have meanings at variance from their roots, and “homophobia” is just one of many such.
Oh, and he also has the sheer brass neck then to accuse other people of “linguistic fascism”!
I know that, you know that, they know that - we all know that. However, in the interests of closing off another diversionary tactic... I guess it's just trying to pick the battles.
O.
-
Vlad,
There is the issue that the Christian definition of holy matrimony is between one man and one woman.
That's just one (not "the") Christian definition. Other Christians think differently.
How are you going therefore to preserve that and have it gender neutral?
First, why should it be preserved? The Klu Klux Klan thinks black people should be denied rights available to white people. How are you going therefore to preserve that and have it race neutral?
Second, even if it was to be preserved why not then recognise if for what it is - homophobic?
Make it gender neutral and it isn’t holy matrimony. I thought that was just common sense.
No, it's homophobia. And you seem to be all for it.
-
Outy,
I know that, you know that, they know that - we all know that. However, in the interests of closing off another diversionary tactic... I guess it's just trying to pick the battles.
Trying to pick your battle with Vlad is like playing one of those fairground machines with endlessly popping up characters you have to whack with a mallet. As soon as he's been corrected on one cheat (straw man, flat out lie, irrelevance etc) he just ignores the correction and pops up with another one. That way, as soon as the dust has settled a bit he can return to the previous cheat. Have a look at his recent flat out lie for example about people supposedly wanting "holy" matrimony banned when if fact several times now he's been told in plain terms that, rather than ban anything, people are merely arguing that any type of service should be available on a non-discriminatory basis.
-
No they haven't: they've been arguing that "holy" weddings should be available to any couple who wish that form of wedding (provided that they meet the other legal requirements).
Stop misrepresenting what is being said.
But Gordon, Gender neutral can’t Be logically included in man/woman.
Other, legal components are in place.
-
Vlad,
But Gordon, Gender neutral can’t Be logically included in man/woman.
That's homophobia for you.
Race neutral can't be included in "whites only" either. So...
-
Vlad,
That's just one (not "the") Christian definition. Other Christians think differently.
Yes, So what’s your problem since we now have the pragmatic position of “I don’t do that sort of service, try down the road”
First, why should it be preserved? The Klu Klux Klan thinks black people should be denied rights available to white people. And we don’t listen to them and legislate against their violence How are you going therefore to preserve that and have it race neutral?
Second, even if it was to be preserved why not then recognise if for what it is - homophobic?
No..... Gender neutrality falls outside it’s definition, as does polygamy.
-
Vlad,
That's homophobia for you.
No, homosexuality is not especially included since the self same rules ‘Encompass polygamy’.
Scripturally it’s one man and one woman.
-
No, homosexuality is not especially included since the self same rules ‘Encompass polygamy’.
Scripturally it’s one man and one woman.
So what? The not so good book is wrong about so many things. As has been pointed out to you, Jesus was never reported as having condemned homosexuality.
-
Vlad,
That's just one (not "the") Christian definition. Other Christians think differently.
First, why should it be preserved? The Klu Klux Klan thinks black people should be denied rights available to white people. How are you going therefore to preserve that and have it race neutral?
Second, even if it was to be preserved why not then recognise if for what it is - homophobic?
No, it's homophobia. And you seem to be all for it.
I’m not sure the KKK business is a good analogy. Both you and I agree that the KKK are a bad thing(although you might have a bit of bother logically justifying it to yourself) and just you thinks that holy matrimony is wrong and I don’t.
For a better analogy we would be looking at the Rites not rights of the KKK. Your argument and all the other atheists argument is that gay people should have the right to holy matrimony. Your argument then translates analogically to wanting black people to be able to receive the rights of the KKK.
-
So what? The not so good book is wrong about so many things. As has been pointed out to you, Jesus was never reported as having condemned homosexuality.
And there is probably no documentary evidence implicit or explicit of anyone calling for gender neutrality in marriage.
It is not a thing until very recently. Looking at why that should be leads inevitably to those atheists who primarily see it as a weapon against the church.
-
Vlad,
Yes, So what’s your problem since we now have the pragmatic position of “I don’t do that sort of service, try down the road”
So what’s your problem with the bus company that doesn’t let black people sit at the front – after all, we now have the pragmatic position of “I don’t do that sort of service, try down the road”?
And we don’t listen to them and legislate against their violence
This isn’t about violent homophobia, it’s about discriminatory homophobia remember?
No..... Gender neutrality falls outside it’s definition, as does polygamy.
Yet again, not it doesn’t. “Homophobia” includes prejudice against gay people as well as fear/hatred of gay people. There are plenty of online dictionaries available if you want to check.
-
Vlad,
No, homosexuality is not especially included since the self same rules ‘Encompass polygamy’.
Scripturally it’s one man and one woman.
Wrong again. A homophobic denial of a right doesn’t cease to be homophobic because it’s also denied to a different group. The KKK doesn’t stop being racist if it’s also misogynistic.
-
But Gordon, Gender neutral can’t Be logically included in man/woman.
'Holy' matrimony is already gender neutral - both men and women, and anyone who identifies as something somewhere outside of that or between can get married. To an extent it's somewhat sex-neutral, inasmuch as men and women can both access it, although there is the grey area you might have to address regarding various intersex individuals and how they'd fit into the matrix.
What it isn't, though, is sexuality-neutral.
O.
-
No, homosexuality is not especially included since the self same rules ‘Encompass polygamy’.
Scripturally it’s one man and one woman.
Scriptually it's no fancy haircuts, no shellfish, no tattoos, no mixed fabrics... the list goes on, and yet there doesn't seem to be a hold out on 'Holy' summer fashions?
O.
-
Vlad,
I’m not sure the KKK business is a good analogy. Both you and I agree that the KKK are a bad thing(although you might have a bit of bother logically justifying it to yourself) and just you thinks that holy matrimony is wrong and I don’t.
Why are you still lying about this? Yet again, have any kind matrimony you like. What’s wrong isn’t the type of matrimony (eg “holy” vs “non-holy”), but rather its homophobic application.
For a better analogy…
There’s was nothing wrong with my analogy.
…we would be looking at the Rites not rights of the KKK. Your argument and all the other atheists argument is that gay people should have the right to holy matrimony. Your argument then translates analogically to wanting black people to be able to receive the rights of the KKK.
You’re really lost it now. Suggest you try to think about what you’re saying before you post it.
-
'Holy' matrimony is already gender neutral - both men and women, and anyone who identifies as something somewhere outside of that or between can get married. To an extent it's somewhat sex-neutral, inasmuch as men and women can both access it, although there is the grey area you might have to address regarding various intersex individuals and how they'd fit into the matrix.
What it isn't, though, is sexuality-neutral.
O.
Holy matrimony is between one man and one woman in the sight of God. It is just one model of matrimony among a whole host of others none of which has a monopoly unless the powers of law deign it to be so.
That formula as it happens served to distinguish Christian marriage from polygamy. Gender neutrality was not a thing then or for a long time after.
-
Scriptually it's no fancy haircuts, no shellfish, no tattoos, no mixed fabrics... the list goes on, and yet there doesn't seem to be a hold out on 'Holy' summer fashions?
O.
So you are saying getting married is like having a tattoo. Bad analogy and trivialising cynical nonsense which plays to the gallery by use of the horses laugh fallacy.
-
Vlad,
Why are you still lying about this? Yet again, have any kind matrimony you like. What’s wrong isn’t the type of matrimony (eg “holy” vs “non-holy”), but rather its homophobic application.
There’s was nothing wrong with my analogy.
You’re really lost it now. Suggest you try to think about what you’re saying before you post it.
Yes I’m sure some priests weaponise it because of homophobia. And some priests just stick to it.
-
Vlad,
Yes I’m sure some priests weaponise it because of homophobia. And some priests just stick to it.
No-one's "weaponising" anything. What's being explained to you is that denying a right to gay people that you provide to straight people is homophobic. Your endless prevarications, diversions, re-definitions, flat out lies etc don't change that.
You seem to be all for this homophobic practice. I'm not.
-
But Gordon, Gender neutral can’t Be logically included in man/woman.
Other, legal components are in place.
Of course it can: a sex or gender neutral stance would allow (excluding intersex people) for three core marital combinations that are of equal relevance - male/male, male/female and female/female.
Maybe your "holy matrimony" needs to become more inclusive so that all three of these combinations are being catered for.
-
Scripturally it’s one man and one woman.
That is an fallacious argument from authority, Vlad: what on earth make you think that ancient 'scripture' is authoritative across society at large in the 21st century?
Moreover, since here in the UK same-sex marriage is now legal it should be blindingly obvious to you that this 'scripture' you cite simply isn't authoritative these days.
-
Of course it can: a sex or gender neutral stance would allow (excluding intersex people) for three core marital combinations that are of equal relevance - male/male, male/female and female/female.
Maybe your "holy matrimony" needs to become more inclusive so that all three of these combinations are being catered for.
That doesn't exclude 'intersex', or rather people with Differences in Sexual Development.
-
Holy matrimony is between one man and one woman in the sight of God.
Your interpretation of 'Holy matrimony' - which you are not alone in cleaving to - is one man and one woman in the sight of God. Bearing in mind that, even within the tradition of that particular deity that's historically not always been the case - Solomon seems to be a pertinent example with his seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines... That notwithstanding, how do you reconcile the 'one man, one woman' party line with intersex individuals? Are they prohibited from marriage?
It is just one model of matrimony among a whole host of others none of which has a monopoly unless the powers of law deign it to be so.
And the sexuality-neutral model doesn't claim a monopoly - it lets you choose whichever interpretation of marriage you want for you, but it doesn't let you impose your model on others.
That formula as it happens served to distinguish Christian marriage from polygamy.
Except that there are Christian sects that practice polygamy, with a number of parallel 'one man, one woman' marriages, so it does nothing of the sort, notwithstanding that polygamy isn't the issue under discussion.
Gender neutrality was not a thing then or for a long time after.
And, as has been explained, this isn't about gender neutrality, this is about sexuality-neutrality.
O.
-
That doesn't exclude 'intersex', or rather people with Differences in Sexual Development.
You're right.
-
That is an fallacious argument from authority, Vlad: what on earth make you think that ancient 'scripture' is authoritative across society at large in the 21st century?
Moreover, since here in the UK same-sex marriage is now legal it should be blindingly obvious to you that this 'scripture' you cite simply isn't authoritative these days.
It may not have a monopoly on authority about marriage but it is authoratative about itself. itself
-
It may not have a monopoly on authority about marriage but it is authoratative about itself. itself
Then it is self-referential and matters only to those who regard 'scripture' as authoritative.
Since society at large isn't mainly made up of Christians who take 'scripture' literally or authoritatively: many Christians are more nuanced than that, and many of the rest of us aren't Christians or even theists, then your plea that "holy matrimony" merits some kind of special status by dint of it being 'scriptural' is clearly flawed - and then there are the problems of it being discriminatory.
I'd suggest it's time you stopped digging, Vlad.
-
It may not have a monopoly on authority about marriage but it is authoratative about itself.
OK, so we've established that a sexuality-neutral view of marriage isn't seeking to impose a view on anyone... now we just need to address the discriminatory position of those churches which choose not to participate in marriage for all.
O.
-
Then it is self-referential and matters only to those who regard 'scripture' as authoritative.
Since society at large isn't mainly made up of Christians who take 'scripture' literally or authoritatively: many Christians are more nuanced than that, and many of the rest of us aren't Christians or even theists, then your plea that "holy matrimony" merits some kind of special status by dint of it being 'scriptural' is clearly flawed - and then there are the problems of it being discriminatory.
I'd suggest it's time you stopped digging, Vlad.
This discussion hasn’t been about the special status of holy matrimony but whether it should have any status. Holy matrimony has no monopoly. I have said that.
If any model is being given special status here it is gender neutral marriage by you.
-
Vlad,
This discussion hasn’t been about the special status of holy matrimony but whether it should have any status.
No it hasn't. It's been about the application of "holy" matrimony homophobically.
Holy matrimony has no monopoly. I have said that.
No-one has said otherwise. You've also though told us that you approve of it being made available on a discriminatory basis: fine for straight people; not fine for gay people.
If any model is being given special status here it is gender neutral marriage by you.
Clearly not true, and in any case irrelevant. Either you think a right should be available to straight people but not to gay people or you don't. If you do, you're endorsing homophobia.
-
OK, so we've established that a sexuality-neutral view of marriage isn't seeking to impose a view on anyone... now we just need to address the discriminatory position of those churches which choose not to participate in marriage for all.
O.
I believe I have stated the discriminatory position might be homophobic or it may be because of the discriminatory position all models have by dint of being distinctive models.
If you come out with alternative findings let me know so I can review.......rather than the usual atheists on this forum channel of loud and emotive assertion.
-
Vlad,
No it hasn't. It's been about the application of "holy" matrimony homophobically.
No-one has said otherwise. You've also though told us that you approve of it being made available on a discriminatory basis: fine for straight people; not fine for gay people.
Clearly not true, and in any case irrelevant. Either you think a right should be available to straight people but not to gay people or you don't. If you do, you're endorsing homophobia.
I want a same sex marriage with a woman. Who do I see?
-
Homophobia means fear of the same although fear of homosexuality or homosexuals would probably stand.
Etymological fallacy.
-
Vlad,
So what’s your problem with the bus company that doesn’t let black people sit at the front – after all, we now have the pragmatic position of “I don’t do that sort of service, try down the road”?
Asking a bus company to allow black people to sit at the front (suppose the company believes black people are inferior) is not comparable with asking a minister to bless a homosexual relationship. If the Bible had said that black people were inferior, then it would be comparable.
-
Vlad,
I want a same sex marriage with a woman. Who do I see?
A surgeon.
-
Vlad,
I believe I have stated the discriminatory position might be homophobic or it may be because of the discriminatory position all models have by dint of being distinctive models.
No, not by dint of being "distinctive" - it's by dint of discriminating on the ground of sexual orientation.
If you come out with alternative findings let me know so I can review.......rather than the usual atheists on this forum channel of loud and emotive assertion.
I just did.
-
Spud,
Asking a bus company to allow black people to sit at the front (suppose the company believes black people are inferior) is not comparable with asking a minister to bless a homosexual relationship. If the Bible had said that black people were inferior, then it would be comparable.
Clearly wrong. The analogy concerns the denial of a right on the ground of race/sexual orientation alike.
-
Vlad,
A surgeon.
There’s YOUR answer as well.
-
I believe I have stated the discriminatory position might be homophobic
There is no 'may' about it.
or it may be because of the discriminatory position all models have by dint of being distinctive models.
And yet we've already established that the sexuality-neutral model isn't discriminating, it's a broad swathe that includes a variety of distinctive ideas.
If you come out with alternative findings let me know so I can review.......rather than the usual atheists on this forum channel of loud and emotive assertion.
Quick, throw in an ad hominem in case everyone realises that you're feebly attempting to defend the indefensible.
O.
-
Asking a bus company to allow black people to sit at the front (suppose the company believes black people are inferior) is not comparable with asking a minister to bless a homosexual relationship. If the Bible had said that black people were inferior, then it would be comparable.
Where does the Bible say that gay people are inferior? The act is an abomination according to some translations, but the people? As to whether the Bible says that Black people are 'inferior', wasn't that the interpretation of the slavery advocates who suggested that black people bore the Mark of Cain and/or the Curse of Ham? Given the poetic translations of the selective interpretations of the mistranslations of a select group of works that constitutes the modern Bible, you can read it to denigrate or exalt pretty much anyone. What someone says the book says is more reliably indicative of them than of the origins of the work.
O.
-
Vlad,
There’s YOUR answer as well.
Spoken like a true lying homophobe.
-
Vlad,
No, not by dint of being "distinctive" - it's by dint of discriminating on the ground of sexual orientation.
If I can not get a same sex marriage from the people who do’ em then I am calling discrimination
-
There is no 'may' about it.
And yet we've already established that the sexuality-neutral model isn't discriminating, it's a broad swathe that includes a variety of distinctive ideas.
And excludes others and is thus discriminatory.
-
Vlad,
If I can not get a same sex marriage from the people who do’ em then I am calling discrimination
Gibberish. You can get a same-sex marriage from people who provide them if you want to. What you can't do though is get a same-sex marriage from your church. That's because your church is homophobic - something you seem to endorse.
-
Spud,
Clearly wrong. The analogy concerns the denial of a right on the ground of race/sexual orientation alike.
Yes, that, on the ground of religious belief. Noting that they are not denied the right if they marry someone of the opposite sex.
-
Spud,
Yes, that, on the ground of religious belief. Noting that they are not denied the right if they marry someone of the opposite sex.
But that's the point: they have the right if they want to marry someone of the opposite sex, but not if they want to marry someone of the same sex. That's the homophobia part.
-
And excludes others and is thus discriminatory.
Again, as I put the last time you suggested this, who does the sexuality-neutral model exclude? You can get married regardless of your sex, your gender, your sexuality, your religious choices... the sexuality-neutral model does not exclude anyone, and is therefore not discriminatory. Who are these 'others' you feel are being discriminated against?
O.
-
Scriptually it's no fancy haircuts, no shellfish, no tattoos, no mixed fabrics... the list goes on, and yet there doesn't seem to be a hold out on 'Holy' summer fashions?
O.
For Jews, keeping those rules symbolized not doing the things that are abominations; consequently eating shelfish etc was not wrong for Gentiles. The abominations themselves, however, are wrong, for both Jews and Gentiles.
-
Spud,
But that's the point: they have the right if they want to marry someone of the opposite sex, but not if they want to marry someone of the same sex. That's the homophobia part.
And not if they want to marry someone who's already married - there are always going to be conditions on who is an appropriate spouse. They need to wait until they find someone of the opposite sex to whom they can in some way be attracted.
-
Spud,
And not if they want to marry someone who's already married. They need to wait until they find someone of the opposite sex to whom they can in some way be attracted.
What point do you think you're making? You can choose to end a marriage before embarking on another; you can't choose not to be gay (and nor of course should you be asked to).
-
Spud,
What point do you think you're making? You can choose to end a marriage before embarking on another; you can't choose not to be gay (and nor of course should you be asked to).
The point is that in God's eyes you shouldn't marry someone just because you're attracted to them, nor if they're also attracted to you.
-
Spud,
The point is that in God's eyes you shouldn't marry someone just because you're attracted to them, nor if they're also attracted to you.
That's not a point, it's a faith claim - and in any case, so what? If you're saying that you worship a homophobic god (which you seem to be) then all you're telling us is that you worship a homophobic god. And?
-
For Jews, keeping those rules symbolized not doing the things that are abominations; consequently eating shelfish etc was not wrong for Gentiles. The abominations themselves, however, are wrong, for both Jews and Gentiles.
So God used to care, but now he doesn't. What makes you so confident he still has an issue with homosexuality, given that he didn't find fit to mention it at all in the New Testament?
O.
-
Spud,
That's not a point, it's a faith claim - and in any case, so what? If you're saying that you worship a homophobic god (which you seem to be) then all you're telling us is that you worship a homophobic god. And?
IIRC the outcome of this debate is that Church of England ministers shouldn't be allowed to marry couples unless they are willing to do same sex marriages too. Taking this further: in that scenario the situation will arise where a Christian couple asks for a church blessing of a civil marriage. If a minister will only bless a heterosexual union, are you suggesting it would be necessary to disqualify clergy who refuse to do the latter?
-
So God used to care, but now he doesn't. What makes you so confident he still has an issue with homosexuality, given that he didn't find fit to mention it at all in the New Testament?
O.
Care about what? I thought I was clear: The food laws and circumcision were for Jews only (and no longer are required, though some think they are). They were a sign that they were not practicing abominations. That sign was rendered obsolete because it was fulfilled by Christ.
-
Spud,
IIRC the outcome of this debate is that Church of England ministers shouldn't be allowed to marry couples unless they are willing to do same sex marriages too. Taking this further: in that scenario the situation will arise where a Christian couple asks for a church blessing of a civil marriage. If a minister will only bless a heterosexual union, are you suggesting it would be necessary to disqualify clergy who refuse to do the latter?
You’re jumping too far ahead here. Before we get to what ministers should and should not be allowed to do, we need to grasp whether what they do (and don’t do) is defensible. We know that (presumably your) church’s position on this is homophobic, and your defence (effectively, “yes, but so is my god”) doesn’t change that. My view is that homophobia is morally contemptible, and it’s disappointing that you (and it seems Vlad) are for it.
As for what should be done about it, we seem to have no difficulty legislating against other discriminatory practices (re race, gender, age etc) so I don’t see why sexual orientation should be exempt from that, but as a minimum I’d have thought removing tax breaks would be the right place to start.
-
Vlad,
Gibberish. You can get a same-sex marriage from people who provide them if you want to. What you can't do though is get a same-sex marriage from your church. That's because your church is homophobic - something you seem to endorse.
For the third time who will give me and my fiancée a same.
Sex marriage? If you are unable to give us one because of our genders then you are discriminating.
-
Vlad,
For the third time who will give me and my fiancée a same.
Sex marriage? If you are unable to give us one because of our genders then you are discriminating.
If have no idea what you're trying to ask here (and nor I suspect have you).
-
Vlad,
If have no idea what you're trying to ask here (and nor I suspect have you).
Yes it is impossible for a heterosexual couple to have a same sex marriage and yes it is therefore discriminatory. Same sex discriminated against heterosex as holy matrimony discriminated against same sex.
Gender neutral also discriminates against the definition of holy matrimony.
Promoting gender neutral marriage militates against that gender has any significance in the contract Holy matrimony is a model where the differences between the genders are thought to matter.More it is type of matrimony in which God is involved
-
Yes it is impossible for a heterosexual couple to have a same sex marriage and yes it is therefore discriminatory. Same sex discriminated against heterosex as holy matrimony discriminated against same sex.
Gender neutral also discriminates against the definition of holy matrimony.
Promoting gender neutral marriage militates against that gender has any significance in the contract Holy matrimony is a model where the differences between the genders are thought to matter.More it is type of matrimony in which God is involved
Well I'm glad you think you've cleared that up, Vlad: sadly though, all you've produced is a world salad (albeit a very good word salad).
-
Vlad,
Yes it is impossible for a heterosexual couple to have a same sex marriage and yes it is therefore discriminatory.
Is it? Do same sex couples have to sign a document or something saying, “by the way, I’m definitely gay”?
Same sex discriminated against heterosex as holy matrimony discriminated against same sex.
Don’t be silly.
Gender neutral also discriminates against the definition of holy matrimony.
That’s your definition of “holy matrimony” (others are available) and, even if you could sustain an argument for discrimination (or at least make one to begin with) that would just mean you had two distinct types of discrimination going on, not that the second one somehow cancelled the first one. You’re attempting here the equivalent of, “yes I’m a racist but I’m also a misogynist, therefore my racism doesn’t count” (also known as "whataboutism").
Promoting gender neutral marriage militates against that gender has any significance in the contract Holy matrimony is a model where the differences between the genders are thought to matter.More it is type of matrimony in which God is involved
And for those of us working in English?
So anyway, after all your endless ducking and diving we’re still left with this: you espouse a homophobic god and a homophobic church that carries out this (supposed) god’s (supposed) intentions homophobically.
I think that’s disgusting. Why don’t you?
-
Spud,
You’re jumping too far ahead here. Before we get to what ministers should and should not be allowed to do, we need to grasp whether what they do (and don’t do) is defensible. We know that (presumably your) church’s position on this is homophobic, and your defence (effectively, “yes, but so is my god”) doesn’t change that.
What is homophobic about believing that marriage is between one man and one woman?
-
Spud,
What is homophobic about believing that marriage is between one man and one woman?
What is racist about believing that seats at the front of the bus are only for white people, or misogynist about believing that votes are only for men?
Besides, this is more about what people do with their homophobic beliefs - denying marriage services to gay people while providing the same services to straight people for example.
-
There are Churches who will marry them down the road. Are there Humanist celebrants who will provide holy matrimonial services to couples?
-
Care about what? I thought I was clear: The food laws and circumcision were for Jews only (and no longer are required, though some think they are).
So he cared when they were his chosen people, but now that he's changed his mind and those who choose to follow are his special people suddenly that stuff's not important.
They were a sign that they were not practicing abominations. That sign was rendered obsolete because it was fulfilled by Christ.
And yet he went back on that and returned to proscriptions on cutting beards and eating pork in part 3 'Call me Allah'...
O.
-
Vlad,
There are Churches who will marry them down the road.
“Yeah, so my church and I are a bunch of morally bankrupt fuckwits about this but hey, don’t sweat it – not all of them are.”
Are there Humanist celebrants who will provide holy matrimonial services to couples?
No. What point do you think you’re making?
-
Vlad,
“Yeah, so my church and I are a bunch of morally bankrupt fuckwits about this but hey, don’t sweat it – not all of them are.”
No. What point do you think you’re making?
Oh it's pretty clear the point I'm making. If they aren't prepared to provide holy matrimony, why not?
-
Vlad,
Oh it's pretty clear the point I'm making. If they aren't prepared to provide holy matrimony, why not?
No it isn't. Why not? Because they don't want to. Because they don't like the font it's printed in. Because anything. Why on earth does it matter?
-
Spud,
What is racist about believing that seats at the front of the bus are only for white people, or misogynist about believing that votes are only for men?
Besides, this is more about what people do with their homophobic beliefs - denying marriage services to gay people while providing the same services to straight people for example.
If it's morally wrong for black people to sit at the front, or for women to vote, then there's nothing racist or misogynist. But the Bible says nothing to indicate that any race is superior or inferior, or that women can't have a say in who is elected leader (see Deborah, who was one of the Judges in Judges, for example) Regarding marriage, Jesus said that in the beginning God made them male and female, so they are not two but one, therefore what God has joined, let no man separate. So God created marriage between a man and a woman. Any homosexual (or non marital sexual) activity opposes this purpose, which is why God calls it abomination.
The reason some churches still don't allow SSM is because its purpose is to help people come into God's kingdom, which means to come under his kingship. It can't cherry pick which of God's teaching it wants to obey.
For sure this means that all Christians have fleshly misdeeds to put away, and what is a misdeed can often take time to accept let alone overcome. But God is gracious and patient if we repent daily.
So when you accuse Christians of homophobia you don't realise that actually all they are interested in is helping gay people to come into and stay in God's kingdom.
-
Spud,
If it's morally wrong for black people to sit at the front, or for women to vote, then there's nothing racist or misogynist. But the Bible says nothing to indicate that any race is superior or inferior, or that women can't have a say in who is elected leader (see Deborah, who was one of the Judges in Judges, for example) Regarding marriage, Jesus said that in the beginning God made them male and female, so they are not two but one, therefore what God has joined, let no man separate. So God created marriage between a man and a woman. Any homosexual (or non marital sexual) activity opposes this purpose, which is why God calls it abomination.
The reason some churches still don't allow SSM is because its purpose is to help people come into God's kingdom, which means to come under his kingship. It can't cherry pick which of God's teaching it wants to obey.
For sure this means that all Christians have fleshly misdeeds to put away, and what is a misdeed can often take time to accept let alone overcome. But God is gracious and patient if we repent daily.
So when you accuse Christians of homophobia you don't realise that actually all they are interested in is helping gay people to come into and stay in God's kingdom.
You’re missing the point here. If your allow rights to some people but deny the same rights to other people solely on the grounds of their innate characteristics – race, age, gender, sexual orientation etc – then you’re practicing racism, ageism, misogyny, homophobia etc.
Why someone does that is a different matter entirely.
-
There are Churches who will marry them down the road. Are there Humanist celebrants who will provide holy matrimonial services to couples?
Vlad,
Actually, in England and Wales regrettably, Humanist celebrants aren't allowed to conduct legally binding marriage ceremonies, as far as I know. However, even if they were, there is no reason to think that they should conduct Holy matrimonial services, just as you wouldn't expect Jewish rabbis to do so. However, if they were allowed to conduct legally binding marriage ceremonies, one would expect them to be gender neutral, or else the same accusation of homophobia could be levelled against them.
As with Blue, I can't see your point.
-
If it's morally wrong for black people to sit at the front, or for women to vote, then there's nothing racist or misogynist.
Firstly, there are no moral absolutely and whether these are right or wrong is a matter for ethical debate, although I think there is a settle view currently that discrimination against people on the basis of their race or gender is wrong. However even if you do consider it to be ethically OK that doesn't mean it isn't still racist or sexist - it will be as you are treating some people less favourably on the basis of their race or sex.
But the Bible says nothing to indicate that any race is superior or inferior, or that women can't have a say in who is elected leader.
On the contrary - the bible is full of stuff which has been used now and in the past to justify clear discrimination against people on the basis of race and sex. We've talked about the biblical justification of slavery and other persecution of black people on the basis of their inferiority.
And of course the bible continually (from the first chapter) indicates that women are inferior to men. And on the ability of women to have a say in the selection of elected leaders - there are still major denominations where women are banned from being priests and only priests have a say in electing leaders. And the move to allow women to have a say is very recent in many denominations. I'd argue that the major denominations (e.g. RCC, CofE, Orthodox) still do not have full equality for women, and ultimately this is based on, and justified by, biblical scripture.
-
'Holy' matrimony in the Bible often meant the men had one wife and mistresses. Even though Mary was betrothed to Joseph it didn't stop god getting her in the family way. ::)
-
If it's morally wrong for black people to sit at the front, or for women to vote, then there's nothing racist or misogynist.
The important bit there, of course, is the 'if'. And I appreciate that you most likely don't think that those things are moral transgressions.
But the Bible says nothing to indicate that any race is superior or inferior, or that women can't have a say in who is elected leader (see Deborah, who was one of the Judges in Judges, for example).
Actually, it does -
“Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, “Praise be to the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend Japheth’s territory; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be the slave of Japheth.” Genesis 9:18-27
And the whole 'do not permit a woman to teach, nor have authority over a man' thing - Timothy, I think?
Regarding marriage, Jesus said that in the beginning God made them male and female, so they are not two but one, therefore what God has joined, let no man separate.
Didn't God also allegedly create all people in their image? The man and the woman, and by extension, the homosexuals, the intersex people, the trans, the non-binary...
So God created marriage between a man and a woman.
Notwithstanding that marriage sprang up outside of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, Judaism and Christianity have accepted innumerable changes to their own traditions of marriage over time; concubinage, multiple wives, divorce...
Any homosexual (or non marital sexual) activity opposes this purpose, which is why God calls it abomination.[/quoe]
What 'purpose'?
]The reason some churches still don't allow SSM is because its purpose is to help people come into God's kingdom, which means to come under his kingship.
And the whole 'judge not lest ye be judged' thing? We have no primary sources, vanishingly few secondary sources, and horrendously polluted tertiary sources which have been subject to all sorts of adulterations by various vested interests over the past one and a half thousand years, but you're going to cleave to literalism in this one section despite the overarching theme of the stories being that love should transcend all?
It can't cherry pick which of God's teaching it wants to obey.
Of course you can, that's why you have denominational variations and people skipping from one sect to another.
For sure this means that all Christians have fleshly misdeeds to put away, and what is a misdeed can often take time to accept let alone overcome. But God is gracious and patient if we repent daily.
If God is gracious and accepting, marry gay people and let them seek forgiveness from him?
So when you accuse Christians of homophobia you don't realise that actually all they are interested in is helping gay people to come into and stay in God's kingdom.
It's still homophobia. They might genuinely believe that they have the best interests of gay people in their hearts, but then many of those who supported slavery genuinely thought (because it was what they'd been taught, in some cases by their churches) that other ethnicities and nations were backward savages who needed 'saving' from themselves.
That sort of authoritarian discrimination is still short-sighted discrimination.
O.
-
Vlad,
Actually, in England and Wales regrettably, Humanist celebrants aren't allowed to conduct legally binding marriage ceremonies, as far as I know. However, even if they were, there is no reason to think that they should conduct Holy matrimonial services, just as you wouldn't expect Jewish rabbis to do so. However, if they were allowed to conduct legally binding marriage ceremonies, one would expect them to be gender neutral, or else the same accusation of homophobia could be levelled against them.
As with Blue, I can't see your point.
I think Blue sees the point that the reason Humanist celebrants exclude couples wanting holy matrimony are in the same category as why some priests exclude same sex couples and that is why the law is as it is.
Yes there are priests whose motivation is homophobia and priests who observe the scriptural definition.
As there will be Humanist celebrants who are motivated by their beliefs and those motivated by religious persecution.
-
I think Blue sees the point that the reason Humanist celebrants exclude couples wanting holy matrimony are in the same category as why some priests exclude same sex couples and that is why the law is as it is.
Yes there are priests whose motivation is homophobia and priests who observe the scriptural definition.
As there will be Humanist celebrants who are motivated by their beliefs and those motivated by religious persecution.
You're getting silly now, Vlad: it is you who is making a category error here. In effect you're proposing the equivalent of someone who has a leaky tap but decides to approach a bus driver about doing the repair rather than approach a plumber - I can't imagine many would be that stupid.
Those expressly wanting a religious wedding would, I suspect, not try to engage a Humanist celebrant since, by definition, a Humanist celebrant would not be qualified to conduct a religious marriage service, and I'd imagine that any Humanist celebrant who was asked to conduct some "holy matrimony" would, after they had stopped laughing, advise the enquirer to approach a qualified cleric. By the same token I'd be surprised if someone wanting a Humanist wedding would first try to engage their local minister or priest, and if they did I'd imagine that the cleric involved, who no doubt would also have a wee chuckle to themselves, would direct them to the nearest specialist Humanist celebrant.
The relevant issue as, regards the topic of this thread, is whether Humanist celebrants would feel justified in denying their marital services to same-sex couples purely on the basis that they were same-sex couples - and if they did, then they would be just as homophobic as it seems your church is.
-
You're getting silly now, Vlad: it is you who is making a category error here. In effect you're proposing the equivalent of someone who has a leaky tap but decides to approach a bus driver about doing the repair rather than approach a plumber - I can't imagine many would be that stupid.
Those expressly wanting a religious wedding would, I suspect, not try to engage a Humanist celebrant since, by definition, a Humanist celebrant would not be qualified to conduct a religious marriage service, and I'd imagine that any Humanist celebrant who was asked to conduct some "holy matrimony" would, after they had stopped laughing, advise the enquirer to approach a qualified cleric. By the same token I'd be surprised if someone wanting a Humanist wedding would first try to engage their local minister or priest, and if they did I'd imagine that the cleric involved, who no doubt would also have a wee chuckle to themselves, would direct them to the nearest specialist Humanist celebrant.
The relevant issue as, regards the topic of this thread, is whether Humanist celebrants would feel justified in denying their marital services to same-sex couples purely on the basis that they were same-sex couples - and if they did, then they would be just as homophobic as it seems your church is.
Don’t think so. Both couples are being discriminated against. You are brushing the religious discrimination aspect of this away by saying that there are other people who will give them holy matrimony. So by that logic we can brush the gender neutral aspect away by saying there are other people who will give them a gender neutral wedding......
And I think this very argument is why we don’t have the spectacle of anybody being forced to conduct a service for a model of matrimony that they don’t agree with.
-
Don’t think so. Both couples are being discriminated against. You are brushing the religious discrimination aspect of this away by saying that there are other people who will give them holy matrimony. So by that logic we can brush the gender neutral aspect away by saying there are other people who will give them a gender neutral wedding......
And I think this very argument is why we don’t have the spectacle of anybody being forced to conduct a service for a model of matrimony that they don’t agree with.
Don't be daft: not being in a position to provide a service in the first place: for example I am not in a position to provide a dental service, is not the same as being able to provide a particular service but declining to do so in certain selected cases.
If Humanist celebrants aren't qualified to provide "holy matrimony" in the first place then they can't be accused of discrimination by refusing to conduct a ceremony that they are not competent to perform.
Stop digging.
-
Don't be daft: not being in a position to provide a service in the first place: for example I am not in a position to provide a dental service, is not the same as being able to provide a particular service but declining to do so in certain selected cases.
If Humanist celebrants aren't qualified to provide "holy matrimony" in the first place then they can't be accused of discrimination by refusing to conduct a ceremony that they are not competent to perform.
Stop digging.
And by the same token priests do not feel scripture qualifies them for gender neutral weddings and the law surely underlines that as well.
You are bigging up the status of your opinion which has no support in law. To get any purchase for your argument
Both humanist celebrants and priests have to get qualified for both gender neutral holy matrimony and gender important holy matrimony.
-
And by the same token priests do not feel scripture qualifies them for gender neutral weddings and the law surely underlines that as well.
You are bigging up the status of your opinion which has no support in law. To get any purchase for your argument
Both humanist celebrants and priests have to get qualified for both gender neutral holy matrimony and gender important holy matrimony.
You seem especially dense: what bit of 'Humanist celebrants are not clerics and, therefore, cannot provide the "holy matrimony" you speak of', are you not getting? You also mention 'the law' but marriage law differs within the UK - for example.
In Scotland.
* As Anchorman pointed out earlier, clerics are not permitted to conduct civil marriages.
* Marriages conducted by Humanist celebrants can take place anywhere the celebrant is prepared to conduct the service (hotel, beach, garden etc) - but not on religious premises - and will have immediate legal force without the involvement of a state Registrar.
* Religious ceremonies can also occur anywhere the cleric is prepared to conduct the ceremony.
* Civil marriages involving a state Registrar can occur anywhere that the registration authority permits.
A civil marriage ceremony can take place in a registration office or any other appropriate location (other than religious premises) that has been agreed by the couple and the registration authority, for example a stately home, a boat in Scottish waters or a hillside.
A religious or belief ceremony includes religious beliefs and other belief systems such as humanism. A religious or belief ceremony can be held anywhere (for example on a boat or hillside) as long as the couple can find an approved celebrant. This is someone who is authorised to perform marriages.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership-s/getting-married-s/
In England & Wales.
* Humanist celebrants can also conduct marriages anywhere but these have no legal force in themselves, and a separate civil ceremony conducted by a state Registrar is also required for the marriage to be legal.
* Legal marriages can only take place in premises approved by he registration authorities and, unlike here in Scotland, outdoor marriages in gardens or on a beach are not immediately legal, and if the couple want an outdoor ceremony outwith any approved premises they will also need a separate civil ceremony in an approved fixed structure (which can include permanent gazebos attached to hotels), and only then are they legally married.
Same sex couples can only marry in a religious ceremony, if the religious organisation has agreed to carry out same sex weddings, and the premises have been registered for the marriage of same sex couples. Religious organisations or individual ministers do not have to marry same sex couples. Same sex couples cannot marry in The Church of England or the Church in Wales......
Local authorities in England and Wales may approve premises other than Register Offices where civil marriages may take place. Applications for approval must be made by the owner or trustee of the building, not the couple.
The premises must be regularly open to members of the public, so private homes are unlikely to be approved, since they are not normally open to the public. Stately homes, hotels and civic buildings are likely to be thought suitable. Approval will not be given for open air venues, such as moonlit beaches or golf courses. Generally, the premises will need to be permanent built structures, although it may be possible for approval to be given to a permanently moored, publicly open boat. Hot air balloons or aeroplanes will not be approved......
You can get married by a civil ceremony or a religious ceremony.
In both cases, the following legal requirements must be met:-
the marriage must be conducted by a person or in the presence of a person authorised to register marriages in the district
the marriage must be entered in the marriage register and signed by both parties, two witnesses, the person who conducted the ceremony and, if that person is not authorised to register marriages, the person who is registering the marriage.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/getting-married/
Anyway - now that I've clarified some of the varying legal aspects, since you keep mentioning "the law" perhaps you could now confirm whether or not you agree that where religious authorities or Humanist celebrants in any part of UK decline to marry same-sex couples then they are exhibiting personal and/or organisational homophobia.
-
Don't be daft: not being in a position to provide a service in the first place: for example I am not in a position to provide a dental service, is not the same as being able to provide a particular service but declining to do so in certain selected cases.
If Humanist celebrants aren't qualified to provide "holy matrimony" in the first place then they can't be accused of discrimination by refusing to conduct a ceremony that they are not competent to perform.
Stop digging.
I've been training for the 'Ordained local Ministry' in the CofS. I should have been ordained last year, but decided an onine ordination wasn't my cup of tea.
The ministry would allow me to conduct the wo sacraments (there are but two in the CofS) as well as weddings.
I'd be faced with a potential situation where a kirk session to which I was attached by Presbytery may sanction a wedding which, in conscience, I could not conduct. This would lead to schism and dissention in a congregation.
The ' a minister is not forced to conduct....' isn't the simplistic solution it is meant to be.
I know of two situations - unrelated to sexuality - where a minister's refusal to conduct led to acrimony and Kirk disciplinary charges which resulted in the congregations being dissolved and members going to other kirks or other denominations.
-
I know of two situations - unrelated to sexuality - where a minister's refusal to conduct led to acrimony and Kirk disciplinary charges which resulted in the congregations being dissolved and members going to other kirks or other denominations.
So an organisation shouldn't do the right thing because some members may leave - let's not forget that earlier in the thread you said that you'd leave yourself in circumstances where the CofS allowed marriage between a same sex couple, so you are just as complicit.
But there is always the focus on those who'd leave if churches got rid of discriminatory practice (whether on gender or sexuality) - how many people have walked away from churches they'd previously been members of due to the retention of such practices. Across the UK church membership and congregations are declining and one of the main reasons is a failure to attract the young to become members as adults (note many of these people will have been brought up within those congregations). How many of these people walking are doing so, in part, because those organisations simply don't align with their own ethical values which have no truck with discrimination.
So your kind of implicit assertion that retaining discrimination keeps congregations together and strong isn't sustainable - regardless of what the churches do there will be people incensed (publicly or privately) and will choose to walk. So whether you do the right thing or do the wrong thing you will lose some members (and perhaps gain others) - so you might as well have a bit of moral courage and do the right thing.
-
So an organisation shouldn't do the right thing because some members may leave - let's not forget that earlier in the thread you said that you'd leave yourself in circumstances where the CofS allowed marriage between a same sex couple, so you are just as complicit.
But there is always the focus on those who'd leave if churches got rid of discriminatory practice (whether on gender or sexuality) - how many people have walked away from churches they'd previously been members of due to the retention of such practices. Across the UK church membership and congregations are declining and one of the main reasons is a failure to attract the young to become members as adults (note many of these people will have been brought up within those congregations). How many of these people walking are doing so, in part, because those organisations simply don't align with their own ethical values which have no truck with discrimination.
So your kind of implicit assertion that retaining discrimination keeps congregations together and strong isn't sustainable - regardless of what the churches do there will be people incensed (publicly or privately) and will choose to walk. So whether you do the right thing or do the wrong thing you will lose some members (and perhaps gain others) - so you might as well have a bit of moral courage and do the right thing.
When you say 'gender or sexuality', do you mean 'sex or sexuality'?
-
Don’t think so. Both couples are being discriminated against.
Arguably, but there's a moral difference between not choosing to offer something in keeping with someone's aesthetic choices (religion) and not choosing to offer something in keeping with someone's intrinsic nature (sexuality). There is a category error, and it's the same one that's in the Equalities Act, which is putting religious belief in the same bracket as sex, race and sexuality.
If someone objected to officiating a wedding with blue flowers that's no discrimination, that's just not liking someone's choices: not wanting to officiate a Christian wedding is morally the same, but not wanting to officiate a wedding where the groom's potential spouse is black, or male, or gay is not the same thing at all.
O.
-
When you say 'gender or sexuality', do you mean 'sex or sexuality'?
Possibly, but not sure that is really relevant to the discussion here.
-
Possibly, but not sure that is really relevant to the discussion here.
Clarity is surely relevant to any discussion? Whereas gender was once seen as a polite way of saying sex, and synonymous in certain areas, the ongoing issue on trans makes it a lot less clear.
-
Vlad,
I think Blue sees the point that the reason Humanist celebrants exclude couples wanting holy matrimony are in the same category as why some priests exclude same sex couples and that is why the law is as it is.
Yes there are priests whose motivation is homophobia and priests who observe the scriptural definition.
As there will be Humanist celebrants who are motivated by their beliefs and those motivated by religious persecution.
When you crash and burn you really go down in flames don't you. The whole point about racism, ageism, homophobia etc is that they concern rights that are applied differentially on the basis of innate characteristics. If humanists were offer "holy" matrimony to no-one or to everyone is neither here nor there - the whole point is that your homophobic church (acting according to its belief in a homophobic god) provides a service differentially to one group (straight people) but not to another (gay people).
Dear god but you struggle.
-
So an organisation shouldn't do the right thing because some members may leave - let's not forget that earlier in the thread you said that you'd leave yourself in circumstances where the CofS allowed marriage between a same sex couple, so you are just as complicit. But there is always the focus on those who'd leave if churches got rid of discriminatory practice (whether on gender or sexuality) - how many people have walked away from churches they'd previously been members of due to the retention of such practices. Across the UK church membership and congregations are declining and one of the main reasons is a failure to attract the young to become members as adults (note many of these people will have been brought up within those congregations). How many of these people walking are doing so, in part, because those organisations simply don't align with their own ethical values which have no truck with discrimination. So your kind of implicit assertion that retaining discrimination keeps congregations together and strong isn't sustainable - regardless of what the churches do there will be people incensed (publicly or privately) and will choose to walk. So whether you do the right thing or do the wrong thing you will lose some members (and perhaps gain others) - so you might as well have a bit of moral courage and do the right thing.
".....the right thing...." That's a matter of perspective; a matter of balance. A minister must be there as pastor, yes - to look after all the flock, not just some. If, by acquiescing to the needs of a few, the many are scattered, that's bad stewardship. This isn't a case of trying to find the missing sheep to return it to the flock - it's a case of stopping a flock disintegrating. This is not easy; somewhere along the line, some parties may be offended enough to leave a congregation....whose needs are the greater? That's one reason that I may not be in the CofS long enough to be ordained...it's probably not a brave decision, but I don't want to be the one making it.
-
You seem especially dense: what bit of 'Humanist celebrants are not clerics and, therefore, cannot provide the "holy matrimony" you speak of', are you not getting? You also mention 'the law' but marriage law differs within the UK - for example.
In Scotland.
* As Anchorman pointed out earlier, clerics are not permitted to conduct civil marriages.
* Marriages conducted by Humanist celebrants can take place anywhere the celebrant is prepared to conduct the service (hotel, beach, garden etc) - but not on religious premises - and will have immediate legal force without the involvement of a state Registrar.
* Religious ceremonies can also occur anywhere the cleric is prepared to conduct the ceremony.
* Civil marriages involving a state Registrar can occur anywhere that the registration authority permits.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership-s/getting-married-s/
In England & Wales.
* Humanist celebrants can also conduct marriages anywhere but these have no legal force in themselves, and a separate civil ceremony conducted by a state Registrar is also required for the marriage to be legal.
* Legal marriages can only take place in premises approved by he registration authorities and, unlike here in Scotland, outdoor marriages in gardens or on a beach are not immediately legal, and if the couple want an outdoor ceremony outwith any approved premises they will also need a separate civil ceremony in an approved fixed structure (which can include permanent gazebos attached to hotels), and only then are they legally married.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/getting-married/
Anyway - now that I've clarified some of the varying legal aspects, since you keep mentioning "the law" perhaps you could now confirm whether or not you agree that where religious authorities or Humanist celebrants in any part of UK decline to marry same-sex couples then they are exhibiting personal and/or organisational homophobia.
Of course they aren’t clergy and nobody sensible is going to make them perform a holy matrimony or even if they make them, expect integrity out of that service. Similarly if those celebrants
Felt they could not, with any integrity carry out a gender neutral marriage. And that is true of anyone.
Once again gender neutral is not or ever can be the same as gender important.
Every bodies marriage is gender important after all.
Gender neutral marriages and partner number neutral marriages were not included in the scriptural meaning of holy matrimony. Polygamy is different from monogamy and one needed as a Christian to decide whether to forgo and have holy matrimony or retain and be multiply married under some other right or law. Gender neutral marriage was not even apparently considered a thing and so there is no argument that it was specifically excluded as a homophobic act. Some Christians I would imagine use that as a basis to argue that the definition of matrimony as gender important was a temporary definition. Christians holding that argument would in terms of marrying a same sex partner in a rite which has the integrity provided by a priest of that belief would likely go down that avenue.
For me this interpretation has flaws. Not least the nature of objections including the word piracy and intellectual totalitarianism involved and the idea that gender importance should not be a factor in marriage. The idea that God has fear of homosexuality, the idea that god is just a big homophobe and last but not least the provisional and obviously elastic nature of this relatively new term homophobia.
-
Once again gender neutral is not or ever can be the same as gender important. Every bodies marriage is gender important after all.
Firstly, again, it's not about gender, it's about sexuality.
Secondly, their sexuality might be important to them as participants, but why is it important to the process?
Gender neutral marriages and partner number neutral marriages were not included in the scriptural meaning of holy matrimony.
But concubines were.
Polygamy is different from monogamy and one needed as a Christian to decide whether to forgo and have holy matrimony or retain and be multiply married under some other right or law. Gender neutral marriage was not even apparently considered a thing and so there is no argument that it was specifically excluded as a homophobic act.
No, not having it considered at the time is exactly that, you are choosing to interpret it as a specifically excluded concept. You could step up and be Christian in the tradition of those that made a call on polygamy and changed the doctrine.
Some Christians I would imagine use that as a basis to argue that the definition of matrimony as gender important was a temporary definition. Christians holding that argument would in terms of marrying a same sex partner in a rite which has the integrity provided by a priest of that belief would likely go down that avenue.
For me this interpretation has flaws. Not least the nature of objections including the word piracy and intellectual totalitarianism involved and the idea that gender importance should not be a factor in marriage. The idea that God has fear of homosexuality, the idea that god is just a big homophobe and last but not least the provisional and obviously elastic nature of this relatively new term homophobia.
So it's entirely possible to reconcile Christianity with accepting homosexuality, it's just that you (and those of your ilk) don't... if only we had a word for that?
O.
-
When you say 'gender or sexuality', do you mean 'sex or sexuality'?
School me. Thank you.
-
I think Blue sees the point that the reason Humanist celebrants exclude couples wanting holy matrimony are in the same category as why some priests exclude same sex couples and that is why the law is as it is.
Yes there are priests whose motivation is homophobia and priests who observe the scriptural definition.
As there will be Humanist celebrants who are motivated by their beliefs and those motivated by religious persecution.
Rubbish.
Humanists exclude everyone from Holy Matrimony simply because they don't cater for it. There is no discrimination involved.
Discrimination is the act of treating individuals or groups of people differently. Hence, a church which discriminates against certain people who want a Holy matrimony service, as in the case of same sex couples, for instance, and because discrimination can be regarded as linked to homophobia, therefore this can lead to the accusation of homophobia.
-
Vlad waffles on and on but is totally clueless. ::)
-
Of course they aren’t clergy and nobody sensible is going to make them perform a holy matrimony or even if they make them, expect integrity out of that service. Similarly if those celebrants
Felt they could not, with any integrity carry out a gender neutral marriage. And that is true of anyone.
Once again gender neutral is not or ever can be the same as gender important.
Every bodies marriage is gender important after all.
Gender neutral marriages and partner number neutral marriages were not included in the scriptural meaning of holy matrimony. Polygamy is different from monogamy and one needed as a Christian to decide whether to forgo and have holy matrimony or retain and be multiply married under some other right or law. Gender neutral marriage was not even apparently considered a thing and so there is no argument that it was specifically excluded as a homophobic act. Some Christians I would imagine use that as a basis to argue that the definition of matrimony as gender important was a temporary definition. Christians holding that argument would in terms of marrying a same sex partner in a rite which has the integrity provided by a priest of that belief would likely go down that avenue.
For me this interpretation has flaws. Not least the nature of objections including the word piracy and intellectual totalitarianism involved and the idea that gender importance should not be a factor in marriage. The idea that God has fear of homosexuality, the idea that god is just a big homophobe and last but not least the provisional and obviously elastic nature of this relatively new term homophobia.
Maybe you should worry less about the moveable feast that is 'holy', especially given the social attitudes involved seem to be rooted in the social and religious mores of antiquity, and worry more about tackling overt discrimination such as homophobia right now.
You seem to be under the impression that what you regard as being 'holy' is in some sense binding on society at large and merits reverence and special privileges: well some us 'regard' your 'holy' as being utterly perverse and in need of change.
-
Maybe you should worry less about the moveable feast that is 'holy', especially given the social attitudes involved seem to be rooted in the social and religious mores of antiquity, and worry more about tackling overt discrimination such as homophobia right now.
You seem to be under the impression that what you regard as being 'holy' is in some sense binding on society at large and merits reverence and special privileges: well some us 'regard' your 'holy' as being utterly perverse and in need of change.
No, as I have said but you have tried to disguise , that the gender important model has no monopoly on the title matrimony. It may be that it doesn't have a monopoly on the title holy matrimony. But the model of gender importance is always going to be a thing and is always going to be distinct from homophobia......whatever that means.
-
No, as I have said but you have tried to disguise , that the gender important model has no monopoly on the title matrimony. It may be that it doesn't have a monopoly on the title holy matrimony. But the model of gender importance is always going to be a thing and is always going to be distinct from homophobia......whatever that means.
Of course "gender important model" is yet another of you bespoke phrases designed, no doubt, to avoid the core issue here: which is that some religious people and some religious groups regard their definition of 'holy' marriage (the 'one man, one woman' bit) to be authoritative when it obviously isn't in the UK at least, since same-sex marriage is now legal.
Clinging to your "holy matrimony" notion means you are clinging to homophobia: since this description implies homophobia no matter how much you try to distract and evade.
-
Firstly, again, it's not about gender, it's about sexuality.
Secondly, their sexuality might be important to them as participants, but why is it important to the process?
But concubines were.
No, not having it considered at the time is exactly that, you are choosing to interpret it as a specifically excluded concept. You could step up and be Christian in the tradition of those that made a call on polygamy and changed the doctrine.
So it's entirely possible to reconcile Christianity with accepting homosexuality, it's just that you (and those of your ilk) don't... if only we had a word for that?
O.
The early Christians thought that having Concubines was ok, are you sure about that.
I put it to you that in the intimate aspects of your own marriage gender importance is a big part of your marriage and that must be true of any marriage including Same sex marriage.
Now if you insist it is not a factor then you obviously wouldn’t mind being married to a man. This position would be similar to the Ancient Jewish view that everyone has a homosexual tendency and is capable of a sexual relationship with others of the same sex.
-
Of course "gender important model" is yet another of you bespoke phrases designed, no doubt, to avoid the core issue here: which is that some religious people and some religious groups regard their definition of 'holy' marriage (the 'one man, one woman' bit) to be authoritative when it obviously isn't in the UK at least, since same-sex marriage is now legal.
Clinging to your "holy matrimony" notion means you are clinging to homophobia: since this description implies homophobia no matter how much you try to distract and evade.
I take it in your own marriage the one man one woman thing is more than just a bit.
Other than that I disagree that the focus of holy matrimony was or is to “stick one on the gays” and that the rest of your schtick is the fallacy of modernity.
Authoritive?, insufficient revelation to say it isn’t and insufficient cogency on the part of biased atheists also.
-
You seem to be under the impression that what you regard as being 'holy' is in some sense binding on society at large and merits reverence and special privileges: well some us 'regard' your 'holy' as being utterly perverse and in need of change.
That’s because you are reducing the word holy down to meaning “ one’s perspective on gay marriage in church”........ Gordon getting it completely wrong, or what?
Weaponising homosexuality, that’s perverse.
-
Anchs,
".....the right thing...." That's a matter of perspective; a matter of balance. A minister must be there as pastor, yes - to look after all the flock, not just some. If, by acquiescing to the needs of a few, the many are scattered, that's bad stewardship. This isn't a case of trying to find the missing sheep to return it to the flock - it's a case of stopping a flock disintegrating. This is not easy; somewhere along the line, some parties may be offended enough to leave a congregation....whose needs are the greater? That's one reason that I may not be in the CofS long enough to be ordained...it's probably not a brave decision, but I don't want to be the one making it.
The Klu Klux Klan could use the same defence. Either you think rights made available or denied on the ground of an innate characteristic is acceptable or you don't. That's all there is to it.
If you think it's fine though because you don't like what would happen to the institution that does it, you're:
a) wrong; and
b) in very dodgy company.
-
That’s because you are reducing the word holy down to meaning “ one’s perspective on gay marriage in church”........ Gordon getting it completely wrong, or what?
Weaponising homosexuality, that’s perverse.
Nope - "Holy" is your term, Vlad, and I'm assuming, what with you being a Christian and all, that you mean "holy matrimony" involves compliance with Christian dogma and tradition, where some interpretations of these lead directly to homophobia.
Perhaps you should tell us what you mean by the term 'holy matrimony'.
-
Vlad,
As you seem to have missed it, here's the correction i gave you a few post ago:
When you crash and burn you really go down in flames don't you. The whole point about racism, ageism, homophobia etc is that they concern rights that are applied differentially on the basis of innate characteristics. If humanists were offer "holy" matrimony to no-one or to everyone is neither here nor there - the whole point is that your homophobic church (acting according to its belief in a homophobic god) provides a service differentially to one group (straight people) but not to another (gay people).
Dear god but you struggle.
-
Anchs,
The Klu Klux Klan could use the same defence. Either you think rights made available or denied on the ground of an innate characteristic is acceptable or you don't. That's all there is to it.
If you think it's fine though because you don't like what would happen to the institution that does it, you're:
a) wrong; and
b) in very dodgy company.
The KKK were distinctly set up for the purposes of white supremacy.
How is this a good analogy?
-
Vlad,
As you seem to have missed it, here's the correction i gave you a few post ago:
When you crash and burn you really go down in flames don't you. The whole point about racism, ageism, homophobia etc is that they concern rights that are applied differentially on the basis of innate characteristics. If humanists were offer "holy" matrimony to no-one or to everyone is neither here nor there - the whole point is that your homophobic church (acting according to its belief in a homophobic god) provides a service differentially to one group (straight people) but not to another (gay people).
Racism is a motivation. Are people that stick to the description of matrimony, motivated by homophobia? Is God homophobic ?
-
Vlad,
The KKK were distinctly set up for the purposes of white supremacy.
How is this a good analogy?
Why an institution provides and denies rights on the basis of innate characteristics is a different matter, and is neither here nor there for this purpose. Whether it’s the KKK or the bus company though that denies rights to black people makes no difference.
That’s why it’s a good analogy.
Racism is a motivation. Are people that stick to the description of matrimony, motivated by homophobia? Is God homophobic ?
Your god is, yes – and so is the church that’s doing what it thinks this supposed god wants (though the god and churches of other Christians apparently aren’t). Yet again though, the point is that you espouse an institution that provides certain rights to straight people and denies the same rights to gay people. You can dance around why it acts homophobically all you like, but that doesn’t change the fact that it does.
Which is the point.
-
Clarity is surely relevant to any discussion? Whereas gender was once seen as a polite way of saying sex, and synonymous in certain areas, the ongoing issue on trans makes it a lot less clear.
But the issue of clarity on this matter is only relevant if to those who consider sex/gender to be relevant in terms of the type of person who can become a priest or the nature of a couple who can marry. If you don't think gender/sex is relevant to the matter (as I do) then being clear about the matter is not relevant.
Now I've no idea how religious organisations who restrict being a priest to men only define what a man is - so whether they'd consider a trans woman to be a man or a woman. Nor whether they consider a marriage between a cis-man and a trans-woman to be a same sex marriage or not. But that is their issue (and I suspect they tie themselves up in knots over this), not mine, as I think that the gender/sex of the person should be irrelevant.
So asking me to be clear about the matter is no more relevant that asking someone who does not think that there should be segregated drinking fountains for black people and white people to be clear about whether a person with one black grandparent and three white grandparents is black or white. To that person the matter is irrelevant - it is only relevant to those who want to segregate on the basis of race.
-
But the issue of clarity on this matter is only relevant if to those who consider sex/gender to be relevant in terms of the type of person who can become a priest or the nature of a couple who can marry. If you don't think gender/sex is relevant to the matter (as I do) then being clear about the matter is not relevant.
Now I've no idea how religious organisations who restrict being a priest to men only define what a man is - so whether they'd consider a trans woman to be a man or a woman. Nor whether they consider a marriage between a cis-man and a trans-woman to be a same sex marriage or not. But that is their issue (and I suspect they tie themselves up in knots over this), not mine, as I think that the gender/sex of the person should be irrelevant.
So asking me to be clear about the matter is no more relevant that asking someone who does not think that there should be segregated drinking fountains for black people and white people to be clear about whether a person with one black grandparent and three white grandparents is black or white. To that person the matter is irrelevant - it is only relevant to those who want to segregate on the basis of race.
Cis is a nonsense term here. Gender and sex are not interchangeable. Gender is in that sense regressive patriarchal woo.
-
NS,
...regressive patriarchal woo.
Genius level phrase!
-
Cis is a nonsense term here. Gender and sex are not interchangeable. Gender is in that sense regressive patriarchal woo.
Cis is the broadly accepted term for people whose gender identity matches their sex assigned at birth, as apposed to trans.
And it is relevant here as for those who think that being a priest should only be for a man, then they have to determine whether a trans-woman is a man or a woman. And for those who think that marriage must only be between a man or a woman, they have to wrestle with whether a marriage between a cis-man and a trans-woman is same sex or opposite sex. And I suspect they may not be consistent in their conclusions.
But as I've pointed out the onus isn't on me to define who is male or female in this context as I think the sex or gender of a person wanting to be a priest or the sex or gender of the individuals in a couple wanted to get married is irrelevant. That surely isn't a hard concept to understand - any more than expecting you (who I assume doesn't believe that drinking fountains should be segregated) to be clear about whether a person with one black grandparent and three white ones is black or white in the context of which drinking fountain they should be allowed to use.
-
Cis is the broadly accepted term for people whose gender identity matches their sex assigned at birth, as apposed to trans.
And it is relevant here as for those who think that being a priest should only be for a man, then they have to determine whether a trans-woman is a man or a woman. And for those who think that marriage must only be between a man or a woman, they have to wrestle with whether a marriage between a cis-man and a trans-woman is same sex or opposite sex. And I suspect they may not be consistent in their conclusions.
But as I've pointed out the onus isn't on me to define who is male or female in this context as I think the sex or gender of a person wanting to be a priest or the sex or gender of the individuals in a couple wanted to get married is irrelevant. That surely isn't a hard concept to understand - any more than expecting you (who I assume doesn't believe that drinking fountains should be segregated) to be clear about whether a person with one black grandparent and three white ones is black or white in the context of which drinking fountain they should be allowed to use.
Cis is iduotic in this context. It subscribest to a reifying of gender that is based around stereotypes. Sex is mot assigned at birth, it is observed. Your touting anti scientific bollocks.
-
Cis is iduotic in this context. It subscribest to a reifying of gender that is based around stereotypes. Sex is mot assigned at birth, it is observed. Your touting anti scientific bollocks.
I think you are mistaking this thread for another one on this MB. You cannot really complain about the use of the term 'cis' if you are happy to use the term 'trans'. Off you pop to that other thread if you wish to rant on the matter.
-
The early Christians thought that having Concubines was ok, are you sure about that.
It's a significant part of the Bible - Solomon and David and others.
I put it to you that in the intimate aspects of your own marriage gender importance is a big part of your marriage and that must be true of any marriage including Same sex marriage.
What I do or do not choose to consider important in my particular marriage includes, but also expands upon, what is important in the concept of marriage. Some people maintain marriages without having 'intimate aspects' - the gender of my spouse is only important in regards to my sexuality, and no-one is suggesting that the various churches are denying people a marriage ceremony based upon their gender or their sex.
Now if you insist it is not a factor then you obviously wouldn’t mind being married to a man.
I would object to me being married to a man, I wouldn't object to the general concept of a man being married to a man.
This position would be similar to the Ancient Jewish view that everyone has a homosexual tendency and is capable of a sexual relationship with others of the same sex.
That idea that sexuality is a spectrum is not confined to ancient Jewish traditions, it's a fairly well-established idea within psychology. As to 'capable'... isn't desirous a more important consideration?
O.
[/quote]
-
I think you are mistaking this thread for another one on this MB. You cannot really complain about the use of the term 'cis' if you are happy to use the term 'trans'. Off you pop to that other thread if you wish to rant.
Why should you be allowed to post drivel like 'sex assigned at birth' because there is a thread on the subject elsewhere?
-
Why should you be allowed to post drivel like 'sex assigned at birth' because there is a thread on the subject elsewhere?
All I am doing is using a standard term with its standard definition. If you have an issue with that then I suggest you take it up with those who have defined 'cis' and 'trans' as such.
-
All I am doing is using a standard term with its standard definition. If you have an issue with that then I suggest you take it up with those who have defined 'cis' and 'trans' as such.
No, I'm taking it up with you using a term that is oppressive in tying in with stereotypes about how a woman is supposed to feel/act. I'm taking it up with you for drivelling on about unscientific nonsense as reifying gender. I'm taking it up with you for using empty headed phrases like 'assigned sex at birth'.
-
No, I'm taking it up with you using a term that is oppressive in tying in with stereotypes about how a woman is supposed to feel/act. I'm taking it up with you for drivelling on about unscientific nonsense as reifying gender. I'm taking it up with you for using empty headed phrases like 'assigned sex at birth'.
Yeah - whatever.
Would you like to return to the topic of this thread NS?
-
Yeah - whatever.
Would you like to return to the topic of this thread NS?
So you are suggesting that you should be allowed to post sexist nonscientific pish on a thread unchallenged because it wasn't the original topic. Not going to happen.
-
Vlad,
Why an institution provides and denies rights on the basis of innate characteristics is a different matter, and is neither here nor there for this purpose. Whether it’s the KKK or the bus company though that denies rights to black people makes no difference.
That’s why it’s a good analogy.
Your god is, yes – and so is the church that’s doing what it thinks this supposed god wants (though the god and churches of other Christians apparently aren’t). Yet again though, the point is that you espouse an institution that provides certain rights to straight people and denies the same rights to gay people. You can dance around why it acts homophobically all you like, but that doesn’t change the fact that it does.
Which is the point.
No one is born with an innate desire to stride past a registry office, two Methodist churches, a friends meeting house, a Humanist whatdyamacallit, to get to a priest to force him to say words he doesn’t mean on the most important occasion of their lives, Hillside.
-
Vlad,
No one is born with an innate desire to stride past a registry office, two Methodist churches, a friends meeting house, a Humanist whatdyamacallit, to get to a priest to force him to say words he doesn’t mean on the most important occasion of their lives, Hillside.
And no-one is born with an innate desire to stride past a bus station to get to a driver to force him to let them sit at the front of his bus.
Are you being deliberately obtuse here, or is that really the limit of your ability to reason?
Again: if institutions provide services to some but deny them to others on the grounds of innate characteristics - sex, age, colour, sexual orientation etc – then those institutions are misogynistic, ageist, racist, homophobic, whatever. After endless diversions, your only defence left seems to be, "yeah OK the church I espouse is homophobic, but so is my god and he is my god so, you know, that's ok then."
Not a good look is it?
-
Vlad,
And no-one is born with an innate desire to stride past a bus station to get to a driver to force him to let them sit at the front of his bus.
Are you being deliberately obtuse here, or is that really the limit of your ability to reason?
Again: if institutions provide services to some but deny them to others on the grounds of innate characteristics - sex, age, colour, sexual orientation etc – then those institutions are misogynistic, ageist, racist, homophobic, whatever. After endless diversions, your only defence left seems to be, "yeah OK the church I espouse is homophobic, but so is my god and he is my god so, you know, that's ok then."
Not a good look is it?
And again. How are you going to get people who don’t believe in same sex holy matrimony, to mouth words they don’t agree to and more to the point how are you going to force same sex couples to endure such a pantomime.
Be clear as to the process by which this will be brought about and policed.
-
Vlad,
And again. How are you going to get people who don’t believe in same sex holy matrimony, to mouth words they don’t agree to and more to the point how are you going to force same sex couples to endure such a pantomime.
Be clear as to the process by which this will be brought about and policed.
FFS, what the hell is wrong with you? How we should fix a problem IS ENTIRELY A DIFFERENT MATTER FROM WHETHER IT IS A PROBLEM. Capiche? Something? Anything?
If you think your homophobc god and your homophobic church are fine, then say so.
If you think your homophobic god and your homophobic church aren't fine but it would be too hard to fix the problem so better to leave well alone, then say so.
If you think your homophobic god and your homophobic church aren't fine, and that come to think of it the problems with remedying institutionalised racism, sexism, ageism etc were just as daunting in their day but were tackled reasonably successfully nonetheless so why not give it a go with this problem too - then just say so.
Either way, just stop fucking around with endless diversions and for once in your life try at least to deal with an issue head on.
-
Spud,
You’re missing the point here. If your allow rights to some people but deny the same rights to other people solely on the grounds of their innate characteristics – race, age, gender, sexual orientation etc – then you’re practicing racism, ageism, misogyny, homophobia etc.
Why someone does that is a different matter entirely.
The 'right' in question is the right to a marriage service for two people of the opposite sex. Everyone has that right, unless they are underage/already married.
-
The 'right' in question is the right to a marriage service for two people of the opposite sex. Everyone has that right, unless they are underage/already married.
And again we come back to the right in question is the right for white people to sit at the front of the bus.
Carry on with the prejudice, I'm feeling the love.
-
Spud,
The 'right' in question is the right to a marriage service for two people of the opposite sex. Everyone has that right, unless they are underage/already married.
Still missing it. As Trent has said, you may as well argue that the 'right' in question is the right to a seat at the front of the bus for white people. Everyone has that right, unless they are not white.
-
Vlad,
FFS, what the hell is wrong with you? How we should fix a problem IS ENTIRELY A DIFFERENT MATTER FROM WHETHER IT IS A PROBLEM. Capiche? Something? Anything?
If you think your homophobc god and your homophobic church are fine, then say so.
If you think your homophobic god and your homophobic church aren't fine but it would be too hard to fix the problem so better to leave well alone, then say so.
If you think your homophobic god and your homophobic church aren't fine, and that come to think of it the problems with remedying institutionalised racism, sexism, ageism etc were just as daunting in their day but were tackled reasonably successfully nonetheless so why not give it a go with this problem too - then just say so.
Either way, just stop fucking around with endless diversions and for once in your life try at least to deal with an issue head on.
I think we all know what we would be forced to do if we believed as you do and wanted to do something about it Hillside. Unfortunately there are those of us who do not think we are perpetrating an act of homophobia but believe that holy matrimony is gender important and numerically specific. That what is happening in a partnership between a man and a woman is distinct from other patterns of matrimony, most of which, we recognise. In concentrating on that, I let those who hold to the other models service their own preferred model and effectively forget about them.
In the model I hold to I think that a marriage of different sexes is the bigger challenge because of the biological, psychological and sociological space. I may change my view but that is more likely to come about through experience, revelation and review of scripture rather than any guffology from a ranting antitheist.
-
And again we come back to the right in question is the right for white people to sit at the front of the bus.
Carry on with the prejudice, I'm feeling the love.
I do love you Trent. Is this a case of I can only love you if I hold the same view of marriage
Rather than a live and let live attitude?
-
And again. How are you going to get people who don’t believe in same sex holy matrimony, to mouth words they don’t agree to and more to the point how are you going to force same sex couples to endure such a pantomime.
Be clear as to the process by which this will be brought about and policed.
We could adjust equality legislation, so that it applies across the wedding industry, by outlawing discriminatory practices.
That should have been done when same-sex marriage was legislated for, and while we can applaud the UK government for bringing forward the legislation in England & Wales but we can despair that they fudged the equality aspect by allowing the Church of England and the Church in Wales exemption from being able to conduct religious same-sex marriages - thereby rubber stamping their institutional homophobia.
https://religionmediacentre.org.uk/factsheets/sexuality-same-sex-marriage-cofe/
Alternatively the Christian religious sector could move on from getting their social attitudes interpreted from old books written in antiquity.
-
We could adjust equality legislation, so that it applies across the wedding industry, by outlawing discriminatory practices.
That should have been done when same-sex marriage was legislated for, and while we can applaud the UK government for bringing forward the legislation in England & Wales but we can despair that they fudged the equality aspect by allowing the Church of England and the Church in Wales exemption from being able to conduct religious same-sex marriages - thereby rubber stamping their institutional homophobia.
https://religionmediacentre.org.uk/factsheets/sexuality-same-sex-marriage-cofe/
Alternatively the Christian religious sector could move on from getting their social attitudes interpreted from old books written in antiquity.
There we go.
Owning up to a massive programme of religious persecution wasn’t thar hard. Was it.
-
Anchs,
The Klu Klux Klan could use the same defence. Either you think rights made available or denied on the ground of an innate characteristic is acceptable or you don't. That's all there is to it.
If you think it's fine though because you don't like what would happen to the institution that does it, you're:
a) wrong; and
b) in very dodgy company.
What 'institution'?
A pastor's responsibility is to ALL those under their care. Does that pastor sacrifice the unity of the flock in order to help someone who wishes to change the direction of the flock?
-
I do love you Trent. Is this a case of I can only love you if I hold the same view of marriage
Rather than a live and let live attitude?
If you love me you can have any view of marriage you like, if you vote Tory it would be another story.
But wouldn't you rather live in a world were all people are treated equally. I know we're a long way from that, and this is but a small issue in the grand scheme of things. Still if you cleave to a principle of equality surely you can see the basic flaw in the position of the Church.
-
The important bit there, of course, is the 'if'. And I appreciate that you most likely don't think that those things are moral transgressions.
Actually, it does -
“Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, “Praise be to the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend Japheth’s territory; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be the slave of Japheth.” Genesis 9:18-27
And the whole 'do not permit a woman to teach, nor have authority over a man' thing - Timothy, I think?
Didn't God also allegedly create all people in their image? The man and the woman, and by extension, the homosexuals, the intersex people, the trans, the non-binary...
Notwithstanding that marriage sprang up outside of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, Judaism and Christianity have accepted innumerable changes to their own traditions of marriage over time; concubinage, multiple wives, divorce...
And the whole 'judge not lest ye be judged' thing? We have no primary sources, vanishingly few secondary sources, and horrendously polluted tertiary sources which have been subject to all sorts of adulterations by various vested interests over the past one and a half thousand years, but you're going to cleave to literalism in this one section despite the overarching theme of the stories being that love should transcend all?
Of course you can, that's why you have denominational variations and people skipping from one sect to another.
If God is gracious and accepting, marry gay people and let them seek forgiveness from him?
It's still homophobia. They might genuinely believe that they have the best interests of gay people in their hearts, but then many of those who supported slavery genuinely thought (because it was what they'd been taught, in some cases by their churches) that other ethnicities and nations were backward savages who needed 'saving' from themselves.
That sort of authoritarian discrimination is still short-sighted discrimination.
O.
Thanks for the note about Canaan, yes apparently he was denied privileges (the reason is that God had already blessed Ham, so Noah couldn't then curse him for his sin. Canaan was unlucky, I guess), but was equal in the sense that he could obtain forgiveness.
Some churches do not marry couples who have already cohabited. That's discrimination, right? Yet it's in the interests of the individuals concerned.
-
There we go.
Owning up to a massive programme of religious persecution wasn’t thar hard. Was it.
I'd call it religious progression, Vlad: as a move to remove overt homophobia in current social processes - changing antediluvian attitudes might take a bit longer, and of course they can keep all the non-discriminatory stuff that amuses them so (songs, sermons, old books, costumes etc).
-
Vlad,
I think we all know what we would be forced to do if we believed as you do and wanted to do something about it Hillside. Unfortunately there are those of us who do not think we are perpetrating an act of homophobia but believe that holy matrimony is gender important and numerically specific. That what is happening in a partnership between a man and a woman is distinct from other patterns of matrimony, most of which, we recognise. In concentrating on that, I let those who hold to the other models service their own preferred model and effectively forget about them.
In the model I hold to I think that a marriage of different sexes is the bigger challenge because of the biological, psychological and sociological space. I may change my view but that is more likely to come about through experience, revelation and review of scripture rather than any guffology from a ranting antitheist.
Yes, we’d worked out that you’re a homophobe – all you’re trying to do here is to defend your homophobia (and you don’t get to deny it by the way because the activity you describe fits the definition).
Try googling “miscegenation”: you’ll find lots of links to laws and texts against interracial marriage that try most of the justification for homophobia you’ve tried here. Presumably you’ll find them just as acceptable?
-
Anchs,
What 'institution'?
In this case, and churches with homophobic practices. To be fair yours seems to be trying at least to grow past that, though for some reason you think that's a reason for leaving it.
A pastor's responsibility is to ALL those under their care. Does that pastor sacrifice the unity of the flock in order to help someone who wishes to change the direction of the flock?
The Supreme Grand Wizard of the KKK has responsibility for ALL those under his care. Does that SGW sacrifice the unity of the membership in order to help someone who wishes to change the direction of the membership?
-
Some churches do not marry couples who have already cohabited. That's discrimination, right? Yet it's in the interests of the individuals concerned.
Unless your name is Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson and then magically it's ok. So no hypocrisy on the part of the Catholic church there. Why is it in the interests of the individuals concerned?
-
Some churches do not marry couples who have already cohabited. That's discrimination, right? Yet it's in the interests of the individuals concerned.
Says who, and on what basis?
-
Some churches do not marry couples who have already cohabited.
Do they - I've not heard of it - name names please.
Which churches do not marry couples who have already cohabited? That's discrimination, right?
Cohabiting isn't a protected characteristic under equalities legislation so your point is no more relevant than me pointing out that some choral societies wont permit someone to become a member unless they can sight read music, which also isn't a protected characteristic.
Sexuality is, however, a protected characteristic under equalities legislation.
-
A pastor's responsibility is to ALL those under their care.
Including those who support gay couples being able to marry, which if the Church of Scotland is anything like other Anglican and RCC congregations will represent a majority of its members.
Does that pastor sacrifice the unity of the flock in order to help someone who wishes to change the direction of the flock?
What unity, there is no unity as some of the CofS membership will support gay couples being able to marry while others will oppose. The pastor isn't maintaining unity - rather he or she is placing him or herself on one side of a divide in opinion within his or her flock. The only way you would achieve unity would be for the approach of the hierarchy within the CofS to act in a manner that drove all people on one side of the opinion divide out of the church.
-
Including those who support gay couples being able to marry, which if the Church of Scotland is anything like other Anglican and RCC congregations will represent a majority of its members.
What unity, there is no unity as some of the CofS membership will support gay couples being able to marry while others will oppose. The pastor isn't maintaining unity - rather he or she is placing him or herself on one side of a divide in opinion within his or her flock. The only way you would achieve unity would be for the approach of the hierarchy within the CofS to act in a manner that drove all people on one side of the opinion divide out of the church.
There is hierarchy in the CofS?
First I've heard of it.
The 'Hieratrchy' is the General ASSEmbly, whose membership changes every year.
Even then no single GA can enact legislation - the 'Barrier Act' ensures that such a process is drawn out.
Besides, a minister can only work in concert with his/her Kirk Session.
A 'liberal' minister under a 'conservative' Session - or vice veraa - means that often there is stalemate in such circumstances.
Kirk Sessions tend toward the more conservative, and, since in both Presbyteries and GA, presbytery elders outnumber mjinisters, I'd suggest that conservatism prevails.
-
Do they - I've not heard of it - name names please.
Cohabiting isn't a protected characteristic under equalities legislation so your point is no more relevant than me pointing out that some choral societies wont permit someone to become a member unless they can sight read music, which also isn't a protected characteristic.
Sexuality is, however, a protected characteristic under equalities legislation.
The law says anyone of marriageable age has the right to marry subject to certain restrictions. Those restrictions don't include people who've been married before or are already living as if married. So those people's right to marry is protected by law, is it not?
-
We could adjust equality legislation, so that it applies across the wedding industry, by outlawing discriminatory practices.
That should have been done when same-sex marriage was legislated for, and while we can applaud the UK government for bringing forward the legislation in England & Wales but we can despair that they fudged the equality aspect by allowing the Church of England and the Church in Wales exemption from being able to conduct religious same-sex marriages - thereby rubber stamping their institutional homophobia.
https://religionmediacentre.org.uk/factsheets/sexuality-same-sex-marriage-cofe/
Alternatively the Christian religious sector could move on from getting their social attitudes interpreted from old books written in antiquity.
You seem to have exceeded your brief here which was to suggest a way of extending a gender important process in the site of God to eradication of a religion.
You were only told to blow the bloody doors off.
-
Vlad,
FFS, what the hell is wrong with you? How we should fix a problem IS ENTIRELY A DIFFERENT MATTER FROM WHETHER IT IS A PROBLEM. Capiche? Something? Anything?
If you think your homophobc god and your homophobic church are fine, then say so.
If you think your homophobic god and your homophobic church aren't fine but it would be too hard to fix the problem so better to leave well alone, then say so.
If you think your homophobic god and your homophobic church aren't fine, and that come to think of it the problems with remedying institutionalised racism, sexism, ageism etc were just as daunting in their day but were tackled reasonably successfully nonetheless so why not give it a go with this problem too - then just say so.
Either way, just stop fucking around with endless diversions and for once in your life try at least to deal with an issue head on.
You are trying to avoid the charge of crap analogy.
When a bus company allows African Americans to ride any where they like that is easily provable.
Since God is involved in a holy matrimony, how are you going to prove he has accommodated that wedding? Since you are vague about what you are actually wanting here how can you expect complete observance. The government would have expert and competent legal advisors on this and that is why the law is as it is.
How for instance does the law cope with a same sex couple announce that they don’t believe their wedding was holy because they did not feel the priests heart wasn’t in it or because they didn’t feel God was present?
-
You seem to have exceeded your brief here which was to suggest a way of extending a gender important process in the site of God to eradication of a religion.
I don't recognise the brief.
You were only told to blow the bloody doors off.
In reality, of course, there is no need to blow up anything: time will take care of it as Christianity declines in the UK, and this is reflected in the recent (2019) changes in marriage statistics in Scotland.
The number of humanist marriages carried out in Scotland has overtaken Christian ones for the first time since records began, official statistics have revealed.
Humanist marriages made up 22.6 per cent of the total last year, while Christian marriages of all denominations made up 22.3 per cent, the National Records of Scotland data showed.
Civil ceremonies continue to be the most popular, making up 48.6 per cent of the total, but marriage itself is becoming less common, with the 26,007 recorded in 2019 the lowest ever.
https://inews.co.uk/news/scotland/humanist-marriages-overtake-christian-scotland-455735
See also.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18542308.god-not-joined-together-humanist-weddings-scotland-now-outnumber-christian-ones/
-
Vlad,
You are trying to avoid the charge of crap analogy.
I have already rebutted the “charge” that it’s a crap analogy. Both cases alike concern rights that are made available and/or denied on the sole basis of innate characteristics. As you’ve never understood how analogies work though, there’s nothing more to discuss.
When a bus company allows African Americans to ride any where they like that is easily provable.
Nope, no idea. When Christian churches other than your own offer equal marriage, that is easily provable too. What point did you think you were making here?
Since God…
Very funny.
First, as “God” is just your faith claim, you don’t get to have “since God” as your premise. The best you can have here is, “since my faith claim “god” involves a story about a deity who….” etc.
Second, other Christian denominations will make a different statement about the same god – ie, “he’s cool with equal marriage” so yours is just one unqualified faith claim competing against others.
Third, even if by some process you could finally demonstrate both your claim “god” and that this god cares about who goes to bed with whom, still all that would tell us is that he’s a homophobe.
…is involved in a holy matrimony, how are you going to prove he has accommodated that wedding?
I don’t have to prove anything – other that is than that you espouse both a god story and associated church practices that are homophobic.
Since you are vague about what you are actually wanting here…
Lying doesn’t help you here either. I’m not vague at all. What I “want” is for you to stop ducking and diving, and finally to address why you think a homophobic god story and a homophobic church are things to espouse.
…how can you expect complete observance. The government would have expert and competent legal advisors on this and that is why the law is as it is.
No, the law is as it is because the established church gets a free pass on various matters that are not afforded to other institutions.
How for instance does the law cope with a same sex couple announce that they don’t believe their wedding was holy because they did not feel the priests heart wasn’t in it or because they didn’t feel God was present?
As that’s completely irrelevant, I neither know nor care. To try to drag you kicking and screaming back to the issue: the differential provision of rights on the grounds of innate characteristics (race, age, sexual orientation etc) has names – racism, ageism, homophobia etc. Your god story and your church that carries out its (supposed) god’s (supposed) wishes practices the third of these. You seem to think this is a good thing.
What does that make you?
-
There is hierarchy in the CofS?
First I've heard of it.
The 'Hieratrchy' is the General ASSEmbly, whose membership changes every year.
Sounds like a pretty standard hierarchical structure to me.
As far as I'm aware there are only about 700 commissioners who get a vote on important matters out of the entire membership. And those commissioners (again as far as I'm aware) are 'nominated' rather than elected by their local organisational structures. Again correct me if I'm wrong, but a nomination process tends to involve far fewer people than a process whereby a delegate is elected democratically by all members.
And further, as far as I can see, that commissioner is not a 'delegate', in other words required to vote in a manner agreed by the entire membership they represent, but is merely a nominated representative, akin to an MP who can vote any way they wish in parliament (albeit at least they are elected).
So, yup, looks pretty hierarchical to me - with a ordinary rank and file parishioner having pretty much zero say in the decisions actually taken at the General Assembly.
Even then no single GA can enact legislation - the 'Barrier Act' ensures that such a process is drawn out.
Besides, a minister can only work in concert with his/her Kirk Session.
A 'liberal' minister under a 'conservative' Session - or vice veraa - means that often there is stalemate in such circumstances.
Kirk Sessions tend toward the more conservative, and, since in both Presbyteries and GA, presbytery elders outnumber mjinisters, I'd suggest that conservatism prevails.
No shit Sherlock.
A constitution that embeds conservatism and is constitutionally structured to prevent change and reform - who'd have thought it within a religious organisation eh ;)
Bit like the CofE which over years (because of a similarly constitutional structure that opposes change and reform) was unable to make the change to allow women to become Bishops even though the move was supported by a majority within the Synod and top to bottom in the organisation.
-
The law says anyone of marriageable age has the right to marry subject to certain restrictions.
True.
Those restrictions don't include people who've been married before or are already living as if married.
I've no idea what you are talking about Spud - what do you mean by 'living as if married' - as far as the law is concerned you are either married or you are not married. If the former you cannot get married, if the latter you can (albeit with the caveat of age, relationship to the person you plan to marry etc). The notion of 'living as if married', as you describe it is completely irrelevant.
I also asked you to name names of churches who refuse to marry couples who are living together - examples please.
-
The law says anyone of marriageable age has the right to marry subject to certain restrictions. Those restrictions don't include people who've been married before or are already living as if married. So those people's right to marry is protected by law, is it not?
Please note the post that this was your reply to:
'Cohabiting isn't a protected characteristic under equalities legislation so your point is no more relevant than me pointing out that some choral societies wont permit someone to become a member unless they can sight read music, which also isn't a protected characteristic.
Sexuality is, however, a protected characteristic under equalities legislation.'
Now the equalities legislation prevents people being discriminated against (defined as being treated less favourably than others) in employment or in the provision of goods or services on the basis of a list of so-called protected characteristics. Thos protected characteristics are:
age
disability
gender reassignment
marriage and civil partnership
pregnancy and maternity
race
religion or belief
sex
sexual orientation
Note that 'living together' isn't a protected characteristic so is not protected under the equalities act. There are instances where a person may be discriminated against under secondary discrimination where the reason for treating someone less favourably because they are, or are not, living together. As example might be an employer refusing to employ a women who they know is living with a partner because they think they wont be committed to the job as they are likely to want to have a child. That could be construed as discrimination on the basis of sex.
Another example - closer to the topic would a couple being refused goods or services (e.g. renting a flat) because they are unmarried and looking to live together - that would be discrimination on the grounds of marriage (which also includes being treated less favourably because you aren't married). But, this cannot apply if the service being requested is marriage, as by definition this can only be provided to people who are not married.
-
Sounds like a pretty standard hierarchical structure to me.
As far as I'm aware there are only about 700 commissioners who get a vote on important matters out of the entire membership. And those commissioners (again as far as I'm aware) are 'nominated' rather than elected by their local organisational structures. Again correct me if I'm wrong, but a nomination process tends to involve far fewer people than a process whereby a delegate is elected democratically by all members.
And further, as far as I can see, that commissioner is not a 'delegate', in other words required to vote in a manner agreed by the entire membership they represent, but is merely a nominated representative, akin to an MP who can vote any way they wish in parliament (albeit at least they are elected).
So, yup, looks pretty hierarchical to me - with a ordinary rank and file parishioner having pretty much zero say in the decisions actually taken at the General Assembly.
No shit Sherlock.
A constitution that embeds conservatism and is constitutionally structured to prevent change and reform - who'd have thought it within a religious organisation eh ;)
Bit like the CofE which over years (because of a similarly constitutional structure that opposes change and reform) was unable to make the change to allow women to become Bishops even though the move was supported by a majority within the Synod and top to bottom in the organisation.
Liberty of conscience has been part of the Kirk since the sixteenth century.
As for 'ordinary members' not havingtheir say?
Ordinary members can meet and give a deliverance to a Kirk Session or Presbytery, speaking at both courts to argue their case - I've slept through enough sittings of Presbytery to be familiar with this avenue.
Equally, ordinary members can present an overture to Assembly arguing their point. Several such overtures, coming from ordinary members, have become part of Church law over the years.
-
Ordinary members can meet and give a deliverance to a Kirk Session or Presbytery, speaking at both courts to argue their case - I've slept through enough sittings of Presbytery to be familiar with this avenue.
Equally, ordinary members can present an overture to Assembly arguing their point. Several such overtures, coming from ordinary members, have become part of Church law over the years.
But others higher up the hierarchy can also argue the case I presume. The difference is that those higher up have a formal say in the form of voting rights. From what you seem to be saying originally members have no voting rights while those higher up the hierarchy do, which would make the organisation both hierarchical but also proving ordinary members with very little say over decisions.
So let's cut to the chase, with simple yes/no answers.
Do ordinary members have a vote (with no more or less weighting than any other member) on the selection of the Commissioners?
Do ordinary members get to vote on the position that the Commissioner should take in a vote in the General Assembly (in other words making the Commissioner a delegate)?
Organisations that genuinely provide ordinary members with a say will, at the very least, provide their members with one or other of those rights. Some organisations will take the decision directly to the members to approve on the basis of one member, one vote.
-
Some churches do not marry couples who have already cohabited. That's discrimination, right?
Are there - I'll take your word for that, it's entirely conceivable (although slightly creepy that they'd know, and slightly presumptive that cohabitation precludes the sort of chastity that they're asking for, but regardless...)
Is it discrimination - yes. Is it justifiable discrimination... well, it's not currently in the UK illegal, as I understand it, because religious institutions are granted a ridiculous amount of latitude on what social behaviours they're allowed to restrict their provision of state services for. Is it morally justifiable - well that depends on what your moral precepts are. If you're following the outdated tribal notions of bronze-age middle-easterners (subject to liberal translations) then it probably is, but if you actually think about what makes something moral moral... probably not.
Yet it's in the interests of the individuals concerned.
Is it? Even if we give the religious adherents the benefit of the doubt and presume that they think they're acting in someone's best interests and not just exercising control to try to maintain their position of authoritarian oversight, the evidence is at best mixed.
There have been a number of papers which have reported that not having sex until marriage leads to more durable and happier marriages; however, they are prey to selection biases inasmuch as they fail to account for the religious pressure against divorce/separation amongst those waiting for marriage, and the lose proxy of long marriages for happy ones.
O.
-
Is it discrimination - yes. Is it justifiable discrimination... well, it's not currently in the UK illegal, as I understand it, because religious institutions are granted a ridiculous amount of latitude on what social behaviours they're allowed to restrict their provision of state services for.
I'm not sure whether this would or would not be part of the opt-outs to equalities legislation that religious organisations get, which I agree is way too high.
To be captured within equalities legislation the discrimination would need to be based on one of the protected characteristics. Marriage is one, but living together isn't.
So if a faith school refused to employ someone, or passed them over for promotion because they were living together but not married, then this would prima face be discrimination under the law - as they would be treating someone not married (but living together as a couple) less favourably than someone who was married (but living together as a couple). However religious organisations then play the 'faith ethos' card which is an opt out for religion not provided to other organisation - effectively claiming they cannot employ that person because their lifestyle doesn't fit with their organisational ethos.
But the issue with providing a marriage service is that this cannot, by definition be discrimination on the basis of marriage, as marriage services can only be provided to those who aren't married. Hence the only discrimination would be on 'living together' which isn't a protected characteristic.
-
The 'right' in question is the right to a marriage service for two people of the opposite sex. Everyone has that right, unless they are underage/already married.
Imagine if you lived in a country where they said you have a right to practise a religion...
... but the only religion you were allowed to practise was Islam. From your point of view would that be a right worth having or would you consider it discrimination against Christians?
-
Vlad,
I have already rebutted the “charge” that it’s a crap analogy. Both cases alike concern rights that are made available and/or denied on the sole basis of innate characteristics. As you’ve never understood how analogies work though, there’s nothing more to discuss.
Nope, no idea. When Christian churches other than your own offer equal marriage, that is easily provable too. What point did you think you were making here?
Very funny.
First, as “God” is just your faith claim, you don’t get to have “since God” as your premise. The best you can have here is, “since my faith claim “god” involves a story about a deity who….” etc.
Second, other Christian denominations will make a different statement about the same god – ie, “he’s cool with equal marriage” so yours is just one unqualified faith claim competing against others.
Third, even if by some process you could finally demonstrate both your claim “god” and that this god cares about who goes to bed with whom, still all that would tell us is that he’s a homophobe.
I don’t have to prove anything – other that is than that you espouse both a god story and associated church practices that are homophobic.
Lying doesn’t help you here either. I’m not vague at all. What I “want” is for you to stop ducking and diving, and finally to address why you think a homophobic god story and a homophobic church are things to espouse.
No, the law is as it is because the established church gets a free pass on various matters that are not afforded to other institutions.
As that’s completely irrelevant, I neither know nor care. To try to drag you kicking and screaming back to the issue: the differential provision of rights on the grounds of innate characteristics (race, age, sexual orientation etc) has names – racism, ageism, homophobia etc. Your god story and your church that carries out its (supposed) god’s (supposed) wishes practices the third of these. You seem to think this is a good thing.
What does that make you?
I disagree with your analysis of why the laws pertaining to marriage are the way they are.
Governments don't like agendas like yours that ultimately only completely serve the interest of people like you.
With churches now providing gender neutral marriages there is now no pointing expending time and effort chasing up people who could never give a convincing gender neutral marriage in a million years. I just have to read Gordon's thoughts to know what your agenda is. .......a series of shutting downs and locking ups and forcings out....just to keep people like yourself who are married and wouldn't want a church wedding anyway.
In reality governments don't want to give this the time of day.
-
I disagree with your analysis of why the laws pertaining to marriage are the way they are.
Governments don't like agendas like yours that ultimately only completely serve the interest of people like you.
With churches now providing gender neutral marriages there is now no pointing expending time and effort chasing up people who could never give a convincing gender neutral marriage in a million years. I just have to read Gordon's thoughts to know what your agenda is. .......a series of shutting downs and locking ups and forcings out....just to keep people like yourself who are married and wouldn't want a church wedding anyway.
In reality governments don't want to give this the time of day.
Lovely to see your support for the Tories.
-
.just to keep people like yourself who are married and wouldn't want a church wedding anyway.
I had a church wedding (St George's Tron, Buchanan St, Glasgow on 27th February 1974).
-
In reality governments don't want to give this the time of day.
On that you are correct - because they are terrified of upsetting the religious lobby which has power, influence and privileges way beyond that reasonable for organisations whose collective active membership represents about 5% of the population.
-
Lovely to see your support for the Tories.
Ludicrous assumption. But the thought process which reached it explain a lot.
-
Ludicrous assumption. But the thought process which reached it explain a lot.
It's not an assumption. It's provable. You expressed admiration for the govt passing same sex marriage, which the Tories led. You have your cheerleader uniform on, and are wanting a D A V I D C A M E R O N.
-
It's not an assumption. It's provable. You expressed admiration for the govt passing same sex marriage, which the Tories led. You have your cheerleader uniform on, and are wanting a D A V I D C A M E R O N.
Actually, extending marriage to same sex couples was one of the few good things the Cameron government did. And I think it was something he personally was committed to rather than being a sop to his LibDem coalition partners. Credit where credit is due.
-
I had a church wedding (St George's Tron, Buchanan St, Glasgow on 27th February 1974).
Would you do the same again Gordon?, have a church wedding?
-
You have your cheerleader uniform on,
A thought that even makes my stomach churn.....but whatever floats your boat.
-
On that you are correct - because they are terrified of upsetting the religious lobby which has power, influence and privileges
Voters, prof, voters. Plus people who have a live and let live attitude and recognise that the motivation for demanding HM from people who feel they can't oblige (when there are plenty of people available who feel they can way) is mostly dogmatic and a designed piece of mischief.
-
Would you do the same again Gordon?, have a church wedding?
I've no plans to re-marry (Mrs G says no).
Seriously - yes I would, since I did it to please my late (and much missed) mother-in-law who was a church-goer at St George's Tron: she was a widow, and I was marrying her only child, and we'd only known each other for around 8 weeks when we married (we met on Hogmanay 1973), and though neither of us was remotely religious we decided that we should accede to my mother-in-law's request and did so with, I hope, good grace.
-
I had a church wedding (St George's Tron, Buchanan St, Glasgow on 27th February 1974).
A couple of years back, the minister, Kirk Session and most of the congregation left the Tron and the Cof S over what they saw as a diminution of the Kirk's doctrine.
To maintain the fiction of a continuing congregation, Glasgow Presbytery parachuted in a 'new frontiers' ministry and asked members of nearby congregations to move ship. The original congregation is now an independent presbyterian church, as far as I know, seeking to join the Free Church.
-
Voters, prof, voters.
Non religious people are voters too Vlad, or are you only interested in the views of religious voters.
Plus people who have a live and let live attitude ...
You are having a laugh Vlad - religions, throughout the years have been in favour of banning this, and banning that and not just for their own congregations, but for everyone. The idea that people with a 'live and let live attitude' would align themselves with organisations that fought tooth and nail to prevent same sex couples from being able to marry is, frankly, ludicrous.
-
Vlad,
So I took the time to dismantle your last set of mistakes, and in reply you’ve just ignored almost all of it. You’ll never change will you.
I disagree with your analysis of why the laws pertaining to marriage are the way they are.
Governments don't like agendas like yours that ultimately only completely serve the interest of people like you.
To the contrary, “Governments” (ie, our Government) do “like agendas like” mine – that why we have equalities legislation. What they also do though is kowtow to the disproportionate and unwarranted influence of the religious by allowing them exemptions so they can perpetuate their ancient bigotries unimpeded.
With churches now providing gender neutral marriages there is now no pointing expending time and effort chasing up people who could never give a convincing gender neutral marriage in a million years.
There were people who wouldn’t have married mixed race couples in a million years too. Presumably you wouldn’t have expended time and effort chasing them either then?
I just have to read Gordon's thoughts to know what your agenda is. .......a series of shutting downs and locking ups and forcings out....just to keep people like yourself who are married and wouldn't want a church wedding anyway.
Don’t forget that my agenda also includes eating babies for breakfast and burning down houses occupied by ginger people. If you’re going to make up abject shit about other peoples’ supposed “agendas” you may as well go all in.
In reality governments don't want to give this the time of day.
While you seem comfortable in your homophobia, nonetheless the point is that the Government shouldn't be.
-
Non religious people are voters too Vlad, or are you only interested in the views of religious voters.
You are having a laugh Vlad - religions, throughout the years have been in favour of banning this, and banning that and not just for their own congregations, but for everyone. The idea that people with a 'live and let live attitude' would align themselves with organisations that fought tooth and nail to prevent same sex couples from being able to marry is, frankly, ludicrous.
That's not what I said.
Hillside thinks the law is how it is because the secular Government is in cahoots with the church.
I say that they have made the calculation that passing laws that let swivel eyed Dawkinsian inspired antitheists or people wanting revenge on the church home in on priests many of whom would have rendered good service to their wider communities to hound them and have them removed and prosecuted, would not be a good look.
When faced with the question is this an atheist wank fantasy or something else? they decided on the best course.
-
Vlad,
There were people who wouldn’t have married mixed race couples in a million years too. Presumably you wouldn’t have expended time and effort chasing them either then?
My question is why are they not marrying mixed race couples? Somebody who believes in gender important marriage would definitely marry them. Are you by any chance trying to conflate racist marriage with gender important marriage? I notice you yourself are in a gender important marriage.
-
Vlad,
That's not what I said.
Hillside thinks the law is how it is because the secular Government is in cahoots with the church.
Wrong terminology, but essentially yes - as a statement of legislative fact, the religious get various exemptions from equalities legislation.
I say that they have made the calculation that passing laws that let swivel eyed Dawkinsian inspired antitheists or people wanting revenge on the church home in on priests many of whom would have rendered good service to their wider communities to hound them and have them removed and prosecuted.
Utterly Upminster (ie, beyond Barking).
When faced with the question is this an atheist wank fantasy or something else? they decided on the best course.
Are you feeling unwell or something? Back from your fantasy land ravings: in 2010 the Government passed legislation that protects various characteristics against discriminatory practices. It also included in that legislation various exemptions for religious denominations. You think that's a good thing. I don't.
All clear now?
-
Vlad,
My question is why are they not marrying mixed race couples?
And my answer remains that it doesn't matter. First you need to identify the bigotry for what it is. How people try to justify their bigotry is a different matter.
Somebody who believes in gender important marriage would definitely marry them. Are you by any chance trying to conflate racist marriage with gender important marriage? I notice you yourself are in a gender important marriage.
Could you at least try to keep up? I'm "conflating" (ie, analogising) rights offered and denied on the basis of innate characteristics. Whether the innate characteristics happen to be sex, age, sexual orientation, race etc is neither here nor there.
-
Vlad,
And my answer remains that it doesn't matter. First you need to identify the bigotry for what it is.
And what in your view is it?
-
Vlad,
It also included in that legislation various exemptions for religious denominations. You think that's a good thing. I don't.
All clear now?
Yes the law is on my side and don't forget it.
As for bigotted I believe that gender neutral marriage should be allowed as Gender important marriages should be allowed. What is your problem with Gender important marriage considering you have one?
-
Yes the law is on my side and don't forget it.
You sound like a fucking tory.
-
Vlad,
And what in your view is it?
Homophobia.
Yes the law is on my side and don't forget it.
Currently yes it is - the law is indeed on the side of homophobes like you in some cases. My point though is that it shouldn't be.
And don't forget it.
-
You sound like a fucking tory.
I thought they made a noise like ooh, ooh, ooh, Gina, my Willie's moving without me touching it.
-
Vlad,
As for bigotted I believe that gender neutral marriage should be allowed as Gender important marriages should be allowed. What is your problem with Gender important marriage considering you have one?
You also believe that some rights and services should be available and/or denied solely on the ground of sexual orientation.
That particular bigotry has a name: homophobia. You're for it and I'm not.
-
Vlad,
Homophobia.
Currently yes it is - the law is indeed on the side of homophobes like you in some cases. My point though is that it shouldn't be.
As for me being bigotted. I have no objection to Gender neutral marriage wherever it happens. So how can I be homophobic? What is your problem with Gender important marriage considering you have one.
-
Just as an aside:
Gender Neutral Marriage?
Gender Important Marriage?
I am going to add those to the growing list of nonsense terms that are used to muddy the waters of any reasonable debate.
See also: Non-binary, Pansexual, Terf, cis, etc.
It's marriage, just marriage.
Fucks sake.
-
Vlad,
You also believe that some rights and services should be available and/or denied solely on the ground of sexual orientation.
Not solely. I believe that people who don't believe Gender neutral religious marriage is even a thing because there is no scriptural injunction for it should not be indulging in it because of meaninglessness.
Now that, I'm afraid doesn't solely apply to gender neutral marriage but also to polygamists. You of course want the wholesale destruction of the church and religion.
-
As for bigotted I believe that gender neutral marriage should be allowed as Gender important marriages should be allowed. What is your problem with Gender important marriage considering you have one?
You are, again, avoiding the core issue: which is that some marriage providers are disallowing marriage options that are legally allowable, and in doing so they are shamefully discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
-
Just as an aside:
Gender Neutral Marriage?
Gender Important Marriage?
I am going to add those to the growing list of nonsense terms that are used to muddy the waters of any reasonable debate.
.
Or INFORM the debate.
-
You are, again, avoiding the core issue: which is that some marriage providers are disallowing marriage options that are legally allowable, and in doing so they are shamefully discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
No, it is on the basis of Gender importance and partner number importance.
-
Or INFORM the debate.
If you think it's informing the debate, NEWSFLASH - it isn't
-
Vlad,
As for me being bigotted. I have no objection to Gender neutral marriage wherever it happens. So how can I be homophobic?
My bus company doesn't allow black people to sit in the front seats. I have no objection to black people sitting at the back though. So how can I be racist?
What is your problem with Gender important marriage considering you have one.
What's your problem with my bus policy considering you use buses?
My "problem" is that I think it's bad for society for some institutions to offer and deny the same rights and services solely on the ground of sexual orientation. That is, I think practising homophobia is wrong; you don't.
-
Vlad,
Not solely. I believe that people who don't believe Gender neutral religious marriage is even a thing because there is no scriptural injunction for it should not be indulging in it because of meaninglessness.
Endlessly trying to justify your homophobia doesn't make you less of a homophobe.
Now that, I'm afraid doesn't solely apply to gender neutral marriage but also to polygamists.
Your were corrected on the polygamy stupidity over on the other thread. Innate characteristics and lifestyle choices are different things: you're making a basic category error here.
You of course want the wholesale destruction of the church and religion.
Perhaps if you stopped lying you'd have more time to try at least to make and argument of some kind instead?
-
No, it is on the basis of Gender importance and partner number importance.
Stop masquerading behind silly made-up phrases.
-
Not solely. I believe that people who don't believe Gender neutral religious marriage is even a thing because there is no scriptural injunction for it should not be indulging in it because of meaninglessness.
Now that, I'm afraid doesn't solely apply to gender neutral marriage but also to polygamists. You of course want the wholesale destruction of the church and religion.
-
You don't really need to quote yourself. That just makes it a double helping of confused-ness.
-
Stop masquerading behind silly made-up phrases.
Vlad,
My bus company doesn't allow black people to sit in the front seats. I have no objection to black people sitting at the back though. So how can I be racist?
What's your problem with my bus policy considering you use buses?
My "problem" is that I think it's bad for society for some institutions to offer and deny the same rights and services solely on the ground of sexual orientation. That is, I think practising homophobia is wrong; you don't.
I have no intention of not allowing the methodist church (of which I am also member by a quirk of
an ecumenical project) to conduct same sex marriages and I have no intention of schismatising with them although for the record, Trent I have thought about schismatising with the Cof E on attitudes toward current affairs.
You on the other hand seek the wholesale destruction of the church.
-
Vlad,
Your were corrected on the polygamy stupidity over on the other thread. Innate characteristics and lifestyle choices are different things: you're making a basic category error here.
Is marital choice an innate characteristic? I'm not sure it is.
-
Is marital choice an innate characteristic? I'm not sure it is.
But the sexual orientation that informs the choice is - stop digging.
-
You on the other hand seek the wholesale destruction of the church.
Nope - as I said earlier in the thread, I'm happy to see the on-going slow disintegration of Christianity in the UK: and if removing privileges that allow them to be homophobic in opposition to the social changes that have seen same-sex marriage legalised in the UK hastens the decline, then so be it.
They are running out of feet to shoot themselves in but, seemingly, they prefer extinction to change.
-
But the sexual orientation that informs the choice is - stop digging.
For the vast majority of human existence it seems that universally same sex marriage has not even been a thing. So that contention is dubious. There is the theory that humans are not naturally monogamous so that might make polygamy more innate than than same sex marriage. Does innate sexual orientation translate into the desire to marry. No, some people do not want to marry or believe in the institution vis the fight for the right for heterosexual civil partnership.
So your contention Gordon and Hillside is debateable.
-
Vlad,
I have no intention of not allowing the methodist church (of which I am also member by a quirk of
an ecumenical project) to conduct same sex marriages and I have no intention of schismatising with them although for the record, Trent I have thought about schismatising with the Cof E on attitudes toward current affairs.
I have no intention of not allowing the the non-racist bus company (in which I also own shares a by a quirk of company law) to let black passengers sit wherever they wish. I do though intend to keep right on with my own bus companies' racist practices.
Not a good argument is it? Or a good look.
You on the other hand seek the wholesale destruction of the church.
Flat out lying to get you out of the homophobic hole you've dug for yourself won't work, no matter how often you repeat the flat out lies.
-
Nope - as I said earlier in the thread, I'm happy to see the on-going slow disintegration of Christianity in the UK: and if removing privileges that allow them to be homophobic in opposition to the social changes that have seen same-sex marriage legalised in the UK hastens the decline, then so be it.
They are running out of feet to shoot themselves in but, seemingly, they prefer extinction to change.
I was hoping some sadist would come up with the ''I want the church to die a slow and exquisitely painful death and I mean to turn homosexuality into that means of torture!''.........nice people.
-
Vlad,
For the vast majority of human existence it seems that universally same sex marriage has not even been a thing.
For the vast majority of human existence it seems that universally banning slavery has not even been a thing. So?
So that contention is dubious. There is the theory that humans are not naturally monogamous so that might make polygamy more innate than than same sex marriage. Does innate sexual orientation translate into the desire to marry. No, some people do not want to marry or believe in the institution vis the fight for the right for heterosexual civil partnership.
Irrelevant.
So your contention Gordon and Hillside is debateable.
If you think something is debatable then debate it rather than lie about it.
-
Vlad,
I was hoping some sadist would come up with the ''I want the church to die a slow and exquisitely painful death and I mean to turn homosexuality into that means of torture!''.........nice people.
Actually (and a I have always said and you have always lied about) what I would prefer is a church treated as a private members' club like any other able to make its case as it pleases so as to attract its members but without the trappings of the numerous special privileges afforded to it in the public square.
-
Vlad,
I have no intention of not allowing the the non-racist bus company (in which I also own shares a by a quirk of company law) to let black passengers sit wherever they wish. I do though intend to keep right on with my own bus companies' racist practices.
Not a good argument is it? Or a good look.
Flat out lying to get you out of the homophobic hole you've dug for yourself won't work, no matter how often you repeat the flat out lies.
Next you'll be attacking Pro Gender neutral methodists for sharing fellowship with Gender important methodists and after them athiest methodists for sharing fellowship with theist methodists.
-
Vlad,
Actually (and a I have always said and you have always lied about) what I would prefer is a church treated as a private members' club like any other able to make its case as it pleases so as to attract its members but without the trappings of the numerous special privileges afforded to it in the public square.
Which trappings are you talking about.
-
Vlad,
Next you'll be attacking Pro Gender neutral methodists for sharing fellowship with Gender important methodists and after them athiest methodists for sharing fellowship with theist methodists.
You seem to have hit the random word generator button.
I told you why your argument was wrong - address that or don't, but endless (and incoherent) diversions aren't helping you.
-
Vlad,
For the vast majority of human existence it seems that universally banning slavery has not even been a thing.
Not true.
-
I was hoping some sadist would come up with the ''I want the church to die a slow and exquisitely painful death and I mean to turn homosexuality into that means of torture!''.........nice people.
If this 'church' is in the business of practicing homophobia then I'm happy to see the back of them - and I need do nothing to hasten their demise, since they are managing to slowly self-destruct without any help from me.
-
Vlad,
Which trappings are you talking about.
The ones we've talked about endlessly on this mb - in education, in the legislature, in the media etc. Before you shoot off into yet another diversion, to try to keep you at least vaguely on topic try for starters the Equalities Act 2010 that gives special exemptions to religious institutions so they can perpetuate their homophobic practices.
-
Vlad,
Not true.
True.
-
Vlad,
True.
No, early Christians began ending their involvement in slaving. If you say they were the only ones then that is bad news for the argument that christianity automatically supports slavery. or that antislavery was an atheist gift to the world.
-
If this 'church' is in the business of practicing homophobia
That isn't what their business is and you know it. As I say, what is it with atheists and weaponising homosexuality?
-
That isn't what their business is and you know it. As I say, what is it with atheists and weaponising homosexuality?
They way they carry out their business results in homophobia, and to point that out is a reasonable and accurate observation.
Why are you defending the indefensible?
-
Vlad,
No, early Christians began ending their involvement in slaving. If you say they were the only ones then that is bad news for the argument that christianity automatically supports slavery. or that antislavery was an atheist gift to the world.
Some "early Christians" may have done that but Christianity as a whole didn't until very late in the day. The point here though is that your, "but for a long time people didn't care about my church's homophobic practices" remains a bad argument for protecting those homophobic practices now. For a long time most people didn't care about lots of things that we now think to be morally reprehensible.
-
Vlad,
That isn't what their business is and you know it.
My bus company's business isn't racial discrimination - it still does it though.
As I say, what is it with atheists and weaponising homosexuality?
As I say, what is it with non-racists and weaponising race?
-
Vlad,
Some "early Christians" may have done that but Christianity as a whole didn't until very late in the day.
The correctness of slavery has been criticised either implicitly or explictly in history. There are no documents concerning same sex marriage which I don't oppose anyway.
-
Vlad,
Some "early Christians" may have done that
So then acceptance of slavery hasn't been universal until recently has it?
-
Hillside thinks the law is how it is because the secular Government is in cahoots with the church.
And I think he is correct - governments over decades have tiptoed around religion and been terrified to make them have to uphold the law in the same manner as other organisations. And in doing so they create special privileges for the religious that amount to institutional discrimination against the non religious who are treated less favourably because of their lack of religious belief.
Which is kind of weird as the government also has enacted the equalities act which is supposed to ensure that religious people aren't treated less favourably because of their religious beliefs and that non religious people aren't treated less favourably because of their lack of religious beliefs.
-
Vlad,
My bus company's business isn't racial discrimination - it still does it though.
As I say, what is it with non-racists and weaponising race?
A better analogy would be atheists and weaponising race. To which the answer would be not, seemingly, as effective a weapon against the church as homosexuality.
-
Vlad,
The correctness of slavery has been criticised either implicitly or explictly in history. There are no documents concerning same sex marriage which I don't oppose anyway.
You have no idea what criticism “either implicitly or explictly in history” there was of same sex marriages, and it’s irrelevant in any case. The point here remains that you espouse a homophobic god and a homophobic church.
What does that make you?
So then acceptance of slavery hasn't been universal until recently has it?
Nor has the universal acceptance of only heterosexual marriage (which was your claim):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
Doesn’t being wrong about everything ever get you down a bit?
A better analogy would be atheists and weaponising race. To which the answer would be not, seemingly, as effective a weapon against the church as homosexuality.
No it wouldn’t. No-one is “weaponising” anything, and your espousal of a homophobic church remains analogous with my espousal of a racist bus company.
Your endless prevarications, distractions, re-definitions, straw men, post facto defences of the indefensible and the rest of armoury of avoidance you deploy to avoid ever addressing the issue head on doesn’t work. You espouse a homophobic god and a homophobic church. Deal with it.
-
No, early Christians began ending their involvement in slaving.
That's a blatant lie, unless by "early Christian" you mean "Christians living in the 19th century".
Christianity dominated Europe for about 1,500 years before some of them started to think "hey, why are we treating black people worse than animals?"
Christianity and Christian marriage haven't been around for 2,000 years. Don't try to convince us that your concept of "holy matrimony" has been around for longer than that.
-
That's a blatant lie, unless by "early Christian" you mean "Christians living in the 19th century".
Christianity dominated Europe for about 1,500 years before some of them started to think "hey, why are we treating black people worse than animals?"
Christianity and Christian marriage haven't been around for 2,000 years. Don't try to convince us that your concept of "holy matrimony" has been around for longer than that.
No it isn't. Christians started withdrawing from slavery in the decades after Jesus. It wasn't only Black people who were slaves in the Greco roman hegemony. And yet a standard atheist interpretation is that christianity wrecked the glory that was Rome, the most evil exploiter of humanity probably ever. Greco roman slavery cast a long shadow on the middle ages but Christian bishops are notable in condemning it eg Augustine. The medievel people were not fantastically unanimous about slavery. Does it for instance crop up in that great register of medieval society, The Canterbury Tales for instance.....I'm not sure it does.
Where Black slavery arises on an industrial scale and on industrial terms is after the start of the so called enlightenment.
In terms of matrimony I have said Christians don't have a monopoly on that term.
-
Vlad,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
Yes thanks for that corrective, I had a look at this and sure enough there seems to be same sex marriage going on in ancient mesopotamia.
The next occasion is a handful of same sex marriages in the imperial eschelon of Rome. Cited is the emperor who married his slave. Given the reputation of the emperors for doing everything and anything and contrary to social mores I noticed the Roman conditions of marriage or Conubis which seems to favour monogamy between a male citizen and a female citizen. Unfortunately roman emperors are not known for being great ambassadors for pretty much any behaviour and could put a curse on anything as some reckoned Constantine did with Christianity.
And after that, the same sex marriage trail seems to grow cold. In fact, for something innate it seems to have long extremely long absences and localised appearences.
-
Walt as far as I can see you have put yourself in the ridiculous place of wanting to have your cake and eat it.
"I want gay people to be able to get married." ALSO "I want the Church to be able to discriminate against gay people in the matter of marriage".
That's it, that is what this whole thread is about.
You have to get off that fence.
If for no other reason than it must be pretty dammed uncomfortable by now.
The whole thread reminds me of dead horses and dogs with bones.
Jeez.
-
Trent,
Walt as far as I can see you have put yourself in the ridiculous place of wanting to have your cake and eat it.
"I want gay people to be able to get married." ALSO "I want the Church to be able to discriminate against gay people in the matter of marriage".
That's it, that is what this whole thread is about.
You have to get off that fence.
If for no other reason than it must be pretty dammed uncomfortable by now.
Pretty much. He's trying to play the, "homophobic? Wot me? How very dare you - I'm all for gay people getting married to each other" card, while at the same time also playing the, "by "married", I don't of course mean the version of it I think is "holy" - oh no Sirree, that type's for the straights only thank you very much" card. It's not so much that he's sitting on the fence as trying to position himself simultaneously on both sides of it - he's Schrödinger's homophobe.
The whole thread reminds me of dead horses and dogs with bones.
Jeez.
Well yes - that's when you get when someone tries endless diversionary tactics rather than address the issue head on.
-
Walt as far as I can see you have put yourself in the ridiculous place of wanting to have your cake and eat it.
"I want gay people to be able to get married." ALSO "I want the Church to be able to discriminate against gay people in the matter of marriage".
That's it, that is what this whole thread is about.
You have to get off that fence.
If for no other reason than it must be pretty dammed uncomfortable by now.
The whole thread reminds me of dead horses and dogs with bones.
Jeez.
The Church in Sweden have found that they can accommodate same sex church marriages.
Not being a Swedish clergyman or church goer and not having been moved to consider the issue since accepting that Christianity has no monopoly on marriage or exclusive rights to it. I have not been privy to any revelation they have received. I say revelation because church weddings are not a secular matter.
I accept the Church of Sweden’s decision.
At this point apparently the Swedish prime minister put his oar in and questioned why any clergy were allowed not to take part in same sex weddings.
Did he reveal the beauty of his innermost anti homophobe or his inner angry frustrated antitheist totalitarian I wonder?
-
Vlad,
I have not been privy to any revelation they have received.
"Revelation" is an unqualified faith claim, not a verifiable premise.
-
Vlad,
The Church in Sweden have found that they can accommodate same sex church marriages.
Not being a Swedish clergyman or church goer and not having been moved to consider the issue since accepting that Christianity has no monopoly on marriage or exclusive rights to it. I have not been privy to any revelation they have received. I say revelation because church weddings are not a secular matter.
I accept the Church of Sweden’s decision.
At this point apparently the Swedish prime minister put his oar in and questioned why any clergy were allowed not to take part in same sex weddings.
Did he reveal the beauty of his innermost anti homophobe or his inner angry frustrated antitheist totalitarian I wonder?
The bus company in Sweden has found that it can accommodate different races sitting wherever they wish.
Not being a Swedish bus driver or passenger and not having been moved to consider the issue since accepting that my racist bus company has no monopoly on seating rules or exclusive rights to it. I have not been privy to any revelation they have received. I say revelation because racist bus services are not a secular matter.
I accept the Swedish bus company’s decision.
At this point apparently the Swedish prime minister put his oar in and questioned why any bus drivers were allowed not to take part in driving the buses.
Did he reveal the beauty of his innermost anti-racism or his inner angry frustrated antiracist totalitarian I wonder?
-
Trent,
Pretty much. He's trying to play the, "homophobic? Wot me? How very dare you - I'm all for gay people getting married to each other" card, while at the same time also playing the, "by "married", I don't of course mean the version of it I think is "holy" - oh no Sirree, that type's for the straights only thank you very much" card. It's not so much that he's sitting on the fence as trying to position himself simultaneously on both sides of it - he's Schrödinger's homophobe.
Well yes - that's when you get when someone tries endless diversionary tactics rather than address the issue head on.
OK Hillside. Being probably this forums most celebrated, vehement, persistent, anti religious contributor. Do you believe that gender neutral wedding are a) holy b) involve God at any stage ?
-
Vlad,
OK Hillside being probably this forums most celebrated, vehement, persistent, anti religious contributor. Do you believe that gender neutral wedding are a) holy b) involve God at any stage ?
As an atheist, clearly I don't believe there to be such things as "holy" or "God" at all. That though isn't the point here - the point is that you do believe these things (albeit for very bad reasons), and thus you espouse a homophobic god story and the consequent homophobic church practices.
-
Vlad,
As an atheist, clearly I don't believe there to be such things as "holy" or "God" at all. That though isn't the point here - the point is that you do believe these things (albeit for very bad reasons), and thus you espouse a homophobic god story and the consequent homophobic church practices.
A homophobic god story? I don’t think so, I think there are those who are in a same sex marriage who may be atheist but God is still with them. But of course being an affable chap married to an affable chap (or chappessis)in an extremely affable marriage carries no sociological, psychological or biological difference or challenge. Of course then same sex marriage is different from one man and woman as is polygamous sex. Same sex marriages also arise from love (so I am not against that) and not in anyway out of a desire to be the embodiment of a secular definition of equality.
As you can see this description of where I stand on matrimony makes your argument, as a heterosexual white middle aged middle class conventionally married anti-theistic male look positively opportunistic and parasitic on homosexual marriage
-
Vlad,
A homophobic god story? I don’t think so,…
That’s not your choice to make. You’ve told us that you think there’s something you call “god”, that this god delineates some things as “holy”, and that one version of marriages is thus described.
You’ve also told us that this god wants his earthly helpers to “discriminate” (your word) by making this special service available to straight people but to deny it to gay people.
The meaning of the word “homophobia” includes discriminating on the ground of sexual orientation.
QED. Slam dunk. Game over. Your god story is homophobic, and so are your church’s officials.
I think there are those who are in a same sex marriage who may be atheist but God is still with them. But of course being an affable chap married to an affable chap (or chappessis)in an extremely affable marriage carries no sociological, psychological or biological difference or challenge. Of course then same sex marriage is different from one man and woman as is polygamous sex. Same sex marriages also arise from love (so I am not against that) and not in anyway out of a desire to be the embodiment of a secular definition of equality.
All irrelevant (with a category error included).
As you can see this description of where I stand on matrimony makes your argument, as a heterosexual white middle aged middle class conventionally married anti-theistic male look positively opportunistic and parasitic on homosexual marriage
No it doesn’t. Your “stand on matrimony” is precisely analogous to my racist bus company owner’s stand on seating rules. Being relaxed about what other churches/bus companies do doesn't change that. No matter how much you keep twisting in the wind, you still espouse a homophobic god story and homophobic church practices. What not try at least to address that?
-
Vlad,
That’s not your choice to make. You’ve told us that you think there’s something you call “god”, that this god delineates some things as “holy”, and that one version of marriages is thus described.
You’ve also told us that this god wants his earthly helpers to “discriminate” (your word) by making this special service available to straight people but to deny it to gay people.
The meaning of the word “homophobia” includes discriminating on the ground of sexual orientation.
QED. Slam dunk. Game over. Your god story is homophobic, and so are your church’s officials.
All irrelevant (with a category error included for good measure).
No it doesn’t. Your “stand on matrimony” is precisely analogous to my racist bus company owner’s stand on seating rules. Being relaxed about what other bus companies do doesn't change that. No matter how much you keep twisting in the wind, you still espouse a homophobic god story and homophobic church practices. What not try at least to address that?
I think it’s rather the case of God telling us to avoid antitheists kicking of and considering situations with all the aplomb,and professionalism of student politics.
You don’t see gay people in love you see human shillelaghs.
The word homophobia is just camouflage for you.
As for your deliberate attempt at repeating the words racism in order to establish a mental conflation in others. Shocking.
-
Vlad,
I think it’s rather the case of God telling us to avoid antitheists kicking of and considering situations with all the aplomb,and professionalism of student politics.
You don’t see gay people in love you see human shillelaghs.
Gibberish.
The word homophobia is just camouflage for you.
No, it’s a word whose meaning has been codified and written down in dictionaries. That you don’t like the implications of that is neither here nor there.
As for your deliberate attempt at repeating the words racism in order to establish a mental conflation in others. Shocking.
It’s called analogy – if you don’t like the use of it, stop trying arguments that are analogous to those of racists.
Look, as your desperation is showing badly now and you still won’t address the issue here’s what you should say:
“OK Blue, I can see now that the god I’m describing and the church practice I espouse are homophobic. After all, that’s what the word means. I don’t feel instinctively homophobic, but there’s no escaping the conclusion. I can also see that the defences I’ve tried could exactly be used by a racist to defend his practices so this alone should give me pause.
So here are my options: I can either conclude that my god story (or my church’s interpretation of it) is wrong and take a more enlightened view, or I can stick with it and just accept that I’m a proponent of homophobia.”
You're welcome, and I await your decision with interest…
-
The Hillside bus company is pleased to announce that following its equality programme the ladies toilets at the bus station will have six out of its eight stalls removed to accommodate new urinals.
-
Vlad,
The Hillside bus company is pleased to announce that following its equality programme the ladies toilets at the bus station will have six out of its eight stalls removed to accommodate new urinals.
Stop evading.
-
Vlad,
Stop evading.
I’m not avoiding. Just illustrating where your cack handed dogmatism inevitably leads.......
-
Vlad,
I’m not avoiding. Just illustrating where your cack handed dogmatism inevitably leads.......
You're not illustrating anything. Your homophobia has been justified with plain and coherent reasoning. You can either try at least to address that reasoning or you can keep evading it, in which case we can add cowardice to the lying and homophobia we know about already.
Your choice.
-
Vlad,
You're not illustrating anything. Your homophobia has been justified with plain and coherent reasoning. You can either try at least to address that reasoning or you can keep evading it, in which case we can add cowardice to the lying and homophobia we know about already.
Your choice.
The only reasonable and plain conclusion is that gender important marriage is not gender neutral marriage. The term holy is being ignored on the strength of atheistic positions.
-
Vlad,
The only reasonable and plain conclusion...
The only way to arrive at a reasoned position is to address the reasons that have been set out plainly for you that show you to be homophobic. Unless you finally try at lest to do that, all you have is evasion.
...is that gender important marriage is not gender neutral marriage.
More BS. Either you think that it's a good thing that rights are denied to gay people solely on the ground of their orientation or you don't. If you do, you're a homophobe. So far, all you've told us is that you are homophobic.
The term holy is being ignored on the strength of atheistic positions.
The term "holy" is a religious faith claim, but the point here is that even if we take it at face value the application of it that you espouse is homophobic.
You can run away from that all you like (and you will), but you can't hide from it.
-
I’m not avoiding. Just illustrating where your cack handed dogmatism inevitably leads.......
Vlad - you cannot avoid the fact that your church discriminates against gay people. That is, frankly, undeniable. Presumably you feel that discrimination is justified as you support it.
-
Vlad,
You're not illustrating anything. Your homophobia has been justified with plain and coherent reasoning. You can either try at least to address that reasoning or you can keep evading it, in which case we can add cowardice to the lying and homophobia we know about already.
Your choice.
The only thing we can plainly and coherently reason is that gender important marriage is not gender neutral marriage. The term holy is ignored because of your atheist position and if the word homophobia was reasoned then it would come out as fear of homosexuality. Where do you think that fear is?
-
Vlad - you cannot avoid the fact that your church discriminates against gay people. That is, frankly, undeniable. Presumably you feel that discrimination is justified as you support it.
I don’t deny discrimination but deny the necessity of it being a bad thing. In fact I have written why I believe Gender neutral marriage is a different thing to gender important marriage.
-
Vlad,
The only thing we can plainly and coherently reason is that gender important marriage is not gender neutral marriage.
You can't "plainly and coherently reason" if you refuse to try to reason anything. The reasons for describing you as homophobic have been set out for you. Why won't you address them?
The term holy is ignored because of your atheist position...
As I just explained to you, it isn't ignored at all. It's taken at face value - but the question remains why you think it should be enacted homophobically.
...and if the word homophobia was reasoned then it would come out as fear of homosexuality. Where do you think that fear is?
You've had that lies detonated long ago.
Why do you think homophobia is a good thing provided it's your church that does it?
-
Vlad,
I don’t deny discrimination but deny the necessity of it being a bad thing.
So, finally, you now concede that you think that homophobia isn't a bad thing (provided, presumably, that it's your church that does it). Well, that's progress of a sort i guess.
In fact I have written why I believe Gender neutral marriage is a different thing to gender important marriage.
And it's still irrelevant.
You espouse a homophobic god story and consequent homophobic church practices, and you don't think that's a bad thing.
What does that make you then? I'll give you a clue: it begins "ho...".
-
Vlad,
You can't "plainly and coherently reason" if you refuse to try to reason anything. The reasons for describing you as homophobic have been set out for you. Why won't you address them?
As I just explained to you, it isn't ignored at all. It's taken at face value - but the question remains why you think it should be enacted homophobically.
You've had that lies detonated long ago.
Why do you think homophobia is a good thing provided it's your church that does it?
Again where is the fear here?It’s your definition of homophobia which is incorrect here.
If there is anyway of describing the discrimination here it is positive discrimination........please revisit my position on same sex marriage.
-
Vlad,
So, finally, you now concede that you think that homophobia isn't a bad thing (provided, presumably,
No I said discrimination isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
-
Vlad,
Again where is the fear here?It’s your definition of homophobia which is incorrect here.
Stop fucking around. You tried this long ago on this thread, and it was explained you that the root of the word does not delineate its meaning. You had it explained to you that meaning shifts happen a lot in language, which is why words like "awful" no longer mean "full of awe". You were given links to online dictionaries that tell you what the word means. Its meaning encompasses fear of (now rarely used), prejudice against or discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation.
You are also quite capable of reading those Posts again.
If there is anyway of describing the discrimination here it is positive discrimination........please revisit my position on same sex marriage.
Denying rights to gay people that you make available to straight people is now "positive" is it? You should be ashamed of yourself.
-
Vlad,
No I said discrimination isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
As a justification for your church's homophobia. Stop evading.
-
Vlad,
OK, I'm done with this. We knew you to be a liar, but now we know you to be a homophobic one too.
And you know what's even more contemptible about your attempts to justify it? It puts you on the same spectrum as people who beat up young men on the street. If you can justify the homophobic practices you approve of, on what basis would you deny the homophobic practices you don't endorse?
After all, they’re all just varying applications of discrimination right?
Fucking disgusting.
-
I don’t deny discrimination but deny the necessity of it being a bad thing.
Which is an attempt to justify it - people who discriminate often look to justify it on the basis that they aren't affected. Yet will be up in arms at any attempt at discrimination against them.
And you are a past master at this - ranting at attempts to remove special privileges for religion (note removing privilege rather than discrimination against) as if it were discrimination. So if you can't even accept a level playing field for your religion can you imagine how incensed you'd be about actual discrimination against your religion. Yet you seem perfectly comfortable for your church to discriminate against others.
-
Vlad,
Stop fucking around. You tried this long ago on this thread, and it was explained you that the root of the word does not delineate its meaning. You had it explained to you that meaning shifts happen a lot in language, which is why words like "awful" no longer mean "full of awe". You were given links to online dictionaries that tell you what the word means. Its meaning encompasses fear of (now rarely used), prejudice against or discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation.
You are also quite capable of reading those Posts again.
Denying rights to gay people that you make available to straight people is now "positive" is it? You should be ashamed of yourself.
I always thought homophobia was a fear of homosexuals fancying you. If that led to discrimination then it's frankly a natural thing to happen. As I see it, the homosexuals have played the victim and accused the homophobic person of unjustified discrimination.
-
Spud,
I always thought homophobia was a fear of homosexuals fancying you.
Then you have always thought wrongly. That's not what it means at all. What it means is what I (and dictionaries) have been explaining it means - prejudice or discrimination against homosexuals on the ground of their homosexuality.
If that led to discrimination then it's frankly a natural thing to happen.
It didn't - the discrimination comes from ignorance - and in any case, why on earth would even be a "natural thing to happen"? How do you think women have coped with unwanted "fancying" from men these last few millennia - by attacking them?
As I see it, the homosexuals have played the victim and accused the homophobic person of unjustified discrimination.
You ought to be deeply, deeply ashamed of yourself for that vicious example of pig ignorance. So the gay man walking home at night minding his own business and getting beaten up by a gang of beery thugs is playing the victim and accusing the homophobic thugs of unjustified discrimination is he?
Go and give your head a wobble will you. Mindless bigotry and victim blaming like yours has no place in decent company.
Shame. On. You.
-
Spud,
Then you have always thought wrongly. That's not what it means at all. What it means is what I (and dictionaries) have been explaining it means - prejudice or discrimination against homosexuals on the ground of their homosexuality.
It didn't - the discrimination comes from ignorance - and in any case, why on earth would even be a "natural thing to happen"? How do you think women have coped with unwanted "fancying" from men these last few millennia - by attacking them?
You ought to be deeply, deeply ashamed of yourself for that vicious example of pig ignorance. So the gay man walking home at night minding his own business and getting beaten up by a gang of beery thugs is playing the victim and accusing the homophobic thugs of unjustified discrimination is he?
Go and give your head a wobble will you. Mindless bigotry and victim blaming like yours has no place in decent company.
Shame. On. You.
I think you're the one with the problem here. You're picking on Christians because you hate that they don't share your beliefs. The shame is on you sir.
-
Spud,
No, I’m “picking on” homophobes who discriminate against, harass, malign, beat up or otherwise make life even more difficult for gay people than it otherwise need be.
If some of those homophobes are Christians who use their faith to justify their contemptible behaviour, so be it.
Forum rules prevent me from saying what I think of you - suffice it to say therefore that I’m fucking disgusted by you and your posts.
-
Your definition is incorrect Spud:
ho·mo·pho·bia | \ ˌhō-mə-ˈfō-bē-ə \
Definition of homophobia
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or gay people
Nothing to do with gay people fancying straight people.
As if you are all that fucking irresistible. ::)
-
I always thought homophobia was a fear of homosexuals fancying you. If that led to discrimination then it's frankly a natural thing to happen. As I see it, the homosexuals have played the victim and accused the homophobic person of unjustified discrimination.
Apart from showing your utter ignorance about homophobia which others have already corrected you on, the idea that my gay friends who I visited in hospital after they were beaten up for being gay were playing the victim is a joke. Your ignorance and vapid ill thought out homophobia in part supports those thugs that beat my friends up. It pisses on any idea that Jesus may have talked about loving other people. It twists the spear in his side. It pushes the crown of thorns deeper onto his head. It adds a further 39 scourges.
-
NS,
Apart from showing your utter ignorance about homophobia which others have already corrected you on, the idea that my gay friends who I visited in hospital after they were beaten up for being gay were playing the victim is a joke. Your ignorance and vapid ill thought out homophobia in part supports those thugs that beat my friends up. It pisses on any idea that Jesus may have talked about loving other people. It twists the spear in his side. It pushes the crown of thorns deeper onto his head. It adds a further 39 scourges.
Very well expressed. Funny isn't it, how some of the people here who are most Christian (big C) are also the least christian (small c).
-
NS,
Very well expressed. Funny isn't it, how some of the people here who are most Christian (big C) are also the least christian (small c).
You are so right. :o
-
I always thought homophobia was a fear of homosexuals fancying you.
I missed the bit where Jesus said that shrimps and haircuts were now fine, but woe betide anyone he catches with a dictionary...
O.
-
I missed the bit where Jesus said that shrimps and haircuts were now fine, but woe betide anyone he catches with a dictionary...
O.
or the radically changing Stonewall definition of the word homophobia.
I missed the bit where terminological disagreement became “Fear” and “Hatred”
-
Vlad,
or the radically changing Stonewall definition of the word homophobia.
I missed the bit where terminological disagreement became “Fear” and “Hatred”
Educate yourself:
“Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT).[1][2][3] It has been defined as contempt, prejudice, aversion, hatred or antipathy, may be based on irrational fear and ignorance, and is often related to religious beliefs.[4][5]
Although sexual attitudes tracing back to Ancient Greece - from the 8th to 6th centuries BC to the end of antiquity (ca. 600 AD) - have been termed homophobia by scholars, and it is used to describe an intolerance towards homosexuality and homosexuals that grew during the Middle Ages, especially by adherents of Islam and Christianity,[13] the term itself is relatively new.[14]”
“Coined by George Weinberg, a psychologist, in the 1960s,[15] the term homophobia is a blend of (1) the word homosexual, itself a mix of neo-classical morphemes, and (2) phobia from the Greek φόβος, phóbos, meaning "fear", "morbid fear" or "aversion".[16][17][18] Weinberg is credited as the first person to have used the term in speech.[14] The word homophobia first appeared in print in an article written for the May 23, 1969, edition of the American pornographic magazine Screw, in which the word was used to refer to heterosexual men's fear that others might think they are gay.[14]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia#Etymology
-
Vlad,
Educate yourself:
“Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT).[1][2][3] It has been defined as contempt, prejudice, aversion, hatred or antipathy, may be based on irrational fear and ignorance, and is often related to religious beliefs.[4][5]
Although sexual attitudes tracing back to Ancient Greece - from the 8th to 6th centuries BC to the end of antiquity (ca. 600 AD) - have been termed homophobia by scholars, and it is used to describe an intolerance towards homosexuality and homosexuals that grew during the Middle Ages, especially by adherents of Islam and Christianity,[13] the term itself is relatively new.[14]”
“Coined by George Weinberg, a psychologist, in the 1960s,[15] the term homophobia is a blend of (1) the word homosexual, itself a mix of neo-classical morphemes, and (2) phobia from the Greek φόβος, phóbos, meaning "fear", "morbid fear" or "aversion".[16][17][18] Weinberg is credited as the first person to have used the term in speech.[14] The word homophobia first appeared in print in an article written for the May 23, 1969, edition of the American pornographic magazine Screw, in which the word was used to refer to heterosexual men's fear that others might think they are gay.[14]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia#Etymology
Have you considered where your doctrine of absolute equality ends, I gave you an example
and your doctrine of digital and absolute heinous ness which ends up in blunting any argument. Of course absolute heinous ness requires an absolute morality. So either you have one or your anger over this issue is in part ersatz aka weaponising homosexuality.
-
Vlad,
Have you considered where your doctrine of absolute equality ends, I gave you an example
and your doctrine of digital and absolute heinous ness which ends up in blunting any argument. Of course absolute heinous ness requires an absolute morality. So either you have one or your anger over this issue is in part ersatz aka weaponising homosexuality.
What does any of this incoherent (and borderline deranged) gibberish have to do with your homophobia?
-
Enough of this nonsense. Homophobia exists not as some minor inconvenience to you Walt for antitheist to beat you round the head with (which they don't anyway), or as a linguistic trick to be turned and defined in tortuous, ill thought out ways.
It exists as a threat of harassment, violence and on some occasions death.
Two of those I have been subjected to in the past. The third I haven't.
Although I doubt between you and Spud that you've got enough brain cells to work out which one does not apply.
To criticise people for caring enough to actually challenge prejudiced views is to my mind not good enough. Similarly to nit pic over such a serious term to prove some point that only you've conjured up in your heinous head for fuck knows what reason tells me that you aren't actually bothered about the real effects of homophobia but just want to carry on with your endless rounds of pathetic, pointless, point scoring.
-
Have you considered where your doctrine of absolute equality ends, I gave you an example
and your doctrine of digital and absolute heinous ness which ends up in blunting any argument. Of course absolute heinous ness requires an absolute morality. So either you have one or your anger over this issue is in part ersatz aka weaponising homosexuality.
You are a very unpleasant piece of work. >:(
-
Roses,
You are a very unpleasant piece of work. >:(
Vlad is a Christian (or so he claims). He's also deeply unchristian.
-
Have you considered where your doctrine of absolute equality ends,
You either have equality or you don't have equality - that is self evident. So there is no point in adding absolute as equality that isn't absolute is ... err ... not equality.
-
Roses,
Vlad is a Christian (or so he claims). He's also deeply unchristian.
I have come across so called 'Christians' like Vlad many times in my life. If Jesus had been a decent kind of bloke he wouldn't have wanted anything to do with them.
-
I missed the bit where terminological disagreement became “Fear” and “Hatred”
"... or discrimination against..." It's right there in the list, posted by Trent, you didn't even have to go looking for it, someone else has done the work for you. It must have taken more effort to selectively partially quote that than to just admit that language shifts with time.
O.
-
Enough of this nonsense. Homophobia exists not as some minor inconvenience to you Walt for antitheist to beat you round the head with (which they don't anyway), or as a linguistic trick to be turned and defined in tortuous, ill thought out ways.
It exists as a threat of harassment, violence and on some occasions death.
Two of those I have been subjected to in the past. The third I haven't.
Although I doubt between you and Spud that you've got enough brain cells to work out which one does not apply.
To criticise people for caring enough to actually challenge prejudiced views is to my mind not good enough. Similarly to nit pic over such a serious term to prove some point that only you've conjured up in your heinous head for fuck knows what reason tells me that you aren't actually bothered about the real effects of homophobia but just want to carry on with your endless rounds of pathetic, pointless, point scoring.
The trouble with digital absolute heinousness Trent is that you are either absolutely heinous or you are not heinous at all. With the doctrine everyone who comes under your definition is the equivalent of homophobic murderer. That weakens antihomophobia in my view. It also allows who merely disagree with you to be turned into people who apparently hate and fear homosexuals or whoever.
That may wash in student politics among unformed young adults but not wider.
-
"... or discrimination against..." It's right there in the list, posted by Trent, you didn't even have to go looking for it, someone else has done the work for you. It must have taken more effort to selectively partially quote that than to just admit that language shifts with time.
O.
Yes, Discrimination against.
-
The trouble with digital absolute heinousness Trent is that you are either absolutely heinous or you are not heinous at all. With the doctrine everyone who comes under your definition is the equivalent of homophobic murderer. That weakens antihomophobia in my view. It also allows who merely disagree with you to be turned into people who apparently hate and fear homosexuals or whoever.
That may wash in student politics among unformed young adults but not wider.
Nice try but no cigar.
Have I ever said that under my definition they are all the equivalent of homophobic murderers? I think not. So cut the bullshit. Stop inventing fancy new phrases that mean nothing.
If a woman is attacked in the street and raped by neanderthals I don't classify them as woman hating murderers, I classify them as woman hating rapists.
Do you have a problem with different categories of crime?
It's really simple. You either think homophobia is acceptable. Or you don't. There. Not difficult at all.
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
Yes, Discrimination against.
Yes - denying a right to some people that you provide to others solely on the ground of an innate characteristic is discrimination "against" the former.
This shouldn't be hard to grasp, even for you.
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
The trouble with digital absolute heinousness Trent is that you are either absolutely heinous or you are not heinous at all. With the doctrine everyone who comes under your definition is the equivalent of homophobic murderer. That weakens antihomophobia in my view. It also allows who merely disagree with you to be turned into people who apparently hate and fear homosexuals or whoever.
That may wash in student politics among unformed young adults but not wider.
What bizarre hall of mirrors world of reinvention have you indulged in now. No-one has suggested that the homophobic practices you espouse are equivalent to espousing homophobic murder, though they are on the same spectrum. After all, once you've convinced yourself that homophobia in one form is a good thing, what rationale have you for arguing that it's wrong in principle in another?
-
The trouble with digital absolute heinousness Trent is that you are either absolutely heinous or you are not heinous at all. With the doctrine everyone who comes under your definition is the equivalent of homophobic murderer. That weakens antihomophobia in my view. It also allows who merely disagree with you to be turned into people who apparently hate and fear homosexuals or whoever.
That may wash in student politics among unformed young adults but not wider.
Just as Johnson's and Patel's validation of racist attitudes have caused issues with the racist attackcks on black English footballers, your beliefs that gay people should be treated as inferiors in your church causes issues with attacks on gay people. Why do you think trentvoyager should be treated as an inferior by your church?
-
As atheists you, Hillside and Trent are demanding that same sex couples are entitled to holy matrimony.
And yet by your behaviour and statements have failed to discriminate between holy matrimony and matrimony.
First according to you God is irrelevant. It has been put to you however that God is the most important element hear, and since God is personal and sovereign we come to the second point. How are you going to be monitoring if a holy matrimony is taking place considering the only data is scriptural and traditional.
How do you know. How are you going to check and if that sort of God thing doesn't matter why are you fiercely self contradicting?
Holy matrimony isn't a right for anyone but a gift.It is not a service in the sense that other things are a service and the Church is not a business or a service provider.
Lastly we may have people who may want to deliver same sex holy matrimony but feel that God has not reversed the scriptural definition and that any words mouthed by them are of no use except to satisfy the remote totalitarian dogmatism of atheists like yourself.
That is imv the equivalent of making somebody say something they don't believe in.
That is a description of you gentleman. Sorry if it doesn't flatter.
The best arbiters of this situation have got to be people and priests who genuinely believe in God who are approaching the occasion of holy matrimony.
And that is unlikely to include card carrying atheists.
-
VtH,
As atheists you, Hillside and Trent are demanding that same sex couples are entitled to holy matrimony.
Wrong again. The issue isnt about atheism, and nor for that matter is it about “holy” matrimony. What it’s actually about is whether or not rights (any rights) should be available to some but denied to others solely on the ground if an innate characteristic, in this case sexual orientation.
And yet by your behaviour and statements have failed to discriminate between holy matrimony and matrimony.
Irrelevant. It’s your distinction, and you're welcome to have it – the point though is that you espouse the former being denied to gay people. Try to remember this – it’s what makes you a homophobe.
First according to you God is irrelevant. It has been put to you however that God is the most important element hear,…
Yes, we know you to think there to be a homophobic god. That’s not helping you though.
…and since God is personal and sovereign we come to the second point.
Wrong again. The most you can say here is something like, “since the god story in which I believe entails a god who’s personal and sovereign”. Try to remember this too. Faith claims aren’t premises unless you can justify them.
How are you going to be monitoring if a holy matrimony is taking place considering the only data is scriptural and traditional.
How do you know. How are you going to check and if that sort of God thing doesn't matter why are you fiercely self contradicting?
No-one is “self-contradicting”, and you’re “going to know” if gay couples request “holy” matrimony and are denied while straight people are not. Obviously.
Holy matrimony isn't a right for anyone but a gift.It is not a service in the sense that other things are a service and the Church is not a business or a service provider.
Yes it is, and calling it a “gift” doesn’t help you either – yet again: denying rights, services, goods etc to some people solely on the grounds of same sex attraction is homophobic whether or not you call it a “gift” or anything else.
Lastly we may people who may want to this but feel that God has not reversed the scriptural definition and that any words mouthed by them are of no use except to satisfy the remote totalitarian dogmatism of atheists like yourself.
Incoherent gibberish. From what I can make of the wreckage though, you’re back to trying the “not me guv, it’s my homophobic god wot makes me do it” defence.
That is imv the equivalent of making somebody say something they don't believe in.
No it isn’t. It’s actually just saying that homophobia is a bad thing.
That is a description of you gentleman. Sorry if it doesn't flatter.
No, it’s just another of your lies.
The best arbiters of this situation have got to be people and priests who genuinely believe in God who are approaching the occasion of holy matrimony.
That’s like arguing that the best arbiters of racist policies are the racists. Religions exist within societies, and their practices affect those societies. Your pernicious homophobic god story and homophobic church that implements it give licence to people who would enact their homophobia in more violent ways.
What aren’t you ashamed of that? What aren’t you ashamed of yourself?
And that is unlikely to include card carrying atheists.
The KKK is unlikely to include any card-carrying civil rights activists too. So?
-
Holy matrimony isn't a right for anyone but a gift.It is not a service in the sense that other things are a service and the Church is not a business or a service provider.
That's funny. Really funny.
They don't charge for weddings. Hahahahaha.
You should get on the stage before it wears off.
The C of E sure sounds like a business to me:
The Church of England has a large endowment of £8.7 billion which generates approximately £1 billion a year in income (2019),[1] this is their largest source of revenue. The 2019 Financial report showed that the size of the endowment has been steady or growing slightly in recent years, delivering a return of 10% (2019). In recent years, efforts have been made to make the Church's investments more ethical,[2] by divesting from major arms manufacturers and divesting all fossil fuel investments in 2020.[3] The Church of England has been criticized in the past for investments in arms dealers, unethical loan companies and companies with poor environmental records[4] – however, the Church of England is now committed to being a strong ethical investor.
The Church's Endowment fund is invested in a diversified portfolio across a broad range of asset classes. This includes a variety of equity investments in publicly listed and private companies as well as commercial/residential property and land.[5]
As I said before, and as ever you sidestepped, it's simple. You either think homophobia is a good thing. Or you don't. You either think racism is a good thing or you don't. Continue with any number of issues.
-
It is not a service in the sense that other things are a service and the Church is not a business or a service provider.
Really - and there was me thinking that the services that the CofE provides are called 'Services' e.g. on your average Sunday or a wedding Service, Funeral Service etc.
And equalities legislation doesn't just apply to businesses that are 'for profit' it also applies to non profit making organisations including charities. And the CofE is one of the largest charities about and receives huge tax breaks, including massive reductions in business rates above and beyond those that other charities get. So the CofE should be subject to equalities legislation in the same manner as any other charitable organisation.
The bottom line if the CofE likes all the benefits it gets from some legislation (Charity law) but wants opt outs from other legislation (Equalities law). Sounds like double standards to me.
-
The best arbiters of this situation have got to be people and priests who genuinely believe in God who are approaching the occasion of holy matrimony.
I have friends who are gay and religious. In fact, as far as I am concerned an alarming number of gay people have this unfortunate side to their nature. Be that as it may, why are you promoting discrimination against religious gay people?
I could understand you calling me out for hypocrisy if I was arguing it for myself. I'm not. I actually don't give a toss for myself. The Church can continue on it's little pathetic discriminatory way if it were just me. It's not.
I'm arguing for it for the numerous gay people who seem to think they have a place within the Church, a Church that insists on treating them as second class in some aspects as reflected by your position on this matter.
-
Vlad,
Holy Matrimony simply means a Christian marriage. If a church excludes gay people from this because it doesn't accept gay people can have a Christian marriage in their church, then they are discriminating against gay people on the grounds of their sexual orientation. Homophobia encompasses discrimination against gay people on the grounds of their same gender sexual relations, hence religious homophobia is practised by some churches. If you support such discrimination, then it is accurate to call you a religious homophobe.
-
Vlad,
Holy Matrimony simply means a Christian marriage.
And what do you think that means?
-
Really - and there was me thinking that the services that the CofE provides are called 'Services' e.g. on your average Sunday or a wedding Service, Funeral Service etc.
[/quoteI just knew someone would make this foolish conflation
-
Vlad,
Holy Matrimony simply means a Christian marriage. If a church excludes gay people from this because it doesn't accept gay people can have a Christian marriage in their church, then they are discriminating against gay people on the grounds of their sexual orientation. Homophobia encompasses discrimination against gay people on the grounds of their same gender sexual relations, hence religious homophobia is practised by some churches. If you support such discrimination, then it is accurate to call you a religious homophobe.
I wonder if Tom Robinson, performer , gay and gay rights activist had a holy matrimonial Service or whether one would be denied to him and his wife. I think not if they were Christians. If not, whither sexual orientation?
-
I have friends who are gay and religious. In fact, as far as I am concerned an alarming number of gay people have this unfortunate side to their nature. Be that as it may, why are you promoting discrimination against religious gay people?
I could understand you calling me out for hypocrisy if I was arguing it for myself. I'm not. I actually don't give a toss for myself. The Church can continue on it's little pathetic discriminatory way if it were just me. It's not.
I'm arguing for it for the numerous gay people who seem to think they have a place within the Church, a Church that insists on treating them as second class in some aspects as reflected by your position on this matter.
There don't appear to be any gay Christians on this board. Trent. You have been too successful in your atheist mission perhaps.
-
Really - and there was me thinking that the services that the CofE provides are called 'Services' e.g. on your average Sunday or a wedding Service, Funeral Service etc.
[/quoteI just knew someone would make this foolish conflation
The term 'service' is nopt service to a congregation or a community in the context of worship, it is service to God.
-
There don't appear to be any gay Christians on this board. Trent. You have been too successful in your atheist mission perhaps.
perhaps your homophobia has had more effect.
-
VtH,
And what do you think that means?
It’s your claim, you tell us. From what I can make out though, you think it means that it’s the matrimony service that's extra special, super-duper, the one god really likes the most, laden with special significance type that your church will provide on a discriminatory basis to straight people but not to gay people, oh no Sirree.
It's like the 99 ice cream with a chocolate flake and extra sprinkles vs the plain cornet, only the bloke driving the Toni's ice cream van won't sell the 99 to the ginger kids.
Is that it?
-
The term 'service' is nopt service to a congregation or a community in the context of worship, it is service to God.
Irrelevant - the CofE is providing a service to their congregations and others - including wedding services.
If I go to a local hotel to talk to them about holding my wedding there I am asking them whether they will provide a service to me. If I go to a local CofE church to talk to them about holding my wedding there I am asking them whether they will provide a service to me. What they provide may be slightly different but in both cases they are offering a service to the public.
-
perhaps your homophobia has had more effect.
Given the disproportion between the amount of posts by numerous atheists unsympathetic to Christia nity and me talking about gay marriage.....I support it, Holy same sex marriage...... I have no expertise or revelation on it, I would have to say no it probably isn't my alleged homophobia.
-
Given the disproportion between the amount of posts by numerous atheists unsympathetic to Christia nity and me talking about gay marriage.....I support it, Holy same sex marriage...... I have no expertise or revelation on it, I would have to say no it probably isn't my alleged homophobia.
You don't support gay marriage in your church which shows your homophobia.
-
VtH,
Given the disproportion between the amount of posts by numerous atheists unsympathetic to Christia nity and me talking about gay marriage.....I support it, Holy same sex marriage...... I have no expertise or revelation on it, I would have to say no it probably isn't my alleged homophobia.
That’ll be your actual homophobia.
-
Irrelevant - the CofE is providing a service to their congregations and others - including wedding services. If I go to a local hotel to talk to them about holding my wedding there I am asking them whether they will provide a service to me. If I go to a local CofE church to talk to them about holding my wedding there I am asking them whether they will provide a service to me. What they provide may be slightly different but in both cases they are offering a service to the public.
A wedding service is a time of 'serving' God in worship during which an act of marriage takes place. The serivice is due to, and performed to, God, not the couple.
-
Anchs,
A wedding service is a time of 'serving' God in worship during which an act of marriage takes place. The serivice is due to, and performed to, God, not the couple.
If the officiating clergy think their “service is due to, and preformed to, God” as you put it why then care about whether the couple involved in the act of marriage part are straight or gay?
-
You don't support gay marriage in your church which shows your homophobia.
And that is the reason people of religion of any sexuality have abandoned these message boards populated by aggressive atheists how?
-
VtH,
And that is the reason people of religion of any sexuality have abandoned these message boards populated by aggressive atheists how?
What "aggression" do you think you've identified?
Given your endless evasions, dishonesties, disappearances etc I'm frankly surprised at how little aggression you receive - sheer bloody exasperation at your appalling behaviour maybe, but not aggression.
-
And that is the reason people of religion of any sexuality have abandoned these message boards populated by aggressive atheists how?
You seem to be admitting your homophobia here, did you mean to do that?
-
You seem to be admitting your homophobia here, did you mean to do that?
I think it's perfectly clear whether I am homophobic or not the migration of people of religion of whatever sexuality
is the responsibility of the aggressive atheist cabal who dominate this message board.....no names, no pack drill.
-
VtH,
I think it's perfectly clear whether I am homophobic or not…
Yes it is – you’ve told us that your god story, your church and you are all homophobic. Indeed, you seem to be proud of it.
…the migration of people of religion of whatever sexuality
is the responsibility of the aggressive atheist cabal who dominate this message board.....no names, no pack drill.
No truth either. I would imagine that decent people who actually are Christians would tear their hair out at the damage your behaviour here has done to their faith.
-
VtH,
Yes it is – you’ve told us that your god story, your church and you are all homophobic. Indeed, you seem to be proud of it.
No truth either. I would imagine that decent people who actually are Christians would tear their hair out at the damage your behaviour here has done to their faith.
It must be hard Hillside to be told that you have no demonstrable experience, expertise or empathy an a topic but I don't think turbo charged gas lighting is a convincing response.
Absolute gaslighting, Absolute heinousness, Absolute compliance to our will.
Ancient order of angry atheists.
-
VtH,
It must be hard Hillside to be told that you have no demonstrable experience, expertise or empathy an a topic but I don't think turbo charged gas lighting is a convincing response.
Absolute gaslighting, Absolute heinousness, Absolute compliance to our will.
Ancient order of angry atheists.
Did any of this mean something in your head when you typed it, or was it thrown together randomly by an algorithm of some sort?
More to the point though, does your god story's, your church's and your homophobia really not trouble you in the slightest?
Nothing at all?
-
There don't appear to be any gay Christians on this board. Trent. You have been too successful in your atheist mission perhaps.
As the number of gay Christians on the board is not relevant I'm struggling to see how you think that this is a useful statement.
As to my atheist mission....have you been watching too many Tom Cruise films, perhaps?
I don't get up in the morning and plan my day around how I can heinously upset you. I respond to whatever is posted. No mission. Not even much of an agenda, just trying to point out that you sound just a little bit prejudiced on this subject.
To be clear (as you seem to have problems with understanding nuance within a subject) that's not the same as somebody who beats a gay person to death, or harasses them on the street, or even posts I've see by others on here in the past.
You just sound a little bit prejudiced is all.
Now I think about myself and my attitude to religious people. Do I campaign to stop them going to Church? No. Do I campaign to stop them marrying in Church? No. Do I do anything to stop them following their religion? No. The only thing I ask is that religious people drop the prejudice they hold against gay people who are religious and give them the same respect as other people in the Church.
Is that understandable as an explanation of my position?
-
Trent,
Is that understandable as an explanation of my position?
Very – his standard procedure though will be to wait a bit, then tell you that you’ve said something entirely different, then demand that you defend his entirely different version.
He’s got form.
(Either that or yet another deflection.)
-
Yes, Discrimination against.
Homophobia is, amongst other things, discrimination against gay people based upon their sexuality, like you are defending religious institutions doing.
You see where this is leading, right?
O.
-
Vlad wears rose coloured specs where homophobic religious institutions are concerned. >:(
-
Apart from showing your utter ignorance about homophobia which others have already corrected you on, the idea that my gay friends who I visited in hospital after they were beaten up for being gay were playing the victim is a joke. Your ignorance and vapid ill thought out homophobia in part supports those thugs that beat my friends up. It pisses on any idea that Jesus may have talked about loving other people. It twists the spear in his side. It pushes the crown of thorns deeper onto his head. It adds a further 39 scourges.
You can love a gay person without condoning what they do.
-
Roses,
Vlad wears rose coloured specs where homophobic religious institutions are concerned.
There’s no telling what goes on in hall of mirrors that is Vlad’s mind, but for what it’s worth I don’t get the sense that he’s inherently a homophobe who’s cast around for biblical support for his prejudice (though there are plenty of those too). On the other hand, he seems to have convinced himself that certain things are inerrantly true for very bad reasons, and one of those things is a homophobic god and a homophobic church.
He can’t square that particular circle, so instead he’s tried ever more desperate (and dishonest) tactics – re-defining the word, straw men, various fallacies, collapse into gibberish etc – as attempts at deflecting from the problem.
It’s easy when you’re not part of that personal hell to say, “just be honest then” but when honesty requires the rejection of deep emotional investment perhaps it’s not that easy to do. Chalk it up as another example of religious faith screwing up a moral compass perhaps?
-
You can love a gay person without condoning what they do.
Yeah, treating people as inferior is so about the love. There were Christians that used that approach to slavery.
-
Spud,
You can love a gay person without condoning what they do.
Ah, the old “hate the sin, love the sinner” perniciousness beloved of many a Christian.
First, it’s not your position to “condone” what gay people “do”, any more than it’s their position to condone what you do. What other people do in bed is none of your business. Try to understand that.
Second, if you “love” someone why would you also deny them rights and services? Surely you’d be concerned to ensure they enjoy equality with everyone else wouldn’t you?
-
You can love a gay person without condoning what they do.
Qualified love, though, is a poisoned chalice - if you love someone despite who they are it comes across as love out of expectation, love of the role or the relationship rather than love of the person. You don't love them for them, you love them for something else.
O.
-
Qualified love, though, is a poisoned chalice - if you love someone despite who they are it comes across as love out of expectation, love of the role or the relationship rather than love of the person. You don't love them for them, you love them for something else.
O.
I don't think Spud is talking of ''qualified love''.
-
I don't think Spud is talking of ''qualified love''.
And yet he and you want gay people to be treated as inferior by your church(es)
-
I don't think Spud is talking of ''qualified love''.
By definition he is - claiming to love someone whilst condemning something that is a fundamental part of who they are and their life, such as their sexuality, is a qualified statement of love.
O.
-
By definition he is - claiming to love someone whilst condemning something that is a fundamental part of who they are and their life, such as their sexuality, is a qualified statement of love.
O.
In the context of Marriage though even holy matrimony is just for our life on earth and so presumably is gender and sexuality Since we will become spiritual bodies. These things may be fundamental if this is "The one life we have" Gay Marriage is legal and I support it.
From Spud's perspective since Marriage and sexuality are not fundamentals he is free to love anyone unconditionally.
-
Spud,
Ah, the old “hate the sin, love the sinner” perniciousness beloved of many a Christian.
First, it’s not your position to “condone” what gay people “do”, any more than it’s their position to condone what you do. What other people do in bed is none of your business. Try to understand that.
Second, if you “love” someone why would you also deny them rights and services? Surely you’d be concerned to ensure they enjoy equality with everyone else wouldn’t you?
It's the Church leader's responsibility to bring people to God; this involves among other things teaching what God says about sexual morality. If the Bible teaches that acting on same-sex attraction is immoral, how can a minister teach God's word while affirming a homosexual relationship by conducting a gay wedding? And is it more loving to lead people to think that they are obeying God when they are not, or to tell them straight?
-
In the context of Marriage though even holy matrimony is just for our life on earth and so presumably is gender and sexuality Since we will become spiritual bodies. These things may be fundamental if this is "The one life we have" Gay Marriage is legal and I support it.
Pure assertion with not one iota of evidence to support it.
From Spud's perspective since Marriage and sexuality are not fundamentals he is free to love anyone unconditionally.
But he doesn't does he - even ignoring your baseless assertions his 'love' for gay people is clearly conditional in comparison with heterosexual people as he condemns their ability to express their love and presumably thinks they shouldn't engage in such activities. It is also conditional in that he won't afford the basic fundamental freedoms to get married to gay people.
Seems pretty darned conditional to me.
-
VtH,
In the context of Marriage though even holy matrimony is just for our life on earth and so presumably is gender and sexuality…
As “our life on earth” is the only version we can verify, so are all social conventions.
Since we will become spiritual bodies.
Once again: you can’t have an unqualified faith claim as your premise. What you’re trying again here is akin to:
Premise: since leprechauns are great hoarders…
Conclusion: …it’s reasonable therefore to surmise that they leave their pots of gold at the ends of rainbow.
I’ve corrected you on this before, so why have you just made the same mistake?
These things may be fundamental if this is "The one life we have" Gay Marriage is legal and I support it.
No you don’t. You’ve told us that you support the plain vanilla, common-or-garden, non-“holy” version of equal marriage, but the “holy”, extra special, “God really likes this one” version you want firmly kept away from gay people right? You know, the homophobic part you keep deflecting from.
From Spud's perspective since Marriage and sexuality are not fundamentals he is free to love anyone unconditionally.
Except he doesn’t though - far from it. He’s like a parent who’s given his twins lots of toys to show he loves them, only the really shiny new ones are just for little Tommy to enjoy but are permanently locked away from little Timmy (who by the way also gets to see little Tommy play with them).
How should little Timmy feel about Spud’s “unconditional” love would you say?
-
It's the Church leader's responsibility to bring people to God; this involves among other things teaching what God says about sexual morality. If the Bible teaches that acting on same-sex attraction is immoral, how can a minister teach God's word while affirming a homosexual relationship by conducting a gay wedding? And is it more loving to lead people to think that they are obeying God when they are not, or to tell them straight?
The Bible was written by authors who attributed to god their take on life. To brand same sex relationships as immoral is stupid and very wrong. God's 'thoughts' need to be updated now we live in the 21st century.
-
Pure assertion with not one iota of evidence to support it.
Except this is exactly the model of holy matrimony you are campaigning for Gay Christians to have.But he doesn't does he - even ignoring your baseless assertions his 'love' for gay people is clearly conditional in comparison with heterosexual people as he condemns their ability to express their love
but then so are you by campaigning for Gay Christians to have a version of the model acceptable to you. Own up you don’t really want churches or holy matrimony for anyone.
-
Spud,
It's the Church leader's responsibility to bring people to God; this involves among other things teaching what God says about sexual morality. If the Bible teaches that acting on same-sex attraction is immoral, how can a minister teach God's word while affirming a homosexual relationship by conducting a gay wedding? And is it more loving to lead people to think that they are obeying God when they are not, or to tell them straight?
What you’re telling us here is that your church is forced to behave homophobically because it thinks it’s carrying out the homophobic wishes of the homophobic god it believes exists.
Can you see now how faith beliefs can screw up our ordinary moral compass?
-
VtH,
Except this is exactly the model of holy matrimony you are campaigning for Gay Christians to have.
Yes. If gay Christians find meaning in it and want it why shouldn’t they have it?
…but then so are you by campaigning for Gay Christians to have a version of the model acceptable to you. Own up you don’t really want churches or holy matrimony for anyone.
Another dog’s breakfast attempt at reasoning here: what he (and I) want is a society that thinks that discrimination on the ground of innate characteristics is a bad thing.
The types of rights, the types of characteristics and whether the people arguing that would ever want them for themselves are entirely irrelevant to the argument. You know this already thought don’t you – your (presumably) would argue against “No dogs, no blacks, no Irish” signs in the windows of B&Bs even though you are none of those things and would have no interest in staying in the B&B either.
This shouldn’t be hard to grasp Vlad, even for you.
-
Spud,
What you’re telling us here is that your church is forced to behave homophobically because it thinks it’s carrying out the homophobic wishes of the homophobic god it believes exists.
Can you see now how faith beliefs can screw up our ordinary moral compass?
Oh spare us. When I suggested that morality was homeostatic you dismissed the idea. And here you are talking of moral compasses. Compasses are homeostatic.
You don’t really believe in moral compasses but in moral hegemony and at the moment that means weaponisation of homosexuality.
As for a homophobic god you cannot conceive of a God and so are bound to cast this as homophobia by person.
You aren’t therefore campaigning for holy matrimony at all and don’t actually give a shit about gay Christians.
-
VtH,
Oh spare us. When I suggested that morality was homeostatic you dismissed the idea. And here you are talking of moral compasses. Compasses are homeostatic.
What fresh gibberish are you trying now? Evolution has given us innate behaviours we call “moral”: our genomes survive better in tribal societies than they do living alone, so “murder bad” for example has become embedded. That's the "moral compass".
You don’t really believe in moral compasses but in moral hegemony and at the moment that means weaponisation of homosexuality.
You’ve had this mad stupidity detonated several times now without responding so I don’t know why you’re just repeating it.
As for a homophobic god you cannot conceive of a God and so are bound to cast this as homophobia by person.
I don’t need to “conceive of a God” – I just need to conceive of homophobia. If you want describe a god story that’s homophobic, so be it.
You aren’t therefore campaigning for holy matrimony at all and don’t actually give a shit about gay Christians.
Just telling lies as your latest deflection isn’t helping you. I “campaign” for equal rights about equal marriage services in the same way I’d campaign about “No dogs, no blacks, no Irish” signs in B&Bs, and for the same reasons. Why don’t you?
-
VtH,
Yes. If gay Christians find meaning in it and want it why shouldn’t they have it?
They can........see thread title.
Given that, Is your campaign now all clergy should be coerced into it even though they believe there isn’t or may not be actual meaning in it?
-
VtH,
Your latest evasions and deflections are noted.
They can........see thread title.
Which department of your church should gay people apply to to book a "holy" matrimony service?
Given that, Is your campaign now all clergy should be coerced into it even though believe there isn’t or may not be actual meaning in it?
Is your campaign that all all bus companies should be coerced into allowing black passengers to sit wherever they wish?
-
VtH,
Your latest evasions and deflections are noted.
Which department of your church should gay people apply to to book a "holy" matrimony service?
Is your campaign that all all bus companies should be coerced into allowing black passengers to sit wherever they wish? Is this a holy bus company and when you say black do you actually mean gay? I DON'T think the Cof E dictates which seats Black Christians sit in......or gay Christians.
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
Is this a holy bus company and when you say black do you actually mean gay? I DON'T think the Cof E dictates which seats Black Christians sit in......or gay Christians.
“Analogy (from Greek ἀναλογία, analogia, "proportion", from ana- "upon, according to" [also "against", "anew"] + logos "ratio" [also "word, speech, reckoning"][1][2]) is a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the analog, or source) to another (the target), or a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy
Your church and the racist bus company are analogous.
Try to understand this – it’s not difficult (or shouldn’t be).
-
https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/heartbreak-and-hallelujahs-as-methodists-vote-to-allow-same-sex-marriage
Another example of the modern trend to "reinterpret" the apostolic teachings to comply with popular opinion.
The teachings of Jesus did not follow popular opinion - they gave us the divine message which leads to eternal salvation. Ignore it at your peril.
-
In the context of Marriage though even holy matrimony is just for our life on earth and so presumably is gender and sexuality.
Even if you presume for a moment that this spiritual post-season frolic is a real thing, why would you presume we leave our sexuality behind? God allegedly made us all in their image, right - man, woman, intersex, hermaphrodite, gay, lesbian, queer... why presume God isn't gender-fluid and pansexual and prepared to accept that we can be too?
Since we will become spiritual bodies.
If this flesh thing is fleeting, why the hang up with what pieces of flesh are put where - isn't the spiritual love connection the important bit?
These things may be fundamental if this is "The one life we have" Gay Marriage is legal and I support it.
Excellent.
From Spud's perspective since Marriage and sexuality are not fundamentals he is free to love anyone unconditionally.
No, being wrong doesn't mean that the love is unconditional, it means (if true) he doesn't appreciate why it's qualified.
O.
-
Another example of the modern trend to "reinterpret" the apostolic teachings to comply with popular opinion.
The teachings of Jesus did not follow popular opinion - they gave us the divine message which leads to eternal salvation. Ignore it at your peril.
Like all this modern 'reinterpreting' so people can't have slaves any more, eh? ::)
-
The teachings of Jesus did not follow popular opinion - they gave us the divine message which leads to eternal salvation. Ignore it at your peril.
I wasn't aware that the teachings of Jesus had anything to say regarding homosexuality - unless it was the general encouragement to love all, and not judge? He did, I'm led to believe, have something to say about religious administrators gatekeeping access to the church, though, didn't he?
Now whomever it was that was writing letters claiming to be St Paul seemed to be a bit of a homophobe, but that's not the same thing as Jesus purporting to have espoused it, right?
O.
-
I wasn't aware that the teachings of Jesus had anything to say regarding homosexuality - unless it was the general encouragement to love all, and not judge? He did, I'm led to believe, have something to say about religious administrators gatekeeping access to the church, though, didn't he?
Now whomever it was that was writing letters claiming to be St Paul seemed to be a bit of a homophobe, but that's not the same thing as Jesus purporting to have espoused it, right?
O.
The Gospel teachings are quite clear that "marriage" is the union of a man and a woman.
-
AB,
The Gospel teachings are quite clear that "marriage" is the union of a man and a woman.
The Gospel teachings are just as clear on various matters that you think to be morally reprehensible. For some reason though you want to cling on to the homophobic bits specifically.
Why is that?
-
The Gospel teachings are quite clear that "marriage" is the union of a man and a woman.
In the instances where Jesus talks about the point of marriage, nothing in it precludes those benefits being manifest by a gay couple; raising of children, two being better than one because there is mutual support and the like.
There is a specific reference that marriage is expected to be one man and one woman, but there is also the expectation that the woman is subservient to the authority of the man, and that there is no concept of divorce, and yet both of those ideas have been put aside by common-sense over time. Why still cling to the homophobia?
O.
-
Another example of the modern trend to "reinterpret" the apostolic teachings to comply with popular opinion.
The teachings of Jesus did not follow popular opinion - they gave us the divine message which leads to eternal salvation. Ignore it at your peril.
Had the Saviour wished to play the popular card, there would have been no Saviour.
-
Anchs,
Had the Saviour wished to play the popular card, there would have been no Saviour.
You'd have a lot of work to show that there ever was a "saviour" rather than a travelling mystic and street conjuror whose story happened to catch the wind, but in any case isn't the point rather that (according to the AB at least) he'd have played the populist card rather than the popular one? It's as old as the hills - just pick a blameless minority group - gays, Jews, Mexicans, whatever - and convince the mob that they're somehow immoral and therefore inferior, "other". Gays? Boo! Jews? Boo! etc.
-
Had the Saviour wished to play the popular card, there would have been no Saviour.
Is it that, or is difficult to play the popularity card when you started out picking a favourite tribe and only later decided to try and be there for everyone?
O.
-
Anchs,
You'd have a lot of work to show that there ever was a "saviour" rather than a travelling mystic and street conjuror whose story happened to catch the wind, but in any case isn't the point rather that (according to the AB at least) he'd have played the populist card rather than the popular one? It's as old as the hills - just pick a blameless minority group - gays, Jews, Mexicans, whatever - and convince the mob that they're somehow immoral and therefore inferior, "other". Gays? Boo! Jews? Boo! etc.
I needed a Saviour.
In Him I found all I needed.
I don't need to prove anything to anyone; He has proved Himself to me over four and a half decades.
-
Anchs,
I needed a Saviour.
In Him I found all I needed.
I don't need to prove anything to anyone; He has proved Himself to me over four and a half decades.
I'm sure you believe that to be true. If you want to use the claim as a premise for an argument though, then you do need to "prove" (ie justify) it. To get back to the point though, if you think Jesus endorsed denying rights to gay people because of their sexual orientation then that makes him a homophobe, and "yes, but he's Jesus" doesn't change that. Sorry.
-
In the instances where Jesus talks about the point of marriage, nothing in it precludes those benefits being manifest by a gay couple; raising of children, two being better than one because there is mutual support and the like.
There is a specific reference that marriage is expected to be one man and one woman, but there is also the expectation that the woman is subservient to the authority of the man, and that there is no concept of divorce, and yet both of those ideas have been put aside by common-sense over time. Why still cling to the homophobia?
O.
My wife couldn’t even stand me leading in ballroom dancing so submission was a no no at the beginning........for her that is.
No concept of divorce? That wasn’t the case since there were debates described in the New Testament about what to do if non convert spouses wanted to divorce their converted spouses.
-
Anchs,
You'd have a lot of work to show that there ever was a "saviour" rather than a travelling mystic and street conjuror whose story happened to catch the wind, but in any case isn't the point rather that (according to the AB at least) he'd have played the populist card rather than the popular one? It's as old as the hills - just pick a blameless minority group - gays, Jews, Mexicans, whatever - and convince the mob that they're somehow immoral and therefore inferior, "other". Gays? Boo! Jews? Boo! etc.
And yet your the bloke that wants Jesus at the centre of every marriage.
Come clean Hillside you are just milking gay marriage for all it’s worth to the atheist cause.
You are an equalities man gone over the top at best.
If this were a bus company you would want the woman’s toilet to be filled with urinals.
-
My wife couldn’t even stand me leading in ballroom dancing so submission was a no no at the beginning........for her that is.
Good for her, but surely you weren't going to stand for such unBiblical behaviour in your 'holy' matrimony?
No concept of divorce? That wasn’t the case since there were debates described in the New Testament about what to do if non convert spouses wanted to divorce their converted spouses.
If they weren't believers was it 'holy' enough to count?
O.
-
I needed a Saviour.
In Him I found all I needed.
I don't need to prove anything to anyone; He has proved Himself to me over four and a half decades.
See, in the best version of this story you'd realise that it was you all along, and all you needed was to believe in yourself, but there's still time...
O.
-
Good for her, but surely you weren't going to stand for such unBiblical behaviour in your 'holy' matrimony?
If they weren't believers was it 'holy' enough to count?
O.
Fucking hell they want to criminalise ballroom dancers now in the name of equality.
I think you guys would prefer people to just stand on their own and jiggle............which rather reflects your input into this forum.
-
See, in the best version of this story you'd realise that it was you all along, and all you needed was to believe in yourself, but there's still time...
O.
Says the man who wants marriages policed to make sure they are sufficiently holy.
I think Anchs probably does love himself as he loves his neighbour and lacks an overinflated reckoning of himself.
-
Is it that, or is difficult to play the popularity card when you started out picking a favourite tribe and only later decided to try and be there for everyone?
O.
picking out a favourite tribe? Yeh, they’ve had a great time of it haven’t they.
-
See, in the best version of this story you'd realise that it was you all along, and all you needed was to believe in yourself, but there's still time...
O.
I tried that.
God had other ideas, though.
-
I tried that.
God had other ideas, though.
God does have strange ideas.
I'll create people in my own image but I'll set some of them up for discrimination and prejudice.
Clever deity.
-
Anchs,
I'm sure you believe that to be true. If you want to use the claim as a premise for an argument though, then you do need to "prove" (ie justify) it. To get back to the point though, if you think Jesus endorsed denying rights to gay people because of their sexual orientation then that makes him a homophobe, and "yes, but he's Jesus" doesn't change that. Sorry.
I don't believe Jesus did endorse denying rights to gay people on the basis of their sexual orientation. How could he? He was fully human and he loved people, all he asked was that we love one another. In other words, treat others as you would like to be treated.
Some of his followers did endorse denying rights to gay people and the Jews of his time had rigid rules about sexual behaviour. But that was not Jesus who demonstrated on more than one occasion that observing the spirit of the law rather than the letter was the way to go. He abhorred self righteous dogmatists, though he understood them and no doubt loved, without liking, them.
-
God does have strange ideas.
I'll create people in my own image but I'll set some of them up for discrimination and prejudice.
Clever deity.
'the image of God' can be misinterpreted.
I have blind and disabled Christian friends who were disabled from birth.
Is that discriminatory as werll?
-
'the image of God' can be misinterpreted.
I have blind and disabled Christian friends who were disabled from birth.
Is that discriminatory as werll?
Of course it is if you discriminate against them (or your church does) on the basis of their disability.
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
And yet your the bloke that wants Jesus at the centre of every marriage.
Stop lying. What I “want” is rights and services offered equally, not withheld of the ground of sexual orientation. What those rights and services happen to be is neither here nor there.
Come clean Hillside you are just milking gay marriage for all it’s worth to the atheist cause.
Stop lying. This has nothing to do with atheism – just with thinking the homophobia you espouse is morally indefensible.
You are an equalities man gone over the top at best.
Either you have equality or you haven’t – there is no “over the top” option.
If this were a bus company you would want the woman’s toilet to be filled with urinals.
This isn’t just stupid, it’s incoherent. If your church ran a bus company I would want it to offer its services equally. For some reason though you don’t think the same principle should apply to church matters. That makes you and your church homophobic.
Deal with it.
-
Anchs,
'the image of God' can be misinterpreted.
I have blind and disabled Christian friends who were disabled from birth.
Is that discriminatory as werll?
Very. Don't you think so too?
-
Of course it is if you discriminate against them (or your church does) on the basis of their disability.
Ah.
But no church can accommodate every disability.
There are buildings I simply cannot enter, because the light quality actually hurts my eyes.
Is that the designer's fault when, in the fifteenth century, he did not take this into account?
If the theology of a church is offensive to someone, then that someone might want to found another one based, not on the Christian Scripture, but on whatever the current societal trend is.
-
AB,
Ah.
But no church can accommodate every disability.
There are buildings I simply cannot enter, because the light quality actually hurts my eyes.
Is that the designer's fault when, in the fifteenth century, he did not take this into account?
You’re conflating practical access issues with policy here. Your church is fully geared up for conducting marriage services – it’s policy though is to deny them to people with the wrong sexual orientation. That’s a choice; your light issue isn’t.
If the theology of a church is offensive to someone, then that someone might want to found another one based, not on the Christian Scripture, but on whatever the current societal trend is.
If the policy of the racist bus company is offensive to someone, then that someone might want to find another one based, not on the bus company’s racist policy, but on whatever the current societal trend is.
Are you cool with that?
-
Ah.
But no church can accommodate every disability.
There are buildings I simply cannot enter, because the light quality actually hurts my eyes.
Is that the designer's fault when, in the fifteenth century, he did not take this into account?
If the theology of a church is offensive to someone, then that someone might want to found another one based, not on the Christian Scripture, but on whatever the current societal trend is.
By law you are required to make reasonable adjustments, if you do that then you aren't discriminating. If you fail to do that then you are discriminating.
So the equivalent of the approach of most churches to gay people would be a situation where a church could easily make an adjustment to accommodate a person with a disability but refuses to do so. Indeed in the case of marriage no adjustment would be necessary - the equivalent would be refusing to marry people with disabilities when they could easily do so.
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
Stop lying. What I “want” is rights and services offered equally, not withheld of the ground of sexual orientation. What those rights and services happen to be is neither here nor there.
Stop lying. This has nothing to do with atheism – just with thinking the homophobia you espouse is morally indefensible.
Either you have equality or you haven’t – there is no “over the top” option.
This isn’t just stupid, it’s incoherent. If your church ran a bus company I would want it to offer its services equally. For some reason though you don’t think the same principle should apply to church matters. That makes you and your church homophobic.
Deal with it.
That’s all very well Hillside but how is the installation of the Tampon machines in the Bus station gents toilets getting on?
-
Christian homophobes use the Bible as an excuse for their nastiness, yet turn a blind eye to the Biblical characters who cheated on their wives. That might explain the number of oh so holy on Sunday Christians I have come across who have cheated on their wives! >:(
-
Christian homophobes use the Bible as an excuse for their nastiness, yet turn a blind eye to the Biblical characters who cheated on their wives. That might explain the number of oh so holy on Sunday Christians I have come across who have cheated on their wives! >:(
How do you account for the number of non Christian men who cheat on their wives and husbands?
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
That’s all very well Hillside...
Identifying your lying and telling you to stop doing it is "all very well"?
...but how is the installation of the Tampon machines in the Bus station gents toilets getting on?
You obviously think you're making a point here. I have no idea what you think it is though.
Tell you what: rather than keep deflecting, why not instead finally try to address your homophobia?
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
This isn’t just stupid, it’s incoherent. If your church ran a bus company I would want it to offer its services equally. For some reason though you don’t think the same principle should apply to church matters. That makes you and your church homophobic.
Again, how are you going to police your idea of equality as you would like it to be applied to holy matrimony. How are you going to ensure that Jesus is front and centre during the ceremony?
You have so far declined to offer any guide on the practicalities. And no, It isn’t anybodies problem except yours.
Did you know several people have been seriously injured who are under 1 metre 50 at the Bluehillside fun fair because you did away with the height restrictions.
-
picking out a favourite tribe? Yeh, they’ve had a great time of it haven’t they.
That he appears to have failed to come through on the promise he made is irrelevant to the fact that choosing a favourite tribe in the first place undermines the later claim to be here for everyone. It would seem amongst God's many capabilities are lack of foresight, bias and incompetence - truly we are all made in their image.
O.
-
That he appears to have failed to come through on the promise he made is irrelevant to the fact that choosing a favourite tribe in the first place undermines the later claim to be here for everyone. It would seem amongst God's many capabilities are lack of foresight, bias and incompetence - truly we are all made in their image.
O.
You obviously have little or no idea about this matter.
Lack of foresight? Do you mean lack of foreskin? It would certainly make more sense than what you have written.
Take it up with God or your local rabbi.
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
Again, how are you going to police your idea of equality as you would like it to be applied to holy matrimony. How are you going to ensure that Jesus is front and centre during the ceremony?
Are you not reading or not comprehending here?
First, “yes it’s homophobic but I don’t see it could be fixed, so leave well alone” is a bad argument in principle.
Second, I don’t want to “ensure that Jesus is front and centre during the ceremony” at all. What I do want though is any such service that is offered to be offered equally to straight and gay couples alike. It’s simple enough isn’t it?
Third, removing from the legislation the homophobia exemptions the church enjoys would seem to be a good start I’d have thought, as for that matter would withdrawing tax breaks for homophobic churches. People used to put “No dogs, No Blacks, No Irish” signs in the windows off their B&Bs too, but we seem to have fixed that without too much difficulty. What’s so special about your homophobic clergy that we couldn’t fix that too?
You have so far declined to offer any guide on the practicalities. And no, It isn’t anybodies problem except yours.
See above.
Did you know several people have been seriously injured who are under 1 metre 50 at the Bluehillside fun fair because you did away with the height restrictions.
More incoherent idiocy. Did you know that lots of gay people have been beaten up in the street because of a culture that you and your church espouse?
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
Are you not reading or not comprehending here?
First, “yes it’s homophobic but I don’t see it could be fixed, so leave well alone” is a bad argument in principle.
Second, I don’t want to “ensure that Jesus is front and centre during the ceremony” at all. What I do want though is any such service that is offered to be offered equally to straight and gay couples alike. It’s simple enough isn’t it?
Third, removing from the legislation the homophobia exemptions the church enjoys would seem to be a good start I’d have thought, as for that matter would withdrawing tax breaks for homophobic churches. People used to put “No dogs, No Blacks, No Irish” signs in the windows off their B&Bs too, but we seem to have fixed that without too much difficulty. What’s so special about your homophobic clergy that we couldn’t fix that too?
See above.
More incoherent idiocy. Did you know that lots of gay people have been beaten up in the street because of a culture that you and your church espouse?
If you cannot police holy matrimony or the holy then you are in exactly the same position as I am.
Since you are calling me a homophobe on the strength of that, what does that make you?
-
How do you account for the number of non Christian men who cheat on their wives and husbands?
What a stupid reply, but not surprising coming from you. ::)
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
If you cannot police holy matrimony or the holy then you are in exactly the same position as I am.
The position you're in is being a homophobe, and you can police it as I just explained. Start with removing the homophobia exemptions, then leave it to people to report breaches of the law as it would then be. You know, just like we did with racist B&B owners. Even you should be able to grasp this.
Since you are calling me a homophobe on the strength of that, what does that make you?
Straw man noted. I'm calling you a homophobe because you espouse homophobic practices. I on the other hand do not. Do you get it now?
-
Roses,
What a stupid reply, but not surprising coming from you. ::)
It's Vlad - what do you expect? I've never been able to work out whether he's epically stupid, epically dishonest or a mix of the two.
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
The position you're in is being a homophobe, and you can police it as I just explained. Start with removing the homophobia exemptions, then leave it to people to report breaches of the law as it would then be. You know, just like we did with racist B&B owners. Even you should be able to grasp this.
Straw man noted. I'm calling you a homophobe because you espouse homophobic practices. I on the other hand do not. Do you get it now?
Ok let me provide the answer you lack the fibre to own up to. It makes you a homophobe because we are in the same position of not being able to legislate against God himself and that is how you are defining homophobia here.
So, Do you have any evidence of ''homophobia'' above and beyond this?
With regards B and B racism. It was entirely obvious given witnesses that a service is or is not being provided. How so with Jesus being front and centre in a wedding ceremony? The B and B people, that is their complete business. Holy matrimony, not so the church.
Previously I have thought that if I were in legal difficulties and needed getting off the hook you would be the man.
After this thread I'm afraid I can no longer endorse you because of your inability to discern different contexts.
-
Roses,
It's Vlad - what do you expect? I've never been able to work out whether he's epically stupid, epically dishonest or a mix of the two.
Maybe he gets off on winding people up with his crazy posts. ::)
-
Christian homophobes use the Bible as an excuse for their nastiness, yet turn a blind eye to the Biblical characters who cheated on their wives. That might explain the number of oh so holy on Sunday Christians I have come across who have cheated on their wives! >:(
..and who have cheated on their husbands?
It's not unknown.
Nobody's perfect.
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
Ok let me provide the answer you lack the fibre to own up to. It makes you a homophobe because we are in the same position of not being able to legislate against God himself and that is how you are defining homophobia here.
What an utterly bizarre reply.
First, I cannot “lack the fibre to own up to” a completely nonsensical response.
Second, yet again you can’t have “legislate against God himself” as your premise when “God himself” is just your unqualified faith claim. I may as well introduce leprechauns as my premise for all the validity either of them has. What you’re trying to say here is, “you can’t legislate against the enactment of my preferred god story” – which of course isn’t true.
Third, I have been and continue to define homophobia in the way you describe and espouse what your church does: the denial of rights to some people on the basis of their sexual orientation that are provided to people of a different sexual orientation.
Fourth, “OK my god is homophobic but you can’t do anything about that, so tough” is telling us only that you subscribe to a homophobic god story – no more, no less.
So, Do you have any evidence of ''homophobia'' above and beyond this?
As “this” is just another of your straw men, yes: the evidence of your homophobia is your espousal of a homophobic god story and of the related homophobic church practices.
With regards B and B racism. It was entirely obvious given witnesses that a service is or is not being provided. How so with Jesus being front and centre in a wedding ceremony? The B and B people, that is their complete business. Holy matrimony, not so the church.
The ”holy” matrimony service is just that - a service. Either you provide it equally, or you provide it on a discriminatory basis on the ground of sexual orientation.
The B&B service is just that - a service. Either you provide it equally, or you provide it on a discriminatory basis on the ground of race.
It’s that simple. Why then is it still confusing you?
Previously I have thought that if I were in legal difficulties and needed getting off the hook you would be the man.
I wouldn’t represent you because witnesses have to be honest and credible.
After this thread I'm afraid I can no longer endorse you because of your inability to discern different contexts.
Except of course that’s how analogies actually work FFS: the contexts are different but the principle is the same. Try to understand this to avoid committing the same howler in future.
-
You obviously have little or no idea about this matter.
Obviously, because you're about to point out where I'm wro... oh, wait, no, that's not how Vlad works, is it.
Lack of foresight? Do you mean lack of foreskin?
A strong rebuttal, call up the child abuse bit to reinforce the moral integrity of your sky-fairy story, good plan.
It would certainly make more sense than what you have written.
Because I could have simply toured around the cote-du-ad-hominem and popped in for lunch at Chateau non sequitur as you've apparently elected to do.
Take it up with God or your local rabbi.
Make a point, rebut a point, put up something resembling a case for something.
O.
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
“legislate against God himself” as your premise when “God himself” is just your unqualified faith claim
That this is holy matrimony that you are wishing to enforce makes this an usual starting point since you are seeking legislation concerning the holy and specifically the presence of God.
Effectively you want the holy to cease to be recognised except for the purposes of holy matrimony.
A change of legislation to not recognise holy matrimony which would not then be a thing would then result in only civil marriages recognised in church as lawful.
The church could then give up marriages or give civil marriages. Any thing else that is believed to be happening including holy matrimony is then merely carried out in the faith of those involved.
Marriage not occurring legally unless the celebrant is registered to perform civil marriage.
Similarly marriage would never be refused.
Third, I have been and continue to define homophobia in the way you describe and espouse what your church does: the denial of rights to some people on the basis of their sexual orientation that are provided to people of a different sexual orientation.
Fourth, “OK my god is homophobic but you can’t do anything about that, so tough” is telling us only that you subscribe to a homophobic god story – no more, no less.
But you have already sought to rule God out and are now trying to revive ‘holy homophobia’
The ”holy” matrimony service is just that - a service. Either you provide it equally, or you provide it on a discriminatory basis on the ground of sexual orientation.
But you have already persuaded us that holy matrimony is not even a thing Hillside because God cannot be proved.
-
A change of legislation to not recognise holy matrimony which would not then be a thing would then result in only civil marriages recognised in church as lawful.
But the law currently doesn't recognise 'holy matrimony' it only recognises marriage. So the only bit of a marriage ceremony held in a church recognised in law is the very tiny bit involving the required legal words. There is also a requirement that the person conducting the ceremony is authorised so to do as a legal registrar and that the premises are licensed. The rest is of no interest as far a marriage legislation is concerned, and that includes all of the religious stuff.
-
But the law currently doesn't recognise 'holy matrimony' it only recognises marriage. So the only bit of a marriage ceremony held in a church recognised in law is the very tiny bit involving the required legal words. There is also a requirement that the person conducting the ceremony is authorised so to do as a legal registrar and that the premises are licensed. The rest is of no interest as far a marriage legislation is concerned, and that includes all of the religious stuff.
so that bit as you say is the only legal bit that should be imparted but to anybody. I can go along with that.
Since holy matrimony is not really a thing then why or more to the point what Is it that Hillside wants to legislate?
-
so that bit as you say is the only legal bit that should be imparted but to anybody. I can go along with that.
But it would remain discrimination if a church permitted a same sex couple to have the legal bit in their church but refused to allow them to provide the service of the religious ceremony while allowing opposite sex couples the option of having both elements.
But, of course, the CofE etc won't unpick the two elements (abeit only one of which is actually 'marriage' in the eyes of the law) and therefore won't allow a same sex couple to have the legal bit within a religious ceremony.
Since holy matrimony is not really a thing then why or more to the point what Is it that Hillside wants to legislate?
You will have to take that up with him, but as I've pointed out it remains discrimination on the grounds of sexuality regardless of the legality (in marriage terms) of each element as the church is treating a same sex couple less favourably on the basis of their sexuality. It is currently not unlawful discrimination as churches have an opt out of the basic provisions of the Equalities Act on this matter, however it is discrimination none the less.
-
But it would remain discrimination if a church permitted a same sex couple to have the legal bit in their church but refused to allow them to provide the service of the religious ceremony while allowing opposite sex couples the option of having both elements.
That isn't a service though because it is not a thing according to Hillsides opening Gambit.
It is currently not unlawful discrimination as churches have an opt out of the basic provisions of the Equalities Act on this matter, however it is discrimination none the less.
Yes it's holy homophobia apparently. So Basically Hillside wants people prosecuted for not delivering something which isn't a thing twice over.
-
so that bit as you say is the only legal bit that should be imparted but to anybody. I can go along with that.
Since holy matrimony is not really a thing then why or more to the point what Is it that Hillside wants to legislate?
You're missing the point: this 'holy matrimony' is a (pun intended) 'service' that is offered by religious organisations in the form of an 'event' that contains both the legal elements of marriage and various add-ons of a religious nature.
The problem you are studiously avoiding is that the organisations providing this particular 'service/event', that you refer to as "holy matrimony", are seeking to limit access on a discriminatory basis by excluding certain couples on the basis of their sexuality - and that is homophobic.
-
You're missing the point: this 'holy matrimony' is a (pun intended) 'service' that is offered by religious organisations in the form of an 'event' that contains both the legal elements of marriage and various add-ons of a religious nature.
The problem you are studiously avoiding is that the organisations providing this particular 'service/event', that you refer to as "holy matrimony", are seeking to limit access on a discriminatory basis by excluding certain couples on the basis of their sexuality - and that is homophobic.
I'm quite willing for the legally required sections i.e. those that are demonstrable and not articles of faith claim, to be delivered in church separately. According to Hillside anything else that is deemed 'holy' cannot be demonstrated to be a thing and as the professor has pointed out is not legally recognised as matrimony. It seems therefor that nobody is being denied matrimony as long as they receive the legal service.
In terms of the non legal content. There is no legal service being performed.
I would love to see how you atheist guys would even begin to get this through and enforce it. What's the plan?
-
Yes it's holy homophobia apparently.
Indeed it is - there is no doubt about it.
So Basically Hillside wants people prosecuted for not delivering something which isn't a thing twice over.
Just because the religious elements aren't part of legal marriage doesn't mean they aren't a thing. They most definitely are - they are a service offered by religious organisations alongside a legal marriage ceremony. But that service is offered only to opposite sex couples and therefore same sex couples are treated less favourably in the provision of that service, hence it is discrimination. As I've mentioned before the law provides an opt out on the provisions of the Equalities Act so it is currently not unlawful discrimination - the discussion here is whether that opt out to religions is reasonable or amounts to a special privilege not afforded to other organisations whose fundamental ethos may also be inherently racist, sexist, homophobic etc.
-
In terms of the non legal content. There is no legal service being performed.
Irrelevant - the Equalities Act covers the provision of services, not 'legal' services. The delivery of the religious ceremony by a religious organisation is the provision of a service.
-
Irrelevant - the Equalities Act covers the provision of services, not 'legal' services. The delivery of the religious ceremony by a religious organisation is the provision of a service.
Not if one has to, according to Hillside, demonstrate the existence of the holy. If Holy is not demonstrable then nothing can be said to have been offered. There is no such thing as holy matrimony until God demonstrated. How can you then be prosecuted for something that isn't a thing? A good analogy would be sueing for not getting a laugh from an atheist comedian.
Since an atheist comedian is a contradiction in terms. One cannot expect a laugh, and should not complain when that transpires. An atheist comedian cannot offer a service. Laughs cannot be guaranteed even though I've paid good money and finally holy matrimony is not to be taken lightly therefore if one says there is no such thing as holy and then wants to prosecute for holiness undelivered then one is certainly taking it lightly and shouldn't have it anyway.
-
Indeed it is - there is no doubt about it.
But of course there is. And Hillside has introduced that doubt but starting us of on ''it doesn't exist as a thing until demonstrated.''
-
But of course there is.
No there isn't - discrimination in legal terms is defined as treating someone less favourably in the provision of goods or services on the basis of one of a range of protected characteristics, one of which is sexuality. The church clearly treats gay couples less favourably that straight couples in this case as they offer a service to the latter which they refuse to offer to the former.
The argument isn't whether it is discrimination - it clearly is - the argument is about whether churches should have an opt out meaning it isn't unlawful discrimination. Regardless of whether it is lawful discrimination or unlawful discrimination it is still discrimination.
-
I'm quite willing for the legally required sections i.e. those that are demonstrable and not articles of faith claim, to be delivered in church separately. According to Hillside anything else that is deemed 'holy' cannot be demonstrated to be a thing and as the professor has pointed out is not legally recognised as matrimony. It seems therefor that nobody is being denied matrimony as long as they receive the legal service.
In terms of the non legal content. There is no legal service being performed.
I would love to see how you atheist guys would even begin to get this through and enforce it. What's the plan?
Good heavens you are dense today: of course the 'holy' element is a 'thing', if only in the sense that it is a component part of an event, in that certain actions/words/hymns/prayers etc that are specific to the religious aspects of a religious wedding are occurring.
Those who wish a religious wedding presumably want these religious elements - the 'holy' bit in your terms - yet you wish to deny them that because of their sexuality, which makes you homophobic - and I'm afraid no amount of wriggling gets you out of that.
-
Good heavens you are dense today: of course the 'holy' element is a 'thing', if only in the sense that it is a component part of an event, in that certain actions/words/hymns/prayers etc that are specific to the religious aspects of a religious wedding are occurring.
Those who wish a religious wedding presumably want these religious elements - the 'holy' bit in your terms - yet you wish to deny them that because of their sexuality, which makes you homophobic - and I'm afraid no amount of wriggling gets you out of that.
But you are picking and choosing elements. The holy isn't the holy without God himself. Anyone wanting anything less than that is wanting something else.
-
But you are picking and choosing elements. The holy isn't the holy without God himself. Anyone wanting anything less than that is wanting something else.
No I'm not: as far as I can see a religious marriage is characterised by the inclusion of religious rituals (of whatever flavour), and that these rituals occur is a core aspect of a 'holy' (your term) wedding - you seek to deny access to these religious rituals on the basis of the sexuality of certain couples, and that is homophobic.
Whether or not your preferred version of 'God' exists is irrelevant to your denial of access to the religious aspects of a 'holy' (your term) marriage - which is a public legal service provided by religious organisations.
-
The holy isn't the holy without God himself.
Well firstly let's state the obvious - there is no evidence that god even exists. But beyond that, this is a matter for the church and its 'laws' not for the laws of the land. The church can establish whatever canon law it wishes provided it doesn't conflict with the land of the law, and where it does the secular law takes precedence. That's how it works - the church is no more above the law of the land than anyone else.
-
No I'm not: as far as I can see a religious marriage is characterised by the inclusion of religious rituals (of whatever flavour), and that these rituals occur is a core aspect of a 'holy' (your term) wedding - you seek to deny access to these religious rituals on the basis of the sexuality of certain couples, and that is homophobic.
Whether or not your preferred version of 'God' exists is irrelevant to your denial of access to the religious aspects of a 'holy' (your term) marriage - which is a public legal service provided by religious organisations.
In Christian understanding, the term 'holy' means 'set apart for God.
A service of worship is set apart for God. Marriage if conducted by a Christian is a committment of two people set apart by God for a purpose.
Therefore any 'holy marriage' ceremony is a committment to God and all that entails.
-
Well firstly let's state the obvious - there is no evidence that god even exists. But beyond that, this is a matter for the church and its 'laws' not for the laws of the land. The church can establish whatever canon law it wishes provided it doesn't conflict with the land of the law, and where it does the secular law takes precedence. That's how it works - the church is no more above the law of the land than anyone else.
And the law of the land is ''No requirement for the church to provide marriage services beyond those mentioned in scripture and tradition and current law.''
Should the law change I see no legal obligation for the church to have to provide anything but civil marriage since it would be nigh on impossible to monitor the holiness of a marriage. Something in fact you keep emphasising. You seem to want your cake and eat it.
-
And the law of the land is ''No requirement for the church to provide marriage services beyond those mentioned in scripture and tradition and current law.''
No it isn't - the law of the land has no interest in scripture and tradition etc.
The law of the land simply states that it is unlawful for a service provider to treat an individual less favourably on the basis of their sexuality. However, in the case of a marriage ceremony religious organisations are permitted an opt out to the basic provision of the Equalities Act.
-
And the law of the land is ''No requirement for the church to provide marriage services beyond those mentioned in scripture and tradition and current law.''
The law of the land is that free expression of religion (a philosophical choice) is put on an equal footing with sexuality, gender, race, age and disability (inherent characteristics) and the interpretation of the government of the conflict between those principles is that organised religion should be permitted to put its free expression before the right of others to equal treatment.
Should the law change I see no legal obligation for the church to have to provide anything but civil marriage since it would be nigh on impossible to monitor the holiness of a marriage.
How do you monitor the holiness of marriages now? How many church weddings produce beaten spouses, infidelity, abandonment, dishonour etc?
Something in fact you keep emphasising. You seem to want your cake and eat it.
Even if true, a more creditable stance than not wanting other people to eat cake because you've got a special imaginary cake that's somehow allergic to gay people...
O.
-
The law of the land is that free expression of religion (a philosophical choice) is put on an equal footing with sexuality, gender, race, age and disability (inherent characteristics) and the interpretation of the government of the conflict between those principles is that organised religion should be permitted to put its free expression before the right of others to equal treatment.
How do you monitor the holiness of marriages now?
Through scripture, through tradition, and through spiritual discernment. How do you plan for the state to monitor it?
How many church weddings produce beaten spouses, infidelity, abandonment, dishonour etc?
How is this relevant?
-
Through scripture, through tradition, and through spiritual discernment. How do you plan for the state to monitor it?
I don't see a need for it to be monitored at all, I'll get the ONS to put it alongside fairy interventions and unicorn maulings.
How is this relevant?
In the grand scheme, we're talking about religion, so how is any of it relevant. Specific to this discussion, you're concerned for the 'holiness' of marriage by ensuring that 'teh Gayz' don't get in, but I don't see any monitoring of the forsaking of those honour, cherish, obey kind of vows... or are they less important?
O.
-
Through scripture, through tradition, and through spiritual discernment. How do you plan for the state to monitor it?
Why would the state need to monitor the veracity etc of religious claims. That isn't relevant to the discussion.
All that is required for the state to set out what is, and what is not, lawful and then allow the judicial system to follow. So currently the state has decreed that it is not unlawful for churches to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality in the provision of the service of providing a marriage ceremony. However were the state to remove that opt out were someone to be turned away by a church on eh grounds of sexuality, when asking to be married then that would be unlawful and the discrimination could be challenged in the courts.
-
Why would the state need to monitor the veracity etc of religious claims. That isn't relevant to the discussion.
It isn't relevent to you because you are an antitheist who wishes the end of the church by any means at hand it seems. In short. The swivel eyed revolutionary without a pragmatic thought.
Of course holiness is relevent.
All that is required for the state to set out what is, and what is not, lawful and then allow the judicial system to follow. So currently the state has decreed that it is not unlawful for churches to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality in the provision of the service of providing a marriage ceremony. However were the state to remove that opt out were someone to be turned away by a church on eh grounds of sexuality, when asking to be married then that would be unlawful and the discrimination could be challenged in the courts.
I'm sorry but this just seems to be antitheist wankfantasy.
-
I don't see a need for it to be monitored at all, I'll get the ONS to put it alongside fairy interventions and unicorn maulings.
In the grand scheme, we're talking about religion, so how is any of it relevant. Specific to this discussion, you're concerned for the 'holiness' of marriage by ensuring that 'teh Gayz' don't get in
No i'm not you made that up. If God want's someone in he'll let them in. He is sovereign. Gay people have marriage and same sex marriages and even church weddings.
I suppose what I am saying is that the views of Christians who hold a different view of this issue are far, far, far more important than that of any shit stirring antitheism masquerading concern for anything or anyone other than there own agenda. Indeed, I've spent far to long indulging your two weak points. Your desire to eliminate the term holy only to resurrect it if there's a possible 'nick' in it, and secondly you don't realise your extreme position.
-
No i'm not you made that up.
I've made what up, the institutional homophobia of the Christian church?
If God want's someone in he'll let them in.
Isn't Jesus' message supposed to be that he'll take all who come genuinely with love in their heart?
He is sovereign.
UK Law might not consider that to be the case.
Gay people have marriage and same sex marriages and even church weddings.
And yet churches can still discriminate (legally, currently) against them and choose to exercise the state's duty to officiate a marriage but not include those categories of people.
I suppose what I am saying is that the views of Christians who hold a different view of this issue are far, far, far more important than that of any shit stirring antitheism masquerading concern for anything or anyone other than there own agenda.
You're concerned about the theological integrity of believers and belief; I, and others like me, are concerned about the continued discrimination against segments of the populace because of intrinsic elements of their nature. You are asking people to put someone's choice about their special friend on the same level as access to public services for all. Your faith, at the end of any day, is a choice, and someone else's marriage has absolutely no effect on you or your beliefs whatsoever.
If the church wants to continue with the function of conducting state sanctioned marriages, I don't see that it should have the right to discriminate, regardless of how profoundly people believe; my belief in equality is equally as profound. Humanists, currently, have to have a registrar conduct the 'legal' parts of a wedding if they officiate, if the church wants to follow that system and the state no longer grants them the authority to act on their behalf, that would be an acceptable compromise, to me. Not ideal, but acceptable.
Indeed, I've spent far to long indulging your two weak points. Your desire to eliminate the term holy only to resurrect it if there's a possible 'nick' in it, and secondly you don't realise your extreme position.
My position isn't extreme, equality for homosexuality is pretty much the expected standard, it's embedded in the UN Charter on Human Rights, in the European Convention on Human Rights, in a multitude of legislative regimes around the world. As to whether 'holy' has any validity, of course it's nonsense, but that doesn't stop me picking up inconsistencies in arguments that are attempting to rely on it.
As to those being my 'weak' points - if they were that weak you'd have overcome them, but you haven't. I do like the attempt to channel 'The Art of War', though: where you are strong, appear weak, and where you are weak, appear strong.
O.
-
I've made what up, the institutional homophobia of the Christian church?
Isn't Jesus' message supposed to be that he'll take all who come genuinely with love in their heart?
UK Law might not consider that to be the case.
And yet churches can still discriminate (legally, currently) against them and choose to exercise the state's duty to officiate a marriage but not include those categories of people.
You're concerned about the theological integrity of believers and belief; I, and others like me, are concerned about the continued discrimination against segments of the populace because of intrinsic elements of their nature. You are asking people to put someone's choice about their special friend on the same level as access to public services for all. Your faith, at the end of any day, is a choice, and someone else's marriage has absolutely no effect on you or your beliefs whatsoever.
If the church wants to continue with the function of conducting state sanctioned marriages, I don't see that it should have the right to discriminate, regardless of how profoundly people believe; my belief in equality is equally as profound. Humanists, currently, have to have a registrar conduct the 'legal' parts of a wedding if they officiate, if the church wants to follow that system and the state no longer grants them the authority to act on their behalf, that would be an acceptable compromise, to me. Not ideal, but acceptable.
My position isn't extreme, equality for homosexuality is pretty much the expected standard, it's embedded in the UN Charter on Human Rights, in the European Convention on Human Rights, in a multitude of legislative regimes around the world. As to whether 'holy' has any validity, of course it's nonsense, but that doesn't stop me picking up inconsistencies in arguments that are attempting to rely on it.
As to those being my 'weak' points - if they were that weak you'd have overcome them, but you haven't. I do like the attempt to channel 'The Art of War', though: where you are strong, appear weak, and where you are weak, appear strong.
O.
continually you are ignoring God though and are stuck with the logically contradictory. " Let's get rid of the idea of holy but revive it in order to nick people I don't like. What type of "good guy" is that?
You are a rage against Goddists and that is why the law is against you because it is averse to swivel eyed extremist pressure.
I rather think, the Law has settled for your opening plea, that holy matrimony is a meaningless piece of nonsense.
To go for "Yes me lud but we also want to revive it whenever there's a possible nick to be had is just cheeky bollocks.
-
continually you are ignoring God though and are stuck with the logically contradictory.
We are ignoring god as there is no evidence that god exists - and even for those that belief in god there are a huge number of different gods claimed to exist that have different claimed attributes and expectation. So we are no more ignoring god than you are ignoring Vishnu.
And further, as we are talking about the law, the law also ignores god. The law is silent on the existence of god or gods, the law is silent on the veracity or otherwise of theistic faith claims. That is because the law is based on evidence and faith claims are, necessarily, not based on evidence. Where the law does intervene is to protect individuals from being discriminated against on the basis of their beliefs or lack of beliefs. But that is about a focus on the human rights of individual people rather than any interest in god or the veracity of faith claims per se.
-
continually you are ignoring God though and are stuck with the logically contradictory. " Let's get rid of the idea of holy but revive it in order to nick people I don't like. What type of "good guy" is that?
I'm no more ignoring 'God' than I'm ignoring Zeus, Allah or Aslan. You can drop 'holy' in as much as you like, but it's a meaningless symbol implemented to try to shut down discussion.
You are a rage against Goddists and that is why the law is against you because it is averse to swivel eyed extremist pressure.
I'm not raging at all, I'm involved in a broadly light-hearted online discussion forum; I'm not levelling unfounded accusations of emotional distress, I'm not out in the streets, I'm just a guy chatting with people on the internet. As to 'extremism', where's the extremism in thinking that people deserve equal treatment based on their inherent characteristics? Where's the extremism in thinking that people deserve equal treatment based on their broad philosophical stances?
I rather think, the Law has settled for your opening plea, that holy matrimony is a meaningless piece of nonsense.
No, unfortunately the law has opted to consider 'holy' matrimony to be a justifiable claim, and to hold it (and other purely philosophical stances that invoke religion, but not other philosophical stances) as warranting equal protection with inherited characteristics like skin colour or sexuality. If they hadn't made that bone-headed move we'd be fine, but instead we have this perceived conflict of people's right to be gay with the notion that people have a right to expect rational people to accommodate their belief in fairy tales.
To go for "Yes me lud but we also want to revive it whenever there's a possible nick to be had is just cheeky bollocks.
Anybody here speak English?
O.
-
I'm no more ignoring 'God' than I'm ignoring Zeus, Allah or Aslan. You can drop 'holy' in as much as you like, but it's a meaningless symbol implemented to try to shut down discussion.
Au contraire Rodney, Au contraire......You’re still wanting to stop the game immediately after the starting whistle and then run back on the pitch to score the winning goal.
If there is no legal evidence for the holy then it is illogical to say it is demonstrably being provided or denied.
And that is why the law is as it is.
When the Church in Sweden voted to conduct same sex marriages they did so on the basis that no dissenting clergyman or woman had to take part.
The Swedish PM wondered why these clerics weren’t made to. Do you see then where he crossed the line into this, for him, being a control issue. One could argue he revealed his true concern
-
Au contraire Rodney, Au contraire......You’re still wanting to stop the game immediately after the starting whistle and then run back on the pitch to score the winning goal.
Sprechen sie Deutsch? Parlais-vous Francais?
If there is no legal evidence for the holy then it is illogical to say it is demonstrably being provided or denied.
Uh, what? Do you mean proven? It's not that there's no legal evidence, it's that there's not only no evidence of any sort, there's no sense to the claim whatsoever.
And that is why the law is as it is.
No, the law is as it is because the Tory government that implemented it was pandering to what they feel is a valuable demographic for them electorally.
When the Church in Sweden voted to conduct same sex marriages they did so on the basis that no dissenting clergyman or woman had to take part.
No-one should be compelled to take part in a ceremony.
The Swedish PM wondered why these clerics weren’t made to. Do you see then where he crossed the line into this, for him, being a control issue. One could argue he revealed his true concern
He's in the wrong, no-one should be forced to take part. The church, on the other hand, if it's conducting state work by officiating state-sanctioned contracts should be forced. Organisations are not people.
O.
-
If there is no legal evidence for the holy then it is illogical to say it is demonstrably being provided or denied.
What is being provided or denied is the service of a marriage ceremony - the involvement or otherwise of god is irrelevant and of no interest to the law.
Let's use an analogy - homeopathy. There is no evidence that it works, although some people believe it does. Homeopathy effectively relies on a faith claim, similar to religion. If a homeopathy service provider refuses to provide their service to black people do you think that the law will be concerned about whether or not homeopathy works? Of course not - they will be interested solely in the notion that a person has been treated less favourably in the provision of a service (homeopathy, regardless of whether it works or not) on the basis of a protected characteristic (race).
-
What is being provided or denied is the service of a marriage ceremony
No it's holy matrimony. If you take away the holy then goodness knows what the vicar, Bride and Groom are playing at. But one suspects that if you've passed this off as the practice of dangerous idiots then to want it not only provided but it's provision enforced is sheer madness on your part. And that is why the law is as it is.
Now you may argue that there is something about this strange ritual that causes it to fall under the principle of equality (otherwise this is just swivel eyed atheists wanting to stick one on the church). There though is the rub, It's not that Christians are out to get Gays , but that they, and others, DO NOT fall under the scriptural and traditional principle of holy matrimony as are many others for instance those who have a ''lawful and just impediment'', those who are ''ill advised'', those who are ''taking this lightly,'' Polygamists, bigamists.
Let's use an analogy - homeopathy. There is no evidence that it works, although some people believe it does. Homeopathy effectively relies on a faith claim, similar to religion. If a homeopathy service provider refuses to provide their service to black people do you think that the law will be concerned about whether or not homeopathy works? Of course not - they will be interested solely in the notion that a person has been treated less favourably in the provision of a service (homeopathy, regardless of whether it works or not) on the basis of a protected characteristic (race).
There is nothing about homeopathy that precludes black people from having it. There is no link between homeopathy and race whatsoever. Any racial discrimination must come directly from the dark heart of the Homeopath. Shite analogy. And let's be honest, you'd want to legislate against homeopathy as a medical scam.
-
So is there something about religion that precludes gay people getting married?
If there is, do you agree with it?
If you do agree with it, we can take all your protestations about being in favour of some kind of gay marriage as so much fertiliser for the garden.
If you don't, then you are in conflict with your religion and need to sort yourself out.
-
So is there something about religion that precludes gay people getting married?
They do not, in scripture, seem to fall under fall under the scriptural terms of holy matrimony. However no religion can IMV lay claim to the term marriage. If there is, do you agree with it?
I have not had any revelation, discernment or insight to think contrary in terms of holy matrimony
If you do agree with it, we can take all your protestations about being in favour of some kind of gay marriage as so much fertiliser for the garden.
No, that is profound bollocks. I am in favour of Gay civil marriage and would go to war if an invading force made it part of a package to change that status quo.
If you don't, then you are in conflict with your religion and need to sort yourself out.
You strike me as the sort of bloke who would like to see arrests, fines, Bans, shutting downs, coercion in preference to the mild inconvenience of Christian gays who might have to see the methodist minister for a wedding service.
Also there is something you said about conflict with ones religion and sorting oneself out. I see this as a gambit that if used against Gay christians may constitute something potentially coercive I don't believe to be to healthy. You are though by no means the only atheist here to use this gambit.
Am I right? if not how do you propose to handle legislating for all clergy to deliver holy matrimony to all?
-
You strike me as the sort of bloke who would like to see arrests, fines, Bans, shutting downs, coercion in preference to the mild inconvenience of Christian gays who might have to see the methodist minister for a wedding service.
Laughable.
I posted this some time ago. You either ignored it or missed it. It explains my position:
As the number of gay Christians on the board is not relevant I'm struggling to see how you think that this is a useful statement.
As to my atheist mission....have you been watching too many Tom Cruise films, perhaps?
I don't get up in the morning and plan my day around how I can heinously upset you. I respond to whatever is posted. No mission. Not even much of an agenda, just trying to point out that you sound just a little bit prejudiced on this subject.
To be clear (as you seem to have problems with understanding nuance within a subject) that's not the same as somebody who beats a gay person to death, or harasses them on the street, or even posts I've see by others on here in the past.
You just sound a little bit prejudiced is all.
Now I think about myself and my attitude to religious people. Do I campaign to stop them going to Church? No. Do I campaign to stop them marrying in Church? No. Do I do anything to stop them following their religion? No. The only thing I ask is that religious people drop the prejudice they hold against gay people who are religious and give them the same respect as other people in the Church.
Is that understandable as an explanation of my position?
Does that really sound to you as if I am into arrests, fines and all the other nonsense you accused me of?
-
Laughable.
I posted this some time ago. You either ignored it or missed it. It explains my position:
Does that really sound to you as if I am into arrests, fines and all the other nonsense you accused me of?
well then, if you do not want nicks, then I have got you wrong sir and you have my unalloyed apologies. How then do you propose to deal with troublesome priests under any new law.
There is still though this sinister gambit of telling people to sort themselves out. Advice I would add from a position.
-
You've come along way in life if you've not been told to sort yourself out before. Happens to me every so often. Not sinister. More sort of make your mind up.
I don't propose to deal with any troublesome priests, and indeed I do not propose a new law. I'd much rather they recognise their prejudice and just stop it.
-
You've come along way in life if you've not been told to sort yourself out before. Happens to me every so often. Not sinister. More sort of make your mind up.
I don't propose to deal with any troublesome priests, and indeed I do not propose a new law. I'd much rather they recognise their prejudice and just stop it.
Unfortunately it is a world where sometimes we fall under some principle and sometimes we don’t.
If there is a change in the church I only hope it is not under coercion from antitheists with an agenda.
-
Vlad,
I'm quite willing for the legally required sections i.e. those that are demonstrable and not articles of faith claim, to be delivered in church separately. According to Hillside anything else that is deemed 'holy' cannot be demonstrated to be a thing and as the professor has pointed out is not legally recognised as matrimony. It seems therefor that nobody is being denied matrimony as long as they receive the legal service.
In terms of the non legal content. There is no legal service being performed.
I would love to see how you atheist guys would even begin to get this through and enforce it. What's the plan?
Been away for a few days down on the beautiful Devon coast, so it’ll be interesting to see whether you’ve still just ignored everything you’ve been corrected on and stuck with flat out lying to deflect from that. Let’s see shall we?
I'm quite willing for the legally required sections i.e. those that are demonstrable and not articles of faith claim, to be delivered in church separately. According to Hillside anything else that is deemed 'holy' cannot be demonstrated to be a thing and as the professor has pointed out is not legally recognised as matrimony. It seems therefor that nobody is being denied matrimony as long as they receive the legal service.
And sure enough, that’s exactly what you’ve done. Yet again, “according to Hillside” of course the “holy” matrimony service “is a thing”. It’s a service in which specific words are said, rites performed, incantations made and for all I know or care goats are slaughtered and men dressed in frocks hop backwards in very small circles. Fine. Call that “holy” if you like, or indeed call it “banana-flavoured” or “uy8o76oy” if you prefer. For that matter, feel free to tell yourself too that there’s something called “god” and that this supposed god thinks this type of service is the Mr Whippy 99 ice cream with the flake in version, rather than the plain old inferior cornet.
Here’s the thing though: according to you and to your church, this supposed god only wants to make the Mr Whippy 99 version available to straight people, and for it to be denied to gay people who may also want it. That’s the homophobic part right?
Got it now? Good. You won’t need lie about that again then will you.
In terms of the non legal content. There is no legal service being performed.
Yes there is. I’ve even been to a few, so I know they happen.
I would love to see how you atheist guys would even begin to get this through and enforce it. What's the plan?
It’s “equality guys”, not “atheist guys” and “the plan” is the same one that was used for racist B&B owners. Just remove the homophobic exemptions from the equalities legislation, and rely on folks to report to the relevant authorities clerics who break the law.
It worked for racist B&B owners, so why not for homophobic priests?
Simple right?
-
Unfortunately it is a world where sometimes we fall under some principle and sometimes we don’t.
We always fall under some principal or other, it's a matter of whether we acknowledge it, understand it, accept it and apply it.
If there is a change in the church I only hope it is not under coercion from antitheists with an agenda.
Forgetting, for a moment, the vanishing rarity of 'antitheists'... Why? If that's what it takes to make the church better, to either acknowledge a principal their failing to currently, or to better understand it, or to apply it where they aren't currently, why does it matter who it is that motivates the change? Surely, if the church is better for it, it doesn't matter where it comes from?
Might even be one of those things that Church can misattribute the benefit from with a 'God works in mysterious ways' bit of post-hoc rationalisation?
O.
-
Anchs,
In Christian understanding, the term 'holy' means 'set apart for God.
A service of worship is set apart for God. Marriage if conducted by a Christian is a committment of two people set apart by God for a purpose.
Fine – if that’s what “Christians” want to believe, it’s no-one’s business but their own.
Therefore any 'holy marriage' ceremony is a committment to God and all that entails.
Ah, but now you’ve gone off the rails: that “therefore” is a non sequitur. Anyone can believe anything they like, but you cannot just jump straight to that thing being true with no justifying argument to take you there. The most you can say here is “therefore any “holy marriage” ceremony reflects some beliefs about a commitment to God and all that entails.”
Nothwithstanding all that though you’re still asserting a homophobic god narrative in any case, which isn’t helping your case.
-
Anchs,
Fine – if that’s what “Christians” want to believe, it’s no-one’s business but their own.
Ah, but now you’ve gone off the rails: that “therefore” is a non sequitur. Anyone can believe anything they like, but you cannot just jump straight to that thing being true with no justifying argument to take you there. The most you can say here is “therefore any “holy marriage” ceremony reflects some beliefs about a commitment to God and all that entails.”
Nothwithstanding all that though you’re still asserting a homophobic god narrative in any case, which isn’t helping your case.
Do you not even have one inkling of the absurdity of wanting to eliminate the idea of the Holy and then wish to charge and prosecute people for not providing something that is holy? Do you not have one scintilla of how idiotic that is?
-
Forgetting, for a moment, the vanishing rarity of 'antitheists'...
Are they on their way out, then?
Vlad punches air, yodels the muster signal, bullocks, fatted calves are slaughtered in front of humanist vegetarians tied to posts. A great fire is lit, mongolian yak horn combos and Alabaman charismatic shofar blowers strike up a joyous tone and drunken cossacks burst into their routine.
-
Vlad,
Do you not even have one inkling of the absurdity of wanting to eliminate the idea of the Holy and then wish to charge and prosecute people for not providing something that is holy? Do you not have one scintilla of how idiotic that is?
Yet another straw man. Where on earth have you got the notion that he wants to "eliminate the idea" of anything?
If clerics want to call some services "holy" and say different words, do special little dances, tell themselves that Jesus will want them for a sunbeam etc and if some gay people buy that shit too and want to for themselves, then it's homophobic to deny it to them.
Try to grasp this rather than keep making a fool of yourself here.
-
Are they on their way out, then?
Haven't seen many on their way in. Must be hanging out with all the humble, mendicant Christians...
Vlad punches air, yodels the muster signal, bullocks, fatted calves are slaughtered in front of humanist vegetarians tied to posts. A great fire is lit, mongolian yak horn combos and Alabaman charismatic shofar blowers strike up a joyous tone and drunken cossacks burst into their routine.
So, no actual point, then?
O.
-
Haven't seen many on their way in. Must be hanging out with all the humble, mendicant Christians...
Humility isn't their style vis Dawkins, Krauss, et al.
-
Humility isn't their style vis Dawkins, Krauss, et al.
It's also not called out in the creed they don't have as one of the divine tenets...
O.
-
Nothwithstanding all that though you’re still asserting a homophobic god narrative in any case, which isn’t helping your case.
Aren't you saying here that the Christian belief about God, ie that he made a woman as a helper for a man, and established that as a pattern for marriage, is homophobic? If so, the pattern is indeed discriminatory, but in no more a sense than believing that marriage was not created for children. This is where I take issue with your use of the word homophobia. If it's meaning includes discrimination, it's discrimination in an unjust sense. But there's also just discrimination (such as age limitation). So I think it's wrong to use the word homophobic with regard to Christian marriage excluding same-sex couples.
-
Aren't you saying here that the Christian belief about God, ie that he made a woman as a helper for a man, and established that as a pattern for marriage, is homophobic?
Yup that is a homophobic belief and also on that is deeply misogynist.
If so, the pattern is indeed discriminatory, ...
Yup that is correct.
but in no more a sense than believing that marriage was not created for children.
What do you mean Spud - that children should be allowed or that marriage is for the purpose of having children. If the former, I'll address this later. But the latter, it is only in specific religious settings that having children is linked to marriage. In a legal sense marriage and having children are entirely separate - when you marry you do not have to indicate that you want children and the law has no interest in whether a couple coming to be married want children, do not want children, already have children, are able to have children, are not able to have children. These issues are completely irrelevant to legal marriage.
And let's not forget that marriage was originally instituted as a civic (not a religious) arrangement and largely about the control of property rights.
This is where I take issue with your use of the word homophobia. If it's meaning includes discrimination, it's discrimination in an unjust sense.
Yes it is discrimination and in my opinion unjustified discrimination, although currently the law does not make it unlawful. However we know the direction of travel and I would be surprised if these opt outs remain over the medium term, either because they are removed in law or because one by one denominations align themselves with the trailblazing Methodists.
But there's also just discrimination (such as age limitation).
Nope you are missing the point. Marriage must be consensual for it to be legal. The law across all sorts of areas considered children not to have the capacity to consent and uses a relatively blunt instrument of a age of consent to determine legally whether an individual can or cannot consent to a legal agreement. So the law isn't discriminating on the grounds of age, rather they are affirming the fundamental principle that marriage must be consensual. And this applies at later ages to - an adult is also not able to get married if they are considered to lack the capacity to consent, or the marriage doesn't not meet the other elements for consent, for example that it is given voluntarily.
So I think it's wrong to use the word homophobic with regard to Christian marriage excluding same-sex couples.
If by homophobic you mean discrimination against homosexual couples then it is clearly discrimination. You may feel it is justified discrimination, others think it unjustified - currently the law is on your side, but the law can and does change.
-
Aren't you saying here that the Christian belief about God, ie that he made a woman as a helper for a man, and established that as a pattern for marriage, is homophobic? If so, the pattern is indeed discriminatory, but in no more a sense than believing that marriage was not created for children. This is where I take issue with your use of the word homophobia. If it's meaning includes discrimination, it's discrimination in an unjust sense. But there's also just discrimination (such as age limitation). So I think it's wrong to use the word homophobic with regard to Christian marriage excluding same-sex couples.
YE GODS, what an unpleasant, homophobic, sexist piece of work you are. I hope no woman is unfortunate enough to be shacked up to you. >:(
-
Spud,
Aren't you saying here that the Christian belief about God, ie that he made a woman as a helper for a man, and established that as a pattern for marriage, is homophobic?
Not just homophobic, misogynistic too.
If so, the pattern is indeed discriminatory, but in no more a sense than believing that marriage was not created for children.
No, it’s homophobic because it’s offered to some but denied to others because of an innate characteristic – ie, sexual orientation. That’s what the word means.
This is where I take issue with your use of the word homophobia. If it's meaning includes discrimination, it's discrimination in an unjust sense. But there's also just discrimination (such as age limitation). So I think it's wrong to use the word homophobic with regard to Christian marriage excluding same-sex couples.
You haven’t explained why you think discriminating against people on the ground of sexual orientation is “just”.
I’ll give you a clue: it isn’t.
-
Oops, I appear to have worded my post very badly. I didn't mean anything about having children, but that marriage is not open to anyone who isn't old enough. This I would call fair or just discrimination. My question is, is discriminating on the basis of the sex of the participants in the context of marriage, just or unjust? If it is just, then it isn't homophobic (which carries the connotation of unfairness). If it's unjust, how is it different to not allowing children to get married or as another example, a minister of religion not allowing an 18 year-old to marry an 80 year-old?
-
Spud,
Oops, I appear to have worded my post very badly. I didn't mean anything about having children, but that marriage is not open to anyone who isn't old enough. This I would call fair or just discrimination.
That’s because children are not deemed to have the critical faculties needed to make informed choices.
My question is, is discriminating on the basis of the sex of the participants in the context of marriage, just or unjust? If it is just, then it isn't homophobic (which carries the connotation of unfairness). If it's unjust, how is it different to not allowing children to get married…
It’s unjust, and it’s different for the reason I just explained. Adult gay people have the same critical faculties as adult straight people.
…or as another example, a minister of religion not allowing an 18 year-old to marry an 80 year-old?
So far as I know that’s legal, and there are no special exemptions for religious institutions.
-
Spud,
Not just homophobic, misogynistic too.
So is it misogynistic to believe that God created a man first?
-
So is it misogynistic to believe that God created a man first?
No. Just stupid.
-
And is it homophobic to believe God intended for men to marry women?
-
Trent,
No. Just stupid.
You just beat me to it.
-
Spud,
And is it homophobic to believe God intended for men to marry women?
If you mean only women, then that is a homophobic story yes.
-
Spud,
That’s because children are not deemed to have the critical faculties needed to make informed choices.
It’s unjust, and it’s different for the reason I just explained. Adult gay people have the same critical faculties as adult straight people.
So despite knowing what their body is designed for, they use it differently. Fair enough. I think it is reasonable and fair to discriminate on that basis, though, when it comes to holy matrimony. That has been the view for millennia.
-
So is it misogynistic to believe that God created a man first?
And is it homophobic to believe God intended for men to marry women?
Stop hiding behind your purported god Spud - own your own views, take some responsibility.
Rather than tell us what you believe god thinks, tell us what you think Spud.
Do you believe that man was created first and that woman were created as a helper for a man?
Do you believe than men should only marry women?
Regardless of what you think god believes it is your choice whether or not to also believe these things. It is your views we are interested, not the views of an entity than many of us don't believe exists. It is the equivalent of a child saying that it was their imaginary friend that made them hit their sister.
-
Spud,
So despite knowing what their body is designed for,…
Bodies aren’t designed.
…they use it differently.
Differently from what?
Fair enough. I think it is reasonable and fair to discriminate on that basis, though, when it comes to holy matrimony.
No doubt you do, which is why you’re a homophobe.
That has been the view for millennia.
“A view” held by whom? Not gay people certainly.
-
It's also not called out in the creed they don't have as one of the divine tenets...
O.
The Creed they follow is outrageous attention seeking. Dawkins and Krauss are notorious for courting controversy. So much so that Dillahunty has pleaded with Dawkins to fucking retire. Not just retire mind but fucking retire.
-
VtH,
The Creed they follow is outrageous attention seeking. Dawkins and Krauss are notorious for courting controversy. So much so that Dillahunty has pleaded with Dawkins to fucking retire. Not just retire mind but fucking retire.
Setting out arguments in a clear and cogent fashion isn't "outrageous attention seeking", even when they happen to detonate your faith beliefs. You're wearing your mad conspiracy hat again.
-
VtH,
Setting out arguments in a clear and cogent fashion isn't "outrageous attention seeking", even when they happen to detonate your faith beliefs. You're wearing your mad conspiracy hat again.
Not mad conspiracy since New Atheists always a tiny sect trying to "Raise consciousness". More like pampered Well off wunderkind of science to getting attention.....although of the two I'd say Krauss was more hands on.
-
VtH,
Not mad conspiracy since New Atheists always a tiny sect trying to "Raise consciousness".
A non sequitur won’t help you. Whether or not well-known atheists are trying to “raise consciousness” tells you nothing about their alleged “outrageous attention seeking”.
Was the boy who dared to say, “but the emperor isn’t wearing any clothes” outrageously attention seeking would you say?
More like pampered Well off wunderkind of science to getting attention.....although of the two I'd say Krauss was more hands on.
Yeah, probably safer just to try the ad hom rather than engage with the arguments they make right?
-
Spud
So despite knowing what their body is designed for, they use it differently.
Was your body designed to sit looking at a glowing screen, communicating with other people via the web and using an interface such as a keyboard to do it?
No it fucking wasn't. We designed the machines around us.
If I can use my body in the way I wish to, and I assume you are referring to anal intercourse, if I am capable of doing that with my body then it stands to reason that my body was designed to do it, otherwise I wouldn't be fucking able to do it.
Do you use your brain just for being stupid or do you use it as it was designed to be used?
(That's if you accept any notion of design in this instance, as already covered by BHSrtd.)
-
So despite knowing what their body is designed for, they use it differently. Fair enough. I think it is reasonable and fair to discriminate on that basis, though, when it comes to holy matrimony. That has been the view for millennia.
From homophobes like you.
-
The Creed they follow is outrageous attention seeking.
I know, imagine having your own nation state and walking round in designer red-leather shoes and preceded by a cavalcade of frock-wearing celibates bearing golden iconography... oh, wait, no, that's not the 'outrageous attention seeking' of Professor Dawkins, one of the most pre-eminent scientists of his generation. My mistake...
Dawkins and Krauss are notorious for courting controversy.
Not really, they're notorious for saying things that, in and of themselves are quite straightforward, and for it blowing the insular minds of the religious who believe that no-one has the right to call their sacred institutions into question. In latter days, they are showing themselves to be men of their generation, and the forefront of culture is leaving them behind, as it is most people of their generation; they are no more behind the curve than anyone else, but vested interests are gunning for them.
So much so that Dillahunty has pleaded with Dawkins to fucking retire. Not just retire mind but fucking retire.
Much like Dawkins was pleading with the innumerable vicars of the world to give it up.
None of which, of course, changes the fundamental homophobic nature of the religious creeds that you're trying to distract the conversation away from.
O.
-
Spud
Was your body designed to sit looking at a glowing screen, communicating with other people via the web and using an interface such as a keyboard to do it?
No it fucking wasn't. We designed the machines around us.
If I can use my body in the way I wish to, and I assume you are referring to anal intercourse, if I am capable of doing that with my body then it stands to reason that my body was designed to do it, otherwise I wouldn't be fucking able to do it.
Do you use your brain just for being stupid or do you use it as it was designed to be used?
(That's if you accept any notion of design in this instance, as already covered by BHSrtd.)
I often wonder if I should be looking at a computer screen at all. I think my eyesight has deteriorated more rapidly in the 15 years I've used the internet than it would have done otherwise. That's probably because I've overused it. Isn't this about what we use as our primary source of information, though (ie, not the internet)? Likewise, the primary function of the anus is as a poop hole. If someone wants to use their sex organs only in a way that has nothing to do with their primary function, that says to me that, like children or the 18 year-old who wants to marry an 80 year-old, they do not have the critical faculties to understand what marriage is for. And I;m not setting out to offend here, rather to defend against the charge of homophobia. Apparently UK law supports my view, as while allowing ministers of religion to decline conducting same sex marriage, it also outlaws homophobia. So according to it, that exception is not homophobic, neither am I for supporting it.
-
Likewise, the primary function of the anus is as a poop hole.
Who says it has only one primary function? The penis has more than one important function. The hand has multiple functions. As does your mouth.
Nope, won't do. You've declared a primary function without establishing the fact. For all you know God buried the prostate gland up there so that only the truly enlightened could find it.
As to this:
they do not have the critical faculties to understand what marriage is for.
Are you accusing me of that? Really? I point you to this from the BMJ:
About a third of heterosexual couples in Britain are thought to use anal sex as an occasional method of sexual expression, with about 10% using it as a preferred or regular method.2 Perhaps two thirds of gay men practise anal sex as a regular part of their sexual repertoire. This means that, in absolute numbers, there are more heterosexuals having anal sex than there are gay men. There are little published data on how many heterosexual men would like their anus to be sexually stimulated in a heterosexual relationship. Anecdotally, it is a substantial number. What data we do have almost all relate to penetrative sexual acts, and the superficial contact of the anal ring with fingers or the tongue is even less well documented but may be assumed to be a common sexual activity for men of all sexual orientations.
Do you want to rethink your strategy? Or do you want to tell all those heterosexuals that they don't understand what marriage is for?
And I;m not setting out to offend here, rather to defend against the charge of homophobia.
Strange that. You are managing to offend and display homophobia.
As to using the law as defence. What was it I read about Anne Frank - oh yes, those that hid and protected her were breaking the law. Those that were trying to find her and kill her were upholding the law.
Appealing to the law is a tricky business, I find. You have to establish in your own mind what you think is fair and just.
I'll leave you to ponder that thought. I await to see if your critical faculties are equal to the task.
-
Spud,
I often wonder if I should be looking at a computer screen at all. I think my eyesight has deteriorated more rapidly in the 15 years I've used the internet than it would have done otherwise. That's probably because I've overused it. Isn't this about what we use as our primary source of information, though (ie, not the internet)? Likewise, the primary function of the anus is as a poop hole. If someone wants to use their sex organs only in a way that has nothing to do with their primary function, that says to me that, like children or the 18 year-old who wants to marry an 80 year-old, they do not have the critical faculties to understand what marriage is for. And I;m not setting out to offend here, rather to defend against the charge of homophobia. Apparently UK law supports my view, as while allowing ministers of religion to decline conducting same sex marriage, it also outlaws homophobia. So according to it, that exception is not homophobic, neither am I for supporting it.
Your ignorance here is both profound and indefensible.
1. Many gay people do not engage in anal sex. Indeed some gay people are celibate. Should they be allowed to be married then?
2. Many straight people do engage in anal sex. Should they be banned from marriage then?
3. Whatever private sexual activities adults want to engage in is entirely a matter for them, assuming it harms no-one else. That you happen to find some of those activities are not for you does not indicate that others lack critical faculties.
4. You’ve already had explained to you why children are a separate category.
5. The law prohibits homophobia, but provides legal protections against certain institutions that do act homophobically nonetheless. That does not mean that those institutions are not homophobic – it just means that they can’t get prosecuted for practising it.
You’re a homophobe, and a particularly nasty one at that.
-
I often wonder if I should be looking at a computer screen at all. I think my eyesight has deteriorated more rapidly in the 15 years I've used the internet than it would have done otherwise. That's probably because I've overused it.
Spending time at a computer screen doesn't have a harmful impact on your eyesight, intrinsically. Sitting at a non-optimal distance from the screen can have an impact, over time, but just screen-use itself doesn't
Isn't this about what we use as our primary source of information, though (ie, not the internet)?
Saying 'not the internet' is like saying 'not books'. It's a medium, not a source - which sites you use ON the internet is important, but that it's the internet isn't very revealing.
Likewise, the primary function of the anus is as a poop hole.
If, by 'primary', you mean evolved, well then your bifocal vision is evolved to gauge range in order to be able to effectively hunt, and yet (as above) you use it to read... put down that unnatural Bible. I'm pretty sure you didn't develop limbs in order to wear clothes, either... Or, of course, you could just be falling prey to the naturalistic fallacy.
Notwithstanding, of course, that anal sex is not a good crossover with gay people - for a start I suspect there's a significantly smaller number of gay women that partake then straight women, I've no idea what proportion of gay men practice it but it's short of all of them and there are straight couples (and throuples, and other groupings) that do it.
If someone wants to use their sex organs only in a way that has nothing to do with their primary function, that says to me that, like children or the 18 year-old who wants to marry an 80 year-old, they do not have the critical faculties to understand what marriage is for.
Ok, so no-one who doesn't want children has the 'critical faculties' to get married, because they don't intend to use their sex organs to comply with what you think a marriage is about?
The fixation with that particular practice as somehow synonymous with gay sex, and therefore as some sort of gauge as to whether marriage should be permitted suggests that:
a) you don't understand the range of sexual activities that the range of people known as human beings get up to; and,
b) that marriage is primarily about sex for you.
If partaking in anal sex is, as you suggest, evidence that someone is so short of their faculties that they should be considered incapable of the deep understanding that marriage entails, how come the vicar doesn't ask if anyone in the congregations knows of good evidence that either of the couple have partaken? Or is that supposed to be implicit in the 'any good reason why these two should not be wed...'?
And I;m not setting out to offend here, rather to defend against the charge of homophobia. Apparently UK law supports my view, as while allowing ministers of religion to decline conducting same sex marriage, it also outlaws homophobia.
So parsing marriage into breeders-only colony isn't homophobic because...
So according to it, that exception is not homophobic, neither am I for supporting it.
No, you're mistaking what the law says. It doesn't say that the religious exemptions don't constitute homophobia, it says that the law considers religion a justifiable basis for discrimination in this particular area. You could argue that, because religious belief is also a protected characteristic that this is an attempt to balance two competing sets of rights, or you could argue that religion is fundamentally a different concept than the other protected characteristics and shouldn't be considered in the same light, but what you can't argue is that because it's legal it's somehow not homophobia any more. It's homophobia, it's just legal homophobia.
O.
-
Spending time at a computer screen doesn't have a harmful impact on your eyesight, intrinsically. Sitting at a non-optimal distance from the screen can have an impact, over time, but just screen-use itself doesn't
Saying 'not the internet' is like saying 'not books'. It's a medium, not a source - which sites you use ON the internet is important, but that it's the internet isn't very revealing.
If, by 'primary', you mean evolved, well then your bifocal vision is evolved to gauge range in order to be able to effectively hunt, and yet (as above) you use it to read... put down that unnatural Bible. I'm pretty sure you didn't develop limbs in order to wear clothes, either... Or, of course, you could just be falling prey to the naturalistic fallacy.
Notwithstanding, of course, that anal sex is not a good crossover with gay people - for a start I suspect there's a significantly smaller number of gay women that partake then straight women, I've no idea what proportion of gay men practice it but it's short of all of them and there are straight couples (and throuples, and other groupings) that do it.
Ok, so no-one who doesn't want children has the 'critical faculties' to get married, because they don't intend to use their sex organs to comply with what you think a marriage is about?
The fixation with that particular practice as somehow synonymous with gay sex, and therefore as some sort of gauge as to whether marriage should be permitted suggests that:
a) you don't understand the range of sexual activities that the range of people known as human beings get up to; and,
b) that marriage is primarily about sex for you.
If partaking in anal sex is, as you suggest, evidence that someone is so short of their faculties that they should be considered incapable of the deep understanding that marriage entails, how come the vicar doesn't ask if anyone in the congregations knows of good evidence that either of the couple have partaken? Or is that supposed to be implicit in the 'any good reason why these two should not be wed...'?
So parsing marriage into breeders-only colony isn't homophobic because...
No, you're mistaking what the law says. It doesn't say that the religious exemptions don't constitute homophobia, it says that the law considers religion a justifiable basis for discrimination in this particular area. You could argue that, because religious belief is also a protected characteristic that this is an attempt to balance two competing sets of rights, or you could argue that religion is fundamentally a different concept than the other protected characteristics and shouldn't be considered in the same light, but what you can't argue is that because it's legal it's somehow not homophobia any more. It's homophobia, it's just legal homophobia.
O.
I think what the law is saying is that discrimination does not necessitate phobia or -ism. Lets take people on this forum for instance. They are all ostensibly, unless religious, antitheist and antireligionist and yet very few own up to being that. Somehow there is a subtlety and nuance to what they do which makes them not anti the people they appear to be anti against. Now whatever this magical quality preventing you guys from being full and screaming antireligionist and antitheists is......why can you not envisage such a quality in the distinction between a homophobe and someone who just takes scripture on this matter literally?
I certainly have never shown gay people as much disrespect as some of the people on here have shown religious people in the form of gaslighting and 'oi nutter'-ism.
There's the humbug and hypocrisy of antitheism flagged up for the night.
Hands up those who really want religious people to have freedom of expression.
-
I think what the law is saying is that discrimination does not necessitate phobia or -ism.
The law attempts to define the boundary between justifiable and unjustifiable discrimination; successfully in some instances, unsuccessfully in others.
Lets take people on this forum for instance. They are all ostensibly, unless religious, antitheist and antireligionist and yet very few own up to being that.
Awooga, awooga. Straw man/false dichotomy alert. There are vanishingly few anti-theists anywhere, let alone here. There are almost certainly more disestablishmentists than just me, there are people with a mix of justified and unjustified concerns regarding Islam and its manifestations, but I don't see anyone suggesting that the practice of religion should be banned or prohibited - that's anti-theism, and it's just not happening here.
Somehow there is a subtlety and nuance to what they do which makes them not anti the people they appear to be anti against.
It's not that subtle, to be honest. You're more than capable of attempting to make the case for a distinction being made in 'love the sinner, hate the sin', which tries to divorce an intrinsic element of someone's character from them, and yet you can't see arguments against the institutional privileges afforded by law to religion as being not aimed at the character of individual practitioners?
Now whatever this magical quality preventing you guys from being full and screaming antireligionist and antitheists is......
It's called 'reading for understanding' (it's the written equivalent of actually listening)... it's an arcane art, but you really should try it.
why can you not envisage such a quality in the distinction between a homophobe and someone who just takes scripture on this matter literally?
I can. I do. Religious creed and practice are separate from individual belief. Belief is a choice in a way that sexuality is not. Those are two fairly massive differences that show how false your equivalence is.
I certainly have never shown gay people as much disrespect as some of the people on here have shown religious people in the form of gaslighting and 'oi nutter'-ism.
Every time you suggest that someone's intrinsic nature is equivalent to a failure to look at reality and make a sensible understanding you disrespect gay people.
There's the humbug and hypocrisy of antitheism flagged up for the night.
Or, conversely, there's the privilege of religion complaining that people don't have the right to critique the sacred whilst maintaining the right of sacred to pontificate without basis about whatever they choose. You say discrimination, I say potato...
Hands up those who really want religious people to have freedom of expression.
Absolutely. How can you show how ridiculous the claims are if no-one's allowed to voice the claims? I don't want to ban religious expression; I want it out and proud so that future generations can see it in all its Emperor's New Clothes glory and it can then just disappear into history.
O.
-
The law attempts to define the boundary between justifiable and unjustifiable discrimination; successfully in some instances, unsuccessfully in others.
Awooga, awooga. Straw man/false dichotomy alert. There are vanishingly few anti-theists anywhere,
And that failure to recognise what you and your ilk are just goes to prove my point. You are so deeply fooling yourself by your '' But I'm a good guy self deception. And worse than that you project what you are and up to onto people like me. What the fuck is awooga, awooga? Act your age.
.[/quote]
-
And that failure to recognise what you and your ilk are just goes to prove my point.
So you disagree with my conclusion, but which bit of the rationale is it that you think it breaks down on? You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but unless you can explain why you think I'm wrong it's just an opinion that I don't have to pay any mind to.
You are so deeply fooling yourself by your '' But I'm a good guy self deception.
Again, show don't tell - which bit of it do you think is wrong? Everyone thinks they're the good guy, no-one goes out to be the bad guy - we are all the hero of our own story and the villain of someone else's, if you think there are 'good' guys and 'bad' guys out there maybe I'm not the one that's fooling myself.
And worse than that you project what you are and up to onto people like me.
I don't need to project anything on to you, you're more than capable of digging your own holes.
What the fuck is awooga, awooga?
It's an onomatopoeic alert siren, signalling the deployment of a weapons-grade logical fallacy cluster.
Act your age.
You're advocating the moral case that your homophobia isn't real homophobia because your imaginary friend is also homophobic. Your imaginary friend... and I need to grow up?
O.
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
And that failure to recognise what you and your ilk are just goes to prove my point. You are so deeply fooling yourself by your '' But I'm a good guy self deception. And worse than that you project what you are and up to onto people like me. What the fuck is awooga, awooga? Act your age.
Can you actually not see that your petulant foot-stamping conspiracy madness here is just cover for, "mwaaaah mwaaah, those horrible people with their reason and logic that keeps wrecking my religious claims and exposes my nasty homophobia for what it is won't go away and I don't know what to do about it...mwaaah, mwaaah" etc & wearily etc?
Anyway, here's why your espousal of homophobia is so contemptible (from the great Alan Shore):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnfEit4CqOI
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
Can you actually not see that your petulant foot-stamping conspiracy madness here is just cover for, "mwaaaah mwaaah, those horrible people with their reason and logic that keeps wrecking my religious claims and exposes my nasty homophobia for what it is won't go away and I don't know what to do about it...mwaaah, mwaaah" etc & wearily etc?
Anyway, here's why your espousal of homophobia is so contemptible (from the great Alan Shore):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnfEit4CqOI
I do love a bit of Boston Legal :)
O.
-
Outy,
I do love a bit of Boston Legal :)
Me too - every once in a while I dig out the box set and wallow.
-
I can. I do. Religious creed and practice are separate from individual belief. Belief is a choice in a way that sexuality is not. Those are two fairly massive differences that show how false your equivalence is.
Interested to find out how you would justify your assertion that belief is a choice in a way that sexuality is not, when it has been repeatedly argued on here that you can't choose to believe something that you don't believe.
Belief and sexuality both seem hard to measure or quantify, exist on spectrums and are based on subjective assessments so how are you arriving at any meaningful distinction about the choice involved?
-
Interested to find out how you would justify your assertion that belief is a choice in a way that sexuality is not, when it has been repeatedly argued on here that you can't choose to believe something that you don't believe.
Fair point - my fault, to an extent I'm conflating terms. Whether you choose to believe in a God or not is not something, I'd agree, that you can 'choose' to believe - you can choose what you expose yourself to, and to some extent that can influence your beliefs and may even changed them, but it's not something you can . However, the individual tenets that anyone adopts they do seem to be a matter of individual choice - we see people move between sects and cults within religions and change to, ostensibly, 'other' religions.
Belief and sexuality both seem hard to measure or quantify, exist on spectrums and are based on subjective assessments so how are you arriving at any meaningful distinction about the choice involved?
To an extent, yes. Sexual attraction, though, is not as liable to change with time as religious belief, certainly after the end of childhood. We see any number of people fall into or out of religious belief, sometimes multiple times over their lifetime; it's far less common for people to change their sexuality; this, to a degree, is abetted by the fact that we see sexuality these days as a fluid spectrum, as you say, but I don't really see any similar subtlety in belief. Nor can I see how it would work.
You either believe in something, or you don't - agnosticism, and the questions about whether you can 'know' might influence 'how much' you believe, whether you're confident or not in that belief, but we don't tend to differentiate in the belief itself.
O.
-
VG,
Interested to find out how you would justify your assertion that belief is a choice in a way that sexuality is not, when it has been repeatedly argued on here that you can't choose to believe something that you don't believe.
Belief and sexuality both seem hard to measure or quantify, exist on spectrums and are based on subjective assessments so how are you arriving at any meaningful distinction about the choice involved?
Sort of. I can “believe” anything and, when better evidence is produced, conclude that I was wrong and follow the new evidence wherever it leads. People with religious faith will generally to do the same on most matters, except of course when the better evidence concerns their faith itself – in which case they will often deflect. It’s the old “a man who has not reasoned his way into a belief cannot be reasoned out of it” point.
No-one though is born with a religious faith – whereas other characteristics (gender, age, sexual orientation etc) are innate, and so in a different category.
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
Can you actually not see that your petulant foot-stamping conspiracy madness here is just cover for, "mwaaaah mwaaah, those horrible people with their reason and logic that keeps wrecking my religious claims and exposes my nasty homophobia for what it is won't go away and I don't know what to do about it...mwaaah, mwaaah" etc & wearily etc?
Anyway, here's why your espousal of homophobia is so contemptible (from the great Alan Shore):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnfEit4CqOI
Reason or logic? Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.
You've been found out for the self decieved theophobes, antitheists and antichristians you obviously are.
That's the nastiness of all these that and the persecution of Nicholas Marks on these boards which IMO demonstrated the complete failure of sensitivity in the antitheistic project.
-
VG,
No-one though is born with a religious faith
'So they're fair game eh, Essex.
-
VtH,
Reason or logic? Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.
Yes - the reason and logic that’s been given to you thousands of times and that you’ve never once in all these years been prepared even to try to address openly and honestly.
You've been found out for the self decieved theophobes, antitheists and antichristians you obviously are.
Lying ad homs are just yet more of your evasions. See above.
That's the nastiness of all these that and the persecution of Nicholas Marks on these boards which IMO demonstrated the complete failure of sensitivity in the antitheistic project.
Reason and logic aren’t “nasty”, and the utter lack of warmth, empathy and human feeling seems to me to have be shown always here by the religious – the more the religiosity, the fewer of these characteristics there are I find.
You want to talk about Nicholas Marks? Would that be the same NM who basically decided that people who died of cancer did so because it was their own fault: because of their "sins", or because they didn't embrace the batshit craziness he was peddling? How would do you think someone like should be treated?
Would you for example still be a venomous homophobe if you didn’t also have homophobic religious beliefs for your justification?
-
VG,
Sort of. I can “believe” anything and, when better evidence is produced, conclude that I was wrong and follow the new evidence wherever it leads. People with religious faith will generally to do the same on most matters, except of course when the better evidence concerns their faith itself – in which case they will often deflect. It’s the old “a man who has not reasoned his way into a belief cannot be reasoned out of it” point.
No-one though is born with a religious faith – whereas other characteristics (gender, age, sexual orientation etc) are innate, and so in a different category.
And yet, on other boards this man argues against free will. As always with BlueHillside there is the accompanyment of the smell of mint........Pure Humbug. I follow the evidence where it leads to and if I start with your parameter of evidence I can but glean information about material. Your theophobia and antitheism however sprout from a darker angrier quarter in my opinion.
But then antitheists and theophobes even deny being materialists too. However Richard Leowontin the recently deceased evolutionist summed up your position.
Richard Lewontin on Materialism
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”1
– Richard Lewontin
-
VtH,
And yet, on other boards this man argues against free will. As always with BlueHillside there is the accompanyment of the smell of mint........Pure Humbug.
Your lying game is strong here. I don’t argue against the experience of “free” will at all – just that the experience and the explanation for the phenmenon cannot be the same.
You knew that already though when you decided to lie about it didn’t you.
I follow the evidence where it leads to and if I start with your parameter of evidence I can but glean information about material.
Lie 2. “My parameter” foe evidence is that which has a method to distinguish it from just guessing. If you know of another method to do that, then after all these years tell us what it is.
You never will though will you.
Your theophobia and antitheism however sprout from a darker angrier quarter in my opinion.
Then, as so often, your opinion is wrong. Just out of interest, are the parts of your church that reject the homophobic part you espouse therefore theophobic and antitheistic too then?
But then antitheists and theophobes even deny being materialists too. However Richard Leowontin the recently deceased evolutionist summed up your position.
Richard Lewontin on Materialism
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”1
– Richard Lewontin”
Not very bright here is he? “We” "take the side of" materialism (actual materialism, not his straw man version of the supposed claims it makes) because it’s the only method we know of that observably produces solutions. If he and you don’t like that, then find something else to do the job. What do you suggest – the blind guessing of religions? After thousands of years of trying and countless different faiths, do you know how many solutions all of that has produced when set against the demonstrable successes of materialism?
That’s right – none whatsoever.
Funny that.
So anyway, about your homophobia…
-
VtH,
Your lying game is strong here. I don’t argue against the experience of “free” will at all – just that the experience and the explanation for the phenmenon cannot be the same.
You knew that already though when you decided to lie about it didn’t you.
Lie 2. “My parameter” foe evidence is that which has a method to distinguish it from just guessing. If you know of another method to do that, then after all these years tell us what it is.
You never will though will you.
Then, as so often, your opinion is wrong. Just out of interest, are the parts of your church that reject the homophobic part you espouse therefore theophobic and antitheistic too then?
Not very bright here is he? “We” "take the side of" materialism (actual materialism, not his straw man version of the supposed claims it makes) because it’s the only method we know of that observably produces solutions. If he and you don’t like that, then find something else to do the job. What do you suggest – the blind guessing of religions? After thousands of years of trying and countless different faiths, do you know how many solutions all of that has produced when set against the demonstrable successes of materialism?
That’s right – none whatsoever.
Funny that.
So anyway, about your homophobia…
Dear materialist antitheistic theophobe.
Actual materialism? Any word in your hands is flexible, pirated and altered to suit your ends.
I move that Lewontin has invited your wrath by being critical of Dawkins. My how you theophobes can work up a case of guilt by association.
-
VtH,
Dear materialist antitheistic theophobe.
Actual materialism? Any word in your hands is flexible, pirated and altered to suit your ends.
Flat out not true again. You seem to have forgotten that I've always been the one who's tried to stop you re-defining words and phrases for your own ends.
I move that Lewontin has invited your wrath by being critical of Dawkins.
Then you "move" wrongly: he didn't mention Dawkins. Look, if flat out lying is all you have (and it certainly seems that way) could you at least try to be a bit less terrible at it.
My how you theophobes can work up a case of guilt by association.
The only supposed association here is the dishonest one you just tried.
As ever, I give you arguments and you come back with ad homs, lies, evasions and fallacies but never - ever - a counter-argument of your own.
What does your consistently appalling behaviour here say about you do you think?
-
Fair point - my fault, to an extent I'm conflating terms. Whether you choose to believe in a God or not is not something, I'd agree, that you can 'choose' to believe - you can choose what you expose yourself to, and to some extent that can influence your beliefs and may even changed them, but it's not something you can . However, the individual tenets that anyone adopts they do seem to be a matter of individual choice - we see people move between sects and cults within religions and change to, ostensibly, 'other' religions.
To some extent I would agree that sometimes you can choose what you expose yourself to but your decision is determined by prior events as opposed to choosing in a free will kind of way. A lot of the time you find yourself exposed to things without planning it in advance, and once exposed I don't see evidence that you can choose what appeals to you, what resonates or intrigues and what doesn't.
This presumably also applies in the context of sexual attraction. Sexuality seems an abstract concept humans have created, which we only become aware of when our brains have sufficiently developed to be able to consider such abstract concepts. A baby would not be able to assess its sexuality.
The various inputs of sexual attraction are interpreted by the brain through a deterministic process whereby meanings are attached to those interpretations. Those meanings lead to a subjective assessment or belief about one's sexuality. Hence there are men who have sex with other men e.g. in prison but would still consider themselves heterosexual. We see evidence of some animals engaging in same sex sexual activity but we have no evidence that they would label themselves as heterosexual or homosexual or subscribe to abstract concepts of sexuality.
To an extent, yes. Sexual attraction, though, is not as liable to change with time as religious belief, certainly after the end of childhood. We see any number of people fall into or out of religious belief, sometimes multiple times over their lifetime; it's far less common for people to change their sexuality; this, to a degree, is abetted by the fact that we see sexuality these days as a fluid spectrum, as you say, but I don't really see any similar subtlety in belief. Nor can I see how it would work.
You either believe in something, or you don't - agnosticism, and the questions about whether you can 'know' might influence 'how much' you believe, whether you're confident or not in that belief, but we don't tend to differentiate in the belief itself.
O.
I would say that belief in something is determined by how appealing the belief is because of how it makes you feel to believe it versus not believing it. I don't think we can choose how appealing a belief is to us. This includes beliefs about sexuality. So I don't see much, if any, difference between beliefs about sexuality and beliefs about religion.
If we're comparing sexual attraction to religious beliefs, then I don't get to choose my body's physiological response to another human being. I also don't get to choose the brain activity or neural pathways that are stimulated or created that lead to a belief in the existence of nonmaterial agents; or that are responses to the changing cultural influences, ideas and doctrines that I am exposed to from infancy and throughout adulthood. I could however learn or be trained to supress and ignore both my physiological sexual attraction responses and my beliefs.
We seem to have created a multitude of labels to describe our subjective assessment of our sexuality and we change those labels based on how they make us feel. As more and more people explore this spectrum there seems to be increasing numbers of people changing their gender and/or their sexuality e.g Elliot Page who identified as a gay woman, and then a queer, non-binary, trans man. The meaning of all these different labels seems to be in a state of flux depending on who you speak to. https://www.them.us/story/what-does-queer-mean
-
VG,
Sort of. I can “believe” anything and, when better evidence is produced, conclude that I was wrong and follow the new evidence wherever it leads. People with religious faith will generally to do the same on most matters, except of course when the better evidence concerns their faith itself – in which case they will often deflect. It’s the old “a man who has not reasoned his way into a belief cannot be reasoned out of it” point.
No-one though is born with a religious faith – whereas other characteristics (gender, age, sexual orientation etc) are innate, and so in a different category.
How are you evidencing your assertions that no one is born with a religious faith whereas gender and sexual orientation are innate. All of them require sufficient brain development to be able to understand and respond to external stimuli before they can be detected or assessed.
They also all seem to be defined based on subjective interpretations or in many cases seem to defy any definition at all.
-
To some extent I would agree that sometimes you can choose what you expose yourself to but your decision is determined by prior events as opposed to choosing in a free will kind of way.
So I'd qualify all of it at the fundamental level by saying that I take a deterministic view; I think free will is a myth, but in the common understanding of choice, I think we can choose particular tenets (regardless of whether we're religious or not) but the conclusion you come to regarding whether there's 'something else' out there or not isn't a choice in even that sense.
A lot of the time you find yourself exposed to things without planning it in advance, and once exposed I don't see evidence that you can choose what appeals to you, what resonates or intrigues and what doesn't.
To some extent. Equally, you get people in restricted settings who don't have the freedom to go and explore wherever they will, which also limits their exposure.
This presumably also applies in the context of sexual attraction. Sexuality seems an abstract concept humans have created, which we only become aware of when our brains have sufficiently developed to be able to consider such abstract concepts.
We've identified it, but we haven't created it. When we become aware of it is one thing, but there are signs that it starts to develop before we become aware of it; indeed, it's the development and manifestation of it that leads us to become aware of it.
A baby would not be able to assess its sexuality.
It's not likely to have one, I'd suggest.
The various inputs of sexual attraction are interpreted by the brain through a deterministic process whereby meanings are attached to those interpretations.
Not just through the brain's activity, though. Although there isn't a single 'gay gene', or even a single definitive pattern, there are a number of gene sequences that are strongly identified with homosexuality, so at least an element of it - a tendency, if you'd like - is inherent.
Those meanings lead to a subjective assessment or belief about one's sexuality.
I'm not sure any other assessment is relevant - who I'm sexually attracted to is subjective, and that IS my sexuality.
Hence there are men who have sex with other men e.g. in prison but would still consider themselves heterosexual.
I don't think that's the case. They might think of themselves as bisexual, the might think of themselves as homosexual, they might be lying to themselves and consider themselves heterosexual with a 'needs must' policy. Whether they'd choose to openly admit to any of that, given various attitudes around them and their lives is a different matter. Whether they'd understand the implications of the term is a different matter. If they're attracted to men, even only in certain circumstances, then there's at least an element of homosexuality about them.
Of course, in a confined environment like a prison, whether they have sex with men may not have anything to do with attraction - behaviour is guided by sexuality, but not defined solely by it.
We see evidence of some animals engaging in same sex sexual activity but we have no evidence that they would label themselves as heterosexual or homosexual or subscribe to abstract concepts of sexuality.
I'd agree with that, with the qualifier that we don't necessarily have a good handle on exactly what level of sentience animals have; my instinct is that most of them where we've seen evidence of homosexual activity have insufficient awareness. I don't know if we've seen homosexual activity in some of the great apes, or other 'more intelligent' animals.
I would say that belief in something is determined by how appealing the belief is because of how it makes you feel to believe it versus not believing it. I don't think we can choose how appealing a belief is to us.
I've said before that, to some extent, rational arguments against god aren't going to be effective because there are vanishingly few people who come to a belief in gods through a rational assessment; there are post hoc rationalisations of greater or lesser effect, but belief tends to be an aesthetic or emotional response.
This includes beliefs about sexuality.
I'm not sure it's in the same category, because as we've established the sexuality is subjective; the existence of a god is objective. Your belief about your sexuality is by definition correct, because it's your opinion about you, there is no other take. What words you'd use to describe it could be discussed and argued (i.e. when is homosexuality actually homosexuality, such as your prison example above), but someone else's take on who your attracted to is meaningless by comparison. God, though, isn't a subjective characteristic, it's a claim about reality.
So I don't see much, if any, difference between beliefs about sexuality and beliefs about religion.
I hope I've explained why I do.
If we're comparing sexual attraction to religious beliefs, then I don't get to choose my body's physiological response to another human being.
And, so far as we know, we can't do anything to alter that.
I also don't get to choose the brain activity or neural pathways that are stimulated or created that lead to a belief in the existence of nonmaterial agents; or that are responses to the changing cultural influences, ideas and doctrines that I am exposed to from infancy and throughout adulthood.
You do have some choice over the cultural influences you're exposed to - some people to a greater or lesser extent.
I could however learn or be trained to supress and ignore both my physiological sexual attraction responses and my beliefs.
Exactly, and this is where it becomes problematic. Vlad's 'anti-theism' ravings notwithstanding, there aren't a huge number of people calling for religious expression to be prohibited or restricted or limited; there are moves to put it on a more equal footing with other philosophies in some instances, but I'd suggest that's a different thing (a discussion for elsewhere, if needed).
There are, though, organisations looking to restrict, limit and constrain the freedom of people to express their sexuality, and in most instances they are either religiously motivated or strongly supported by SOME religious bodies and organisations.
We seem to have created a multitude of labels to describe our subjective assessment of our sexuality and we change those labels based on how they make us feel. As more and more people explore this spectrum there seems to be increasing numbers of people changing their gender and/or their sexuality e.g Elliot Page who identified as a gay woman, and then a queer, non-binary, trans man. The meaning of all these different labels seems to be in a state of flux depending on who you speak to. https://www.them.us/story/what-does-queer-mean
That's moving from a relatively simple question of sexuality - who are you sexually attracted to - to the intersection of gender, sex and sexuality which introduces all sorts of complications, not least of which is because gender is an entirely created concept. No-one naturally has a sense of gender, the develop an understanding of how well or badly they conform to the sex-based expectations and stereotypes of their culture - which can be confounded by attitudes towards sexuality as well, but are separate.
O.
-
VG,
How are you evidencing your assertions that no one is born with a religious faith whereas gender and sexual orientation are innate.
Not sure if you’re being serious here? Religious beliefs are learned, almost always as a reflection of the proximate culture – remote Amazonian tribespeople for example don’t spontaneously become Christians (and vice versa). Sexual orientation on the other hand (to take just one example of an innate characteristic) occurs with the more or less the same frequency regardless of culture.
All of them require sufficient brain development to be able to understand and respond to external stimuli before they can be detected or assessed.
No they don’t. To stick with homosexuality, it appears in any population and for that matter in populations of many other species too. There are various ideas about the evolutionary advantages of homosexual sub-populations within the larger genome, but there’s nothing “to understand and respond to” – it just happenes.
They also all seem to be defined based on subjective interpretations or in many cases seem to defy any definition at all.
Not really. Either individuals are attracted to the same sex or they’re not. That’s observably the case, both in our species and in others.
-
I don't think that's the case. They might think of themselves as bisexual, the might think of themselves as homosexual, they might be lying to themselves and consider themselves heterosexual with a 'needs must' policy. Whether they'd choose to openly admit to any of that, given various attitudes around them and their lives is a different matter. Whether they'd understand the implications of the term is a different matter. If they're attracted to men, even only in certain circumstances, then there's at least an element of homosexuality about them.
Of course, in a confined environment like a prison, whether they have sex with men may not have anything to do with attraction - behaviour is guided by sexuality, but not defined solely by it.
I think this is where it gets more interesting. It's been reported that men and women who are raped can involuntarily experience orgasm - it is a physiological response to physical stimulation. This includes heterosexual men who are sexually assaulted by men experiencing arousal. Current thinking is that it does not mean they wanted the sexual assault to happen or that we should interpret their physiological response as them having homosexual tendencies. So the psychological component of sexuality is important.
Hence my view that the labels people attach to their responses are based on nurture/ cultural inputs and these labels do not exist objectively to be identified.
I'm not sure it's in the same category, because as we've established the sexuality is subjective; the existence of a god is objective. Your belief about your sexuality is by definition correct, because it's your opinion about you, there is no other take. What words you'd use to describe it could be discussed and argued (i.e. when is homosexuality actually homosexuality, such as your prison example above), but someone else's take on who your attracted to is meaningless by comparison. God, though, isn't a subjective characteristic, it's a claim about reality.
On other threads I have argued that for something to exist objectively, there must be an objective way to establish its existence. Without the ability to establish this we are left with faith - a belief that is not supported by objective evidence. One of the characteristics of a god is that it is non-material, which would mean believers have to rely on faith. Your definition of reality would also presumably link to objective evidence and would therefore not make room for gods?
And, so far as we know, we can't do anything to alter that.
Again this is interesting. I have seen experiments that allow people to control their physiological responses to pain so we may find that it could be possible to control your responses to other stimuli including your physiological responses to sexual stimuli. For example a Shaolin monk's brain measured very few pain points when he submerged his hand in a bowl of ice water while being measured in an MRI scanner, and he could keep his hand in the ice water for a long time. Whereas a person who had not spent years training to use his mind to control his physiological responses was shown to have many pain points light up in the MRI and he could not keep his hand in the ice water because of the pain.
You do have some choice over the cultural influences you're exposed to - some people to a greater or lesser extent.
True but not so much of a choice over your reaction to those influences, though you can train yourself to supress or control your reaction.
Exactly, and this is where it becomes problematic. Vlad's 'anti-theism' ravings notwithstanding, there aren't a huge number of people calling for religious expression to be prohibited or restricted or limited; there are moves to put it on a more equal footing with other philosophies in some instances, but I'd suggest that's a different thing (a discussion for elsewhere, if needed).
No. However, if we "other" religious people we do react and respond to them differently compared to how we would respond to people we think are similar to us.
There are, though, organisations looking to restrict, limit and constrain the freedom of people to express their sexuality, and in most instances they are either religiously motivated or strongly supported by SOME religious bodies and organisations.
Yes and often the people who feel their religious expression is an intrinsic part of who they are and should therefore not be repressed seem comfortable telling other people that they should repress aspects of themselves that they feel are intrinsic to who they are. It's not really surprising that if they come on a message board and advocate such views that they might experience some of the same hostility they display to other people. Flawed people telling other people they are flawed generally don't tend to get a kind and welcoming reception. But that would apply to all of us. Hence I don't expect to get a kind and welcoming reception on a message board - if it happens it's a bonus.
That's moving from a relatively simple question of sexuality - who are you sexually attracted to - to the intersection of gender, sex and sexuality which introduces all sorts of complications, not least of which is because gender is an entirely created concept. No-one naturally has a sense of gender, the develop an understanding of how well or badly they conform to the sex-based expectations and stereotypes of their culture - which can be confounded by attitudes towards sexuality as well, but are separate.
O.
It used to be simple but not sure it is any more. It used to be that if the people I seemed interested in or fantasised about kissing belonged to the opposite sex then I was heterosexual. But ever since I went to the US to a cousin's wedding and met their close family friend who is a trans man who used to date lots of boys in his teenage years as a girl, but is now in a relationship with a woman, who told me that she considers herself straight (she had a previous relationship with a man and has a child out of that relationship), I don't think these abstract concepts of sexuality can still be defined the way we used to define them.
-
VG,
Hence my view that the labels people attach to their responses are based on nurture/ cultural inputs and these labels do not exist objectively to be identified.
This makes little sense. It’s not a matter of “labels” being attached – in a given population (of our and of many other species) it’s observably the case that a sub-population will exhibit same-sex attraction. This is no more culturally determined than eye colour is culturally determined – it just happens.
You’re on dangerous ground here too by the way – if you want to claim that homosexuality is culturally determined, then you open the door to so-called “deconversion therapies”. After all, if culture did it then you can de-culture when it suits right?
-
VG,
Not sure if you’re being serious here? Religious beliefs are learned, almost always as a reflection of the proximate culture – remote Amazonian tribespeople for example don’t spontaneously become Christians (and vice versa). Sexual orientation on the other hand (to take just one example of an innate characteristic) occurs with the more or less the same frequency regardless of culture.
Not sure whether world religions can be classed as ''local''. What mechanism are you suggesting? On the other hand I believe that white middle class attention seekers can go full New Atheist (which AS THE BIOLOGIST AND ATHEIST DAVID WILSON reminds us is a stealth religion) When they are in the locality of a microphone, TV camera , Book signing, an opportunity to reprise Alf Garnett in quasi academic idiom.............so there might be something in it.
-
I think this is where it gets more interesting. It's been reported that men and women who are raped can involuntarily experience orgasm - it is a physiological response to physical stimulation. This includes heterosexual men who are sexually assaulted by men experiencing arousal. Current thinking is that it does not mean they wanted the sexual assault to happen or that we should interpret their physiological response as them having homosexual tendencies. So the psychological component of sexuality is important.
I think you're using sexuality, there, in a sense that I wouldn't - at least in the sense of who you are attracted to. What your physiological response to any given sexual activity (or, in some instances, an ostensibly non-sexual activity) might be is probably influenced by your sexuality, but it doesn't define your sexuality. And certainly it goes beyond the use in this context of 'what group/groups of people are you sexually attracted to'.
On other threads I have argued that for something to exist objectively, there must be an objective way to establish its existence. Without the ability to establish this we are left with faith - a belief that is not supported by objective evidence. One of the characteristics of a god is that it is non-material, which would mean believers have to rely on faith. Your definition of reality would also presumably link to objective evidence and would therefore not make room for gods?
Yes and no. The nature of our existence is that our consciousness is entirely subjective - even the ostensibly objective measurement of phenomena by physical instruments is only interpreted through a subjective lens. At a practical level, that subjectivity behaves so consistently that it provides a reasonable basis for presuming the findings of measurement to be likely accurate.
My definition of reality would be that you have to have a reasonable basis for presuming something, anything, is a part of it. That consistency of scientific enquiry validates that methodology, to an extent. I'm not averse to another methodology - logic, perhaps - but I'm not aware of one that gives a justifiable basis for accepting any claim of 'god', non-material or otherwise.
Again this is interesting. I have seen experiments that allow people to control their physiological responses to pain so we may find that it could be possible to control your responses to other stimuli including your physiological responses to sexual stimuli.
I'm aware of a few people for whom the two are interlinked, but that's a different discussion again. Again, though, is this difference of understanding of what we mean by sexuality in this context: yours appears to be a more expansive term which includes behaviour and active responses, whereas I'm using it in a narrower sense limited to the attraction people feel. What they do about it, how they respond to sexual overtures that are or are not in keeping with that attraction are important, generally, but are outside of my use of the term here.
For example a Shaolin monk's brain measured very few pain points when he submerged his hand in a bowl of ice water while being measured in an MRI scanner, and he could keep his hand in the ice water for a long time. Whereas a person who had not spent years training to use his mind to control his physiological responses was shown to have many pain points light up in the MRI and he could not keep his hand in the ice water because of the pain.
Which I'd argue is a conditioned reduction in the extent to which a physiological response is being experienced; it neither signifies a change in the nature of the response, nor indicates that his desire to feel or not feel that sensation is necessarily changed.
However, if we "other" religious people we do react and respond to them differently compared to how we would respond to people we think are similar to us.
Ironic, given religion's history of being used amongst other things as a tribal identifier to signify the 'in' and 'out' group.
Yes and often the people who feel their religious expression is an intrinsic part of who they are and should therefore not be repressed seem comfortable telling other people that they should repress aspects of themselves that they feel are intrinsic to who they are. It's not really surprising that if they come on a message board and advocate such views that they might experience some of the same hostility they display to other people. Flawed people telling other people they are flawed generally don't tend to get a kind and welcoming reception. But that would apply to all of us. Hence I don't expect to get a kind and welcoming reception on a message board - if it happens it's a bonus.
I'm not for a moment suggesting that's not your experience, but I find it sad that this is the case. I hope I've not been a part of it; I try to argue the case, not the person. I'm fully supportive of people practicing their religion however they choose, I just advocate that it isn't allowed to spill over and restrict how other people live their lives any more than is absolutely necessary.
[quoteIt used to be simple but not sure it is any more. It used to be that if the people I seemed interested in or fantasised about kissing belonged to the opposite sex then I was heterosexual. But ever since I went to the US to a cousin's wedding and met their close family friend who is a trans man who used to date lots of boys in his teenage years as a girl, but is now in a relationship with a woman, who told me that she considers herself straight (she had a previous relationship with a man and has a child out of that relationship), I don't think these abstract concepts of sexuality can still be defined the way we used to define them.[/quote]
Gender is a social construct, and as our social understanding of gender evolves so do those elements that interact with it. Is sexuality dependent upon sex, gender or both? Given the variability of gender, and the fact that gender is defined in response to social understandings of the particular roles of the sexes, is a strictly linear spectrum of sexuality the right model, or do we need something that varies on multiple axes - can you be strictly attracted to biological femaleness but open to a variety of gender identities? I think we're still working those ideas out - at least now we do seem to working on them rather than pretending they don't exist.
O.
-
VtL,
Not sure whether world religions can be classed as ''local''.
You’ve missed the point. Religious people almost always subscribe to the religion that happens to be most proximate (or “local”) to them in time and place. That’s why Amazonian tribespeople don’t spontaneously become Christians and vice versa.
What mechanism are you suggesting?
For enculturation? Tribal stories, “holy” texts, various incantations and dances, special schools etc.
On the other hand I believe that white middle class attention seekers can go full New Atheist (which AS THE BIOLOGIST AND ATHEIST DAVID WILSON reminds us is a stealth religion) When they are in the locality of a microphone, TV camera , Book signing, an opportunity to reprise Alf Garnett in quasi academic idiom.............so there might be something in it.
Now you’ve had your paranoid fantasy, did you have an argument of any sort to make?
-
VG,
Not sure if you’re being serious here? Religious beliefs are learned, almost always as a reflection of the proximate culture – remote Amazonian tribespeople for example don’t spontaneously become Christians (and vice versa). Sexual orientation on the other hand (to take just one example of an innate characteristic) occurs with the more or less the same frequency regardless of culture.
Yes being very serious. While there is evidence that the way people express their religious belief is learned, this is not the same thing as religious belief itself - if there are people all over the world in different cultures who believe in a non-material agent, how have you established that this belief does not have a genetic or innate component?
That sexual orientation occurs in more or less the same frequency does not tell you how much of that orientation is down to cultural inputs and how much is innate.
No they don’t. To stick with homosexuality, it appears in any population and for that matter in populations of many other species too. There are various ideas about the evolutionary advantages of homosexual sub-populations within the larger genome, but there’s nothing “to understand and respond to” – it just happenes.
Yes they do. Without developing sufficiently to be able to experiment, how would they arrive at a label that they identify with? And how do you establish how much of that development and experimentation was influenced by their environment or experiences after birth?
Ok so your answer is that for you the observation that "it just happens" is sufficient for you. Other people on this message board might not be satisfied with "it just happens" and might want to understand how people arrive at their various identities and labels - they might want to know more about the psychological and physiological components, the nature v nurture etc. By the way, I don't think a psychological component applies to eye colour so I don't think you have established that sexuality can be analysed and discussed in the same way as we analyse eye colour.
Not really. Either individuals are attracted to the same sex or they’re not. That’s observably the case, both in our species and in others.
Yes but the labels they attach to their attractions are diverse. As I mentioned to Outrider, an example that made me see these issues in a less simplistic way was when someone I met at a wedding (my parents were good friends with his parents many years ago) had changed gender and their new partner considered herself a normal heterosexual woman who was attracted to a man whose biological sex was female.
-
VtL,
You’ve missed the point. Religious people almost always subscribe to the religion that happens to be most proximate (or “local”) to them in time and place. That’s why Amazonian tribespeople don’t spontaneously become Christians and vice versa.
For enculturation? Tribal stories, “holy” texts, various incantations and dances, special schools etc.
Now you’ve had your paranoid fantasy, did you have an argument of any sort to make?
Have you read Karen Armstrong on local antitheism? For example, the focus of say, your antitheism will be Christianity and so forth and throughout history the antitheism of a locality is based on the theism.
Matthew suggests that there is a theology which those not carrying the overt doctrinal theology can display knowledge of.
''When did we do these things Lord?''
Besides, Even you show you make the distinction between antiheism and religion.
-
VG,
Yes being very serious. While there is evidence that the way people express their religious belief is learned, this is not the same thing as religious belief itself - if there are people all over the world in different cultures who believe in a non-material agent, how have you established that this belief does not have a genetic or innate component?
Ah, now you’re drawing your parameters too narrowly. It seems that pattern and explanation-seeking behaviour is innate – if the grass rustles and you tell yourself it’s a tiger and run away for example explanation-seeking will become embedded over time (and as the people who didn’t run away and were eaten by tigers die out). Religion – typically starting with creation myths – is just a functional manifestation of same explanation-seeking phenomenon.
That sexual orientation occurs in more or less the same frequency does not tell you how much of that orientation is down to cultural inputs and how much is innate.
Yes it does. First, that it occurs at about the same frequency regardless of the prevailing culture suggests strongly that it’s innate.
Secondly, other species homosexuality where there are no cultural factors at play also at consistent incidences points strongly to the same thing.
Yes they do. Without developing sufficiently to be able to experiment, how would they arrive at a label that they identify with? And how do you establish how much of that development and experimentation was influenced by their environment or experiences after birth?
You’re making no sense. Either, say, some dolphins exhibit same sex attraction or they don’t (they do by the way). This is observably the case. How you choose to “label” that is a separate matter entirely. There’s no evidence either that dolphins (or black swans or elephants or marmots or for that matter people) have to “experiment” before deciding on their sexuality. Did you feel the need to experiment with boys, then girls, then whatever before making a choice about your orientation? I know I didn’t.
Ok so your answer is that for you the observation that "it just happens" is sufficient for you.
Actually it’s sufficient for people who research these things – so far as they can tell, it’s a nature (ie, genetic) and environmental mixture, but the environmental part seems to be mostly inter-uterine. So far as societal (ie, cultural) issues are concerned, there’s a higher reported incidence of gay people in more tolerant societies, but that seems to be to do with how secure they feel being out rather than with societies changing anything fundamental.
Other people on this message board might not be satisfied with "it just happens" and might want to understand how people arrive at their various identities and labels - they might want to know more about the psychological and physiological components, the nature v nurture etc.
Again, the “identities and labels” part is a separate matter. I’m talking about the attraction itself – not what it’s called.
By the way, I don't think a psychological component applies to eye colour so I don't think you have established that sexuality can be analysed and discussed in the same way as we analyse eye colour.
That wasn’t the point. You were saying that babies don’t have a sexual orientation. That’s doubtful as they more likely don’t have a sexual orientation that’s expressed yet, but in any case eye colour is an analogy. Babies often don’t have an adult eye colour that’s expressed yet either – the colour of eyes at birth will change to the final colour months or even tears later.
Yes but the labels they attach to their attractions are diverse. As I mentioned to Outrider, an example that made me see these issues in a less simplistic way was when someone I met at a wedding (my parents were good friends with his parents many years ago) had changed gender and their new partner considered herself a normal heterosexual woman who was attracted to a man whose biological sex was female.
So what? None of this is relevant. You can talk about labelling to your heart’s content if you want to, but the point here is that our and many other species exhibit sexual attraction behaviours that are distinct and different from other sexual attraction behaviours. That’s it, and why it happens is a matter of some conjecture – possibly it creates more resources for care of the offspring for example. And yes, the lines between these behaviours can be blurred, and yes individuals can move across those lines over time sometimes, and yes labelling is therefore a complex and uncertain business. The point though is that these behaviour happen, not because people decide about them (“I think I’ll try being gay these week to see how I like it”) but because they’re compelled to by their character.
-
I think you're using sexuality, there, in a sense that I wouldn't - at least in the sense of who you are attracted to. What your physiological response to any given sexual activity (or, in some instances, an ostensibly non-sexual activity) might be is probably influenced by your sexuality, but it doesn't define your sexuality. And certainly it goes beyond the use in this context of 'what group/groups of people are you sexually attracted to'.
Ok so are we assuming that a voluntary desire to kiss someone or not is a measure of attraction? If you want to kiss them, you are attracted to them? And that determines the label you attach to your sexuality?
I would then want to know how much of that attraction has a psychological component. I am not sure that people operate in an environment where there are no constraints or influences. In the context of artificial constraints such as in a prison environment or where access to the opposite sex or access to sexual activity is limited or prohibited, I assume this will have a psychological effect. Now if we look at non-prison environments that have fewer external constraints and more freedoms, I think it is safe to assume that different people react differently to the influences around them, which forms the psychological component of their attraction and therefore their sexuality. This would tie in with the idea that sexuality is on a spectrum.
Yes and no. The nature of our existence is that our consciousness is entirely subjective - even the ostensibly objective measurement of phenomena by physical instruments is only interpreted through a subjective lens. At a practical level, that subjectivity behaves so consistently that it provides a reasonable basis for presuming the findings of measurement to be likely accurate.
My definition of reality would be that you have to have a reasonable basis for presuming something, anything, is a part of it. That consistency of scientific enquiry validates that methodology, to an extent. I'm not averse to another methodology - logic, perhaps - but I'm not aware of one that gives a justifiable basis for accepting any claim of 'god', non-material or otherwise.
Yes I am not aware of a method that can be used to justify any claim of 'god' hence my belief relies on faith, not evidence.
I'm aware of a few people for whom the two are interlinked, but that's a different discussion again. Again, though, is this difference of understanding of what we mean by sexuality in this context: yours appears to be a more expansive term which includes behaviour and active responses, whereas I'm using it in a narrower sense limited to the attraction people feel. What they do about it, how they respond to sexual overtures that are or are not in keeping with that attraction are important, generally, but are outside of my use of the term here.
Fair enough. I am more interested in behaviour and active responses rather than desires, because society tends to regulate action rather than thoughts. Society often requires me to not act on my desires, even though I cannot choose what I desire.
Which I'd argue is a conditioned reduction in the extent to which a physiological response is being experienced; it neither signifies a change in the nature of the response, nor indicates that his desire to feel or not feel that sensation is necessarily changed.
I am not sure I understand. Without a bio-chemical reaction of some kind to measure, how do we establish the nature of the response?
Ironic, given religion's history of being used amongst other things as a tribal identifier to signify the 'in' and 'out' group.
Agreed
I'm not for a moment suggesting that's not your experience, but I find it sad that this is the case. I hope I've not been a part of it; I try to argue the case, not the person. I'm fully supportive of people practicing their religion however they choose, I just advocate that it isn't allowed to spill over and restrict how other people live their lives any more than is absolutely necessary.
Hostility is a subjective assessment so all I can say subjectively is that no I don't remember any hostile exchanges with you. Plus I am not sure I was on this message board to feel welcomed, though it's a bonus to my ego if that happens, but I also think seeing people's hostile reactions helps me to better understand the perspectives of others by their emotional reaction to certain ideas, which has been a great learning experience for me.
Yes that is the incredibly difficult and therefore interesting part - how to balance the competing rights and freedoms of individuals and groups, who are convinced that someone else's freedoms and rights are negatively impacting on their own freedoms and rights. People seem to want the freedom or right to not hear things they don't like, not see things they don't like, not feel triggered by images, words and actions they don't like. This seems to apply to religious as well as non-religious.
Gender is a social construct, and as our social understanding of gender evolves so do those elements that interact with it. Is sexuality dependent upon sex, gender or both? Given the variability of gender, and the fact that gender is defined in response to social understandings of the particular roles of the sexes, is a strictly linear spectrum of sexuality the right model, or do we need something that varies on multiple axes - can you be strictly attracted to biological femaleness but open to a variety of gender identities? I think we're still working those ideas out - at least now we do seem to working on them rather than pretending they don't exist.
O.
Yes I would agree. The human construct of gender makes things more complicated. What will become more interesting is if we start attributing gender concepts to animals that is distinct from their biological sex.
-
VtH,
Have you read Karen Armstrong on local antitheism?
No.
For example, the focus of say, your antitheism will be Christianity and so forth and throughout history the antitheism of a locality is based on the theism.
The “focus” might be because that’s the one that most affects the society I happen to live in. As you know full well though, I’m an equal opportunities atheist – they all seem to rest on the same mistakes in reasoning or on statements of blind faith, and they seem to me to be equally harmful at least in principle (except maybe Janism?). The variances in the actual harm they do seem to me to be a function of the extent to which they’re kept in check by secular societies (Taliban-era Afghanistan at one end of the spectrum vs liberal Sweden at the other for example).
Matthew suggests that there is a theology which those not carrying the overt doctrinal theology can display knowledge of.
''When did we do these things Lord?''
?
Besides, Even you show you make the distinction between antiheism and religion.
?
-
VG,
Ah, now you’re drawing your parameters too narrowly. It seems that pattern and explanation-seeking behaviour is innate – if the grass rustles and you tell yourself it’s a tiger and run away for example explanation-seeking will become embedded over time (and as the people who didn’t run away and were eaten by tigers die out). Religion – typically starting with creation myths – is just a functional manifestation of same explanation-seeking phenomenon.
Yes it does. First, that it occurs at about the same frequency regardless of the prevailing culture suggests strongly that it’s innate.
Secondly, other species homosexuality where there are no cultural factors at play also at consistent incidences points strongly to the same thing.
If your conjecture is that religious belief is an embedded innate manifestation of explanation-seeking behaviour, I don't think people decide about these embedded innate manifestations - they do not have a choice about believing. Either they believe in nonmaterial / supernatural agents framed in whatever religious terms their particular culture uses or they don't. Some people may believe in the paranormal instead. And some people believe in neither or both.
Rather than repeat your assertion it would help if you support your assertion with some links about the frequency of same-sex attraction in different cultures and the possible explanations for this. I assume there are different views and theories about the expression of nature and nurture in relation to sexuality.
You’re making no sense. Either, say, some dolphins exhibit same sex attraction or they don’t (they do by the way). This is observably the case. How you choose to “label” that is a separate matter entirely. There’s no evidence either that dolphins (or black swans or elephants or marmots or for that matter people) have to “experiment” before deciding on their sexuality. Did you feel the need to experiment with boys, then girls, then whatever before making a choice about your orientation? I know I didn’t.
I was referring only to people, as humans attach labels to sexual behaviour, not animals. And by "experiment" I did not suggest that people need to experiment with both sexes. By "experiment" I meant that people firstly have to have matured enough to recognise feelings of sexual attraction, and then matured sufficiently to consensually engage in sexual behaviour based on those feelings of sexual attraction. Therefore babies cannot experiment but teenagers can.
Actually it’s sufficient for people who research these things
Again, something more than your assertions are needed here for your argument to be convincing. – so far as they can tell, it’s a nature (ie, genetic) and environmental mixture, but the environmental part seems to be mostly inter-uterine. So far as societal (ie, cultural) issues are concerned, there’s a higher reported incidence of gay people in more tolerant societies, but that seems to be to do with how secure they feel being out rather than with societies changing anything fundamental.
Some evidence to back up your assertions would be welcome.
Again, the “identities and labels” part is a separate matter. I’m talking about the attraction itself – not what it’s called.
And I am not interested in the statement that someone has desires or attractions. People feel attractions and desires for lots of different things. Hence we were comparing human sexual attraction to human attractions to a particular type of belief and discussing whether and how both are influenced by nature and environment, especially given that human attraction to things has an evolutionary biological and psychological component. Given these 2 components, I am interested in whether society seeks to regulate people acting on those desires and how far it seeks to regulate this.
That wasn’t the point. You were saying that babies don’t have a sexual orientation. That’s doubtful as they more likely don’t have a sexual orientation that’s expressed yet, but in any case eye colour is an analogy. Babies often don’t have an adult eye colour that’s expressed yet either – the colour of eyes at birth will change to the final colour months or even tears later.
You're entitled to your belief that babies have a sexual orientation - when evidence is found to support this we can assess at that point. What does it matter what the final eye colour is? My point was that it is possible to record an eye colour in babies, regardless of whether it changes or not later. We don't need to wait for them to grow up and articulate their eye colour.
So what? None of this is relevant. You can talk about labelling to your heart’s content if you want to, but the point here is that our and many other species exhibit sexual attraction behaviours that are distinct and different from other sexual attraction behaviours. That’s it, and why it happens is a matter of some conjecture – possibly it creates more resources for care of the offspring for example. And yes, the lines between these behaviours can be blurred, and yes individuals can move across those lines over time sometimes, and yes labelling is therefore a complex and uncertain business. The point though is that these behaviour happen, not because people decide about them (“I think I’ll try being gay these week to see how I like it”) but because they’re compelled to by their character.
It's relevant to the idea that Outrider and I were discussing that some people exhibit attraction to beliefs that are distinct and different from the belief attractions exhibited by other people and that you can't choose which beliefs attract you.
-
VtH,
No.
The “focus” might be because that’s the one that most affects the society I happen to live in. As you know full well though, I’m an equal opportunities atheist – they all seem to rest on the same mistakes in reasoning or on statements of blind faith, and they seem to me to be equally harmful at least in principle (except maybe Janism?). The variances in the actual harm they do seem to me to be a function of the extent to which they’re kept in check by secular societies (Taliban-era Afghanistan at one end of the spectrum vs liberal Sweden at the other for example).
?
?
I think religion would and does affect your actual day to day very little. I led an atheist existence, not at all bothered by religion. However you have a commitment to antitheism and what it is that drives you into a paranoid state that is completely unnecessary. My atheist years were a fair few years ago when the swiveleyed tendency demonstrated on this forum didn't exist. Obviously such frenzy needed the anonimity of the internet and a bit of 'consciousness raising.....or shit stirring as it's known, from Dawkins and co.
consider
We are living in a secular society where it is dead easy to be free of religion. It's a great place isn't it.
On the other hand your references to Nigerian ant gods, amazonian gods, taliban, bronze age goat herders leave a bit of an unsavoury taste in the mouth with a kind of invitation to ridicule and consider them in terms of social immaturity hanging over their mention. I hope you have some alternative explanation as to why you are using these.
In any case Amazonians quite often want no cultural input from outside at all,
-
VG,
If your conjecture is that religious belief is an embedded innate manifestation of explanation-seeking behaviour, I don't think people decide about these embedded innate manifestations - they do not have a choice about believing. Either they believe in nonmaterial / supernatural agents framed in whatever religious terms their particular culture uses or they don't. Some people may believe in the paranormal instead. And some people believe in neither or both.
But the point here is why they believe in such things: stick children in religious schools, and you’ll get religious adults (moreover, religious adults who subscribe to whichever denomination the school happens to be: kids put in madrassas become muslims; kids put in christian schools become christians. For that matter Amazonian tribespeople whose kids are brought up in their traditions become whatever their culture teaches them. These days with more multi-cultural societies you do see more crossover than there used to be (and more escapees too), but there’s no mystery about this).
Conversely, leave kids to develop their critical faculties and then to decide for themselves (as we do with, say, politics) and relatively few will become religious from a standing start after age 18.
Rather than repeat your assertion it would help if you support your assertion with some links about the frequency of same-sex attraction in different cultures and the possible explanations for this. I assume there are different views and theories about the expression of nature and nurture in relation to sexuality.
Bit rich given your reliance on only assertion so far, but ok. Here you go:
“The prevalence of women’s and men’s heterosexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality was assessed in 28 nations using data from 191,088 participants from a 2005 BBC Internet survey. Sexual orientation was measured in terms of both self-reported sexual identity and self-reported degree of same-sex attraction. Multilevel modeling analyses revealed that nations’ degrees of gender equality, economic development, and individualism were not significantly associated with men’s or women’s sexual orientation rates across nations. These models controlled for individual-level covariates including age and education level, and nation-level covariates including religion and national sex ratios. Robustness checks included inspecting the confidence intervals for meaningful associations, and further analyses using complete-cases and summary scores of the national indices. These analyses produced the same non-significant results. The relatively stable rates of heterosexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality observed across nations for both women and men suggest that non-social factors likely may underlie much variation in human sexual orientation. These results do not support frequently offered hypotheses that sexual orientation differences are related to gendered social norms across societies.”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-019-01590-0
I was referring only to people, as humans attach labels to sexual behaviour, not animals.
But the point here remains the observable behaviour itself (across species) not how you happen to label it.
And by "experiment" I did not suggest that people need to experiment with both sexes. By "experiment" I meant that people firstly have to have matured enough to recognise feelings of sexual attraction, and then matured sufficiently to consensually engage in sexual behaviour based on those feelings of sexual attraction. Therefore babies cannot experiment but teenagers can.
Whoosh. People will engage sexually with whichever gender they feel the urge to feel attracted to. That’s it. You don’t need to have “matured enough” mentally – either you feel a certain way when your hormones kick in or you don’t. You know this already though – people with severe developmental issues can also have sexual urges of various types even though they'd be considered mentally very immature.
Again, something more than your assertions are needed here for your argument to be convincing.
Again, you were the one making he unqualified assertions, and again – nonetheless, here you go (there are thousands of papers on this online by the way – this is just one of the first that I found):
“Research on the causes of human sexual orientation has been marshaled in support of predetermined and opposing theological viewpoints. Whilst acknowledging that there is still much that is not known, the peer reviewed scientific literature clearly shows that a combination of genetic and environmental factors contribute to sexual orientation, with approximately one third of variance currently attributed to the former. Much of the known environmental influence appears to be intra-uterine and there is no currently convincing evidence that social environment plays a significant part...”
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13558358.2020.1818541
Some evidence to back up your assertions would be welcome.
See above.
And I am not interested in the statement that someone has desires or attractions. People feel attractions and desires for lots of different things. Hence we were comparing human sexual attraction to human attractions to a particular type of belief and discussing whether and how both are influenced by nature and environment, especially given that human attraction to things has an evolutionary biological and psychological component. Given these 2 components, I am interested in whether society seeks to regulate people acting on those desires and how far it seeks to regulate this.
Oh for sure many societies (especially religious ones) seek to regulate private sexual behaviours. You missed the point though: regardless of how you choose to label these behaviours, they happen. Various species contain sub-groups of same sex partners that observably pair bond, engage in sexual activity etc. Call that gay, straight of pineapple-flavoured for all I care, the point remains the behaviour itself, not what you call it.
You're entitled to your belief that babies have a sexual orientation - when evidence is found to support this we can assess at that point.
Wrong again. As so far the biggest causes of homosexuality are believed to be genetic (about a third) and intra-uterine environmental (about two thirds) with no significant later cultural difference at all (see above) that’s all there already in latent form by the time the baby is born. So are the genetic markers for eye colour, which is why it's analogous.
What does it matter what the final eye colour is? My point was that it is possible to record an eye colour in babies, regardless of whether it changes or not later. We don't need to wait for them to grow up and articulate their eye colour.
Actually we do, though it may be possible to do a genetic test to find out what the eventual eye colour will be. That’s not the point though: the point is that later life eye colour and later life sexual orientation alike are highly likely to be programmed in by birth, not determined by environmental factors that come later.
It's relevant to the idea that Outrider and I were discussing that some people exhibit attraction to beliefs that are distinct and different from the belief attractions exhibited by other people and that you can't choose which beliefs attract you.
That’s a different issue from labelling, and in any case the answer to that seems to be to do with the type of belief. An intellectualised belief – that the sun orbits the earth for example – can generally be changed when there’s enough evidence to show it to be wrong. An emotional belief on the other hand – “god”, that you love your children etc – on the the hand cannot be reasoned away. The problem with the god belief though is that people will then act on that belief in ways that affect other people - Vlad’s unpleasantly homophobic denial of “holy” marriage services to gay people for example.
-
VtH,
Not very bright here is he? “We” "take the side of" materialism (actual materialism, not his straw man version of the supposed claims it makes) because it’s the only method we know of that observably produces solutions.
He's talking about the philosophy of materialism i.e. the presumption of materialism before one undertakes science. Many people on here have questioned whether non materialists can be proper scientists or suggest that non materialists drop their non materialism. So are you saying that philosophical materialism comes from the methodology or the enterprise of science follows from the commitment to materialism? If he and you don’t like that, then find something else to do the job. What do you suggest – the blind guessing of religions? After thousands of years of trying and countless different faiths, do you know how many solutions all of that has produced when set against the demonstrable successes of materialism?
The dichotomy between science and religion you present here is a false one. I can have all of science and religion. You are trying to stop at the method of materialism so when the question of the philosophy of materialism rises you can guff on about the method and sticking your fingers in your ear over an actual motivation for pursuing the method. Lewontin has in fact nailed it....and you.
You have become your own spiv salesman and mug customer.
Since Lewontin has succesfully described the philosophy of materialism and that the method of materialism. You have no justification to eliminate the philosophy.
Any argument you have with Lewontin proceeds from a misrepresentation of materialism.
I feel also that you are slighting Lewontin as a scientist here too. What is that all about?
-
VtH,
He's talking about the philosophy of materialism i.e. the presumption of materialism before one undertakes science. Many people on here have questioned whether non materialists can be proper scientists or suggest that non materialists drop their non materialism.
“Non-materialists” can be anything they wish, but if they want to investigate and verify truths about the universe and they don’t like materialism as their paradigm, then they have all their work ahead of them to find an alternative. Otherwise all they have is guessing
So are you saying that philosophical materialism…
Given that you’ve never been able to grasp what that term means (despite being given numerous citations) I’ve no idea how you expect me to answer questions about it – by reference to its actual meaning, or by reference to the various re-inventions of it you’ve attempted (being generally conflations with physicalism)).
…comes from the methodology or the enterprise of science follows from the commitment to materialism?
Philosophical materialism (actual meaning) is simply the conviction that materialism is the most reliable method we know of to investigate and verify the universe. Absent any other known method, it simply affirms that – so far at least – materialism is the only show in town.
The dichotomy between science and religion you present here is a false one. I can have all of science and religion.
Not when your religion makes scientific claims you can’t. Stick with, “I can have all of science and all of the guessing of religion” though and you’re fine.
You are trying to stop at the method of materialism so when the question of the philosophy of materialism rises you can guff on about the method and sticking your fingers in your ear over an actual motivation for pursuing the method. Lewontin has in fact nailed it....and you.
You’ve collapsed into a straw man, albeit incoherently expressed. I “stop at the method of materialism” only because I know of no other method to distinguish truth claims from just guessing. Nor moreover do you.
You have become your own spiv salesman and mug customer.
You’re hysterical now. Do you have a point of any sort to make?
Since Lewontin has succesfully described the philosophy of materialism and that the method of materialism. You have no justification to eliminate the philosophy.
Lying doesn’t help you here. Lewotkin (according to the quote you posted) straw manned materialism. Perhaps that's why you’re in thrall to him?
Yet again – if you don’t like me materialism, what do you propose as its replacement?
Or do you intend to stay silent on this problem forever?
Any argument you have with Lewontin proceeds from a misrepresentation of materialism.
Still lying eh? No – the problem is with Lewontin (and your) misrepresentation of materialism. He ascribes to it claims it doesn’t make, and then critiques it for not delivering on those claims. Like you, he also fails to suggest what he’d put in its place to do a better job.
I feel also that you are slighting Lewontin as a scientist here too. What is that all about?
And another straw man to finish. I said very specifically that he’s not very bright “here”. I made no comment about anything else he may have said or done.
Anyway, back to the homophobia you’ve been peddling here…
-
VtH,
“Non-materialists” can be anything they wish, but if they want to investigate and verify truths about the universe and they don’t like materialism as their paradigm, then they have all their work ahead of them to find an alternative. Otherwise all they have is guessing
Given that you’ve never been able to grasp what that term means (despite being given numerous citations) I’ve no idea how you expect me to answer questions about it – by reference to its actual meaning, or by reference to the various re-inventions of it you’ve attempted (being generally conflations with physicalism)).
Philosophical materialism (actual meaning) is simply the conviction that materialism is the most reliable method we know of to investigate and verify the universe. Absent any other known method, it simply affirms that – so far at least – materialism is the only show in town.
Not when your religion makes scientific claims you can’t. Stick with, “I can have all of science and all of the guessing of religion” though and you’re fine.
You’ve collapsed into a straw man, albeit incoherently expressed. I “stop at the method of materialism” only because I know of no other method to distinguish truth claims from just guessing. Nor moreover do you.
You’re hysterical now. Do you have a point of any sort to make?
Lying doesn’t help you here. Lewotkin (according to the quote you posted) straw manned materialism. Perhaps that's why you’re in thrall to him?
Yet again – if you don’t like me materialism, what do you propose as its replacement?
Or do you intend to stay silent on this problem forever?
Still lying eh? No – the problem is with Lewontin (and your) misrepresentation of materialism. He ascribes to it claims it doesn’t make, and then critiques it for not delivering on those claims. Like you, he also fails to suggest what he’d put in its place to do a better job.
And another straw man to finish. I said very specifically that he’s not very bright “here”. I made no comment about anything else he may have said or done.
Anyway, back to the homophobia you’ve been peddling here…
Your error at root was always equating science with materialism.
Regarding alleged homophobia, driven theophobes, antitheists, antichristians, people suspisciously acting as if they are inviting us to snigger at the lack of intellectual and social sophistication of amazonians, ant god worshippers, ancients and people who live in glasshouses shouldn't really be throwing stones.
-
VG,
But the point here is why they believe in such things: stick children in religious schools, and you’ll get religious adults (moreover, religious adults who subscribe to whichever denomination the school happens to be: kids put in madrassas become muslims; kids put in christian schools become christians. For that matter Amazonian tribespeople whose kids are brought up in their traditions become whatever their culture teaches them. These days with more multi-cultural societies you do see more crossover than there used to be (and more escapees too), but there’s no mystery about this).
Conversely, leave kids to develop their critical faculties and then to decide for themselves (as we do with, say, politics) and relatively few will become religious from a standing start after age 18.
No, talking about schools and particular religious practices might be a point that you want to make but that is irrelevant to the point that I was discussing - that some people have always been attracted to a belief that there is something more out there, a non-material agent, the supernatural. My discussion was not about any specific religion but about whether we can choose beliefs. A belief in something more has been happening long before the existence of mass education. If you want to discuss the link between religious schools and particular religions you'll have to find someone else to discuss it with, as from my perspective, you and I have discussed and disagreed many times on this topic so I have no interest in a repeat performance.
Bit rich given your reliance on only assertion so far, but ok. Here you go:
Not sure I follow - what assertion are you referring to? I expressed opinions and asked questions and spoke about what has been argued on other threads about beliefs but if something came across as an assertion feel free to point it out and I'll either modify it or clarify my meaning or provide some supporting evidence, depending on what it was.
“The prevalence of women’s and men’s heterosexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality was assessed in 28 nations using data from 191,088 participants from a 2005 BBC Internet survey. Sexual orientation was measured in terms of both self-reported sexual identity and self-reported degree of same-sex attraction. Multilevel modeling analyses revealed that nations’ degrees of gender equality, economic development, and individualism were not significantly associated with men’s or women’s sexual orientation rates across nations. These models controlled for individual-level covariates including age and education level, and nation-level covariates including religion and national sex ratios. Robustness checks included inspecting the confidence intervals for meaningful associations, and further analyses using complete-cases and summary scores of the national indices. These analyses produced the same non-significant results. The relatively stable rates of heterosexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality observed across nations for both women and men suggest that non-social factors likely may underlie much variation in human sexual orientation. These results do not support frequently offered hypotheses that sexual orientation differences are related to gendered social norms across societies.”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-019-01590-0
Thanks for your link. I read it. It's very interesting though not based on a random sample of people so not representative enough to rule out other factors.
It seems to be the views of BBC service-users in different countries who had an interest in the topic enough to volunteer to participate and report on whether they have felt any same sex attraction and what label they would attach to their sexual orientation from a choice of heterosexual, bi-sexual or homosexual, including whether they would label themselves heterosexual despite reporting having felt a same-sex attraction. So it's a study on how people who are comfortable with the BBC's culture (enough to access their survey) would rate the level of opposite sex and same sex-attraction they have ever felt (“1—not at all” to “7—very”) and which label they would pick to describe their sexual orientation from a choice of 3.
The survey found that among their volunteers there was a higher rate of men who identified as homosexual compared to women, in all the nations where volunteers completed the survey. And then it spoke about the limitations of the study e.g. cultural factors to do with self-identification, the use of only English as the language in the survey so the language of other cultures might not correspond to the English word, and that the samples used were not random or necessarily representative of national patterns overall.
And the discussion ends with "Future empirical studies are needed to better test the extent to which national gender norms and economic factors are related to variations in the expression of sexual orientation across nations." So look forward to reading the explanations that those future studies put forward.
But the point here remains the observable behaviour itself (across species) not how you happen to label it.
And my point remains that babies are not developed enough to report same-sex attraction so we have to wait until they develop sufficiently to exhibit or report it, unless you have a study we can read about the biological markers for same-sex attraction being observed in babies?
Whoosh. People will engage sexually with whichever gender they feel the urge to feel attracted to. That’s it. You don’t need to have “matured enough” mentally – either you feel a certain way when your hormones kick in or you don’t. You know this already though – people with severe developmental issues can also have sexual urges of various types even though they'd be considered mentally very immature.
No sure what the whoosh means, given you just agreed with my point - when the hormones kick in and people exhibit or report same sex attraction is a development point that does not occur in babies.
Again, you were the one making he unqualified assertions, and again – nonetheless, here you go (there are thousands of papers on this online by the way – this is just one of the first that I found):
“Research on the causes of human sexual orientation has been marshaled in support of predetermined and opposing theological viewpoints. Whilst acknowledging that there is still much that is not known, the peer reviewed scientific literature clearly shows that a combination of genetic and environmental factors contribute to sexual orientation, with approximately one third of variance currently attributed to the former. Much of the known environmental influence appears to be intra-uterine and there is no currently convincing evidence that social environment plays a significant part...”
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13558358.2020.1818541
See above. Ain’t facts a bitch sometime eh?
Again - what exactly are you referring to when you say "unqualified assertions". I have not formed a view on this and was after information. Why would facts be a bitch - you're not making any sense?
Your link is very interesting and I look forward to further research that can provide more certainty. Your link indicates that men and women experience attraction differently - men experience more category-specific attraction - they are attracted to a particular sex - whereas women's "experiences of sexual attraction are more malleable and context dependent than men’s" and women are more likely to demonstrate sexual fluidity. On the subject of genetics your link says "these analyses suggest that, overall, sexual orientation in homosexual people is 32% due to genetic factors, 25% due to family environment, and 43% due to specific environment. These figures represent a modest, but not insignificant, genetic contribution to sexual orientation.....the processes that lead to bodily anatomical and physiological sexual characteristics must clearly be distinguished from those that act upon the brain to influence experiences of sexual attraction and associated sexual behavior. It is therefore entirely possible, at least in principle, that differences in adult sexual orientation are the result of exposure of particular brain regions to atypical hormone levels during a crucial period of development.....Is it possible, then, that variant levels of androgens acting differentially upon sexual organ development and certain brain regions during crucial periods of development might sometimes result in adult males who experience androphilia, or adult females who experience gynephilia? Evidence from animal studies, and from clinical studies of humans, suggests that this indeed might be possible."
Your link says that putting aside differing interpretations of the evidence, "it is also important to recognize that the scientific perspective still understands “nurture” as a part of the natural order. Distinctions between “nature and nurture” are easily misunderstood as a contrast between what is “natural” and what human agency imposes. Influences of nurture – family upbringing, wider society, life events of various kinds – are still part of the natural order. Human life in this world cannot be conceived of without them. They may be judged adverse or beneficial to human flourishing, and they may be more or less amenable to intentional manipulation, but they are still a part of the whole system of causation that science takes into account when studying sexual orientation or, indeed, most other human traits and characteristics, as well as many physical and mental disorders. Even if “nurture” were found to be more important in the causation of sexual orientation, it would therefore still only be one part of the whole natural system of interacting variables that go to make people who and what they are. In any case, the present weight of evidence is strongly in favor of non-social, rather than social, causes of sexual orientation."
On the effect of hormones during in-uterine development, your link says "There is some evidence that these irreversible, or “organisational”, influences might include changes in the brain which determine adult sexual orientation. Whilst this evidence is subject to significant limitations, notably due to the impossibility of ethically conducting the appropriate scientific experiments on human beings, it derives from a variety of sources and, taken together, provides a body of support which cannot currently be completely dismissed."
Oh for sure many societies (especially religious ones) seek to regulate private sexual behaviours. You missed the point though: regardless of how you choose to label these behaviours, they happen. Various species contain sub-groups of same sex partners that observably pair bond, engage in sexual activity etc. Call that gay, straight of pineapple-flavoured for all I care, the point remains the behaviour itself, not what you call it.
What point am I missing, given your statement that "they happen" is agreeing with my statement that people feel attractions and desires for lots of different things?
Wrong again. As so far the biggest causes of homosexuality are believed to be genetic (about a third) and intra-uterine environmental (about two thirds) with no significant later cultural difference at all (see above) that’s all there already in latent form by the time the baby is born. So are the genetic markers for eye colour, which is why it's analogous.
Did you read the part in your link which said "these analyses suggest that, overall, sexual orientation in homosexual people is 32% due to genetic factors, 25% due to family environment, and 43% due to specific environment. These figures represent a modest, but not insignificant, genetic contribution to sexual orientation"?
Actually we do, though it may be possible to do a genetic test to find out what the eventual eye colour will be. That’s not the point though: the point is that later life eye colour and later life sexual orientation alike are highly likely to be programmed in by birth, not determined by environmental factors that come later.
Did you read the part in your link that starts "it is also important to recognize that the scientific perspective still understands “nurture” as a part of the natural order...."? (see above)
That’s a different issue from labelling, and in any case the answer to that seems to be to do with the type of belief. An intellectualised belief – that the sun orbits the earth for example – can generally be changed when there’s enough evidence to show it to be wrong. An emotional belief on the other hand – “god”, that you love your children etc – on the the hand cannot be reasoned away. The problem with the god belief though is that people will then act on that belief in ways that affect other people - Vlad’s unpleasantly homophobic denial of “holy” marriage services to gay people for example.
Yes Outrider and I were discussing emotional beliefs. Yes that is the problem with emotional beliefs - people act on them - and as humans can't do away with emotional beliefs we'll just have to learn to work with them.
Edited as I forgot to insert a quote to differentiate BHS's comment from my reply.
While I am here, BHS, did you say gender is an innate characteristic - do you have any studies you can link to on that?
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
And so the pattern repeats. You post a string of ad homs, logical fallacies, evasions, straw men etc but never, ever, ever an argument of your own. I take the time and trouble to correct you on each of them using actual arguments. You then just ignore all the corrections you been given, and instead try another string of…
… ad homs, logical fallacies, evasions, straw men etc
Your error at root was always equating science with materialism.
That’s not an error. Science is materialistic. What else do you think it might be: fairyistic? Leprechaunistic? Religious faith-istic?
Jeez – when you crash and burn there are no half measures are there.
Regarding alleged homophobia…
It’s not “alleged” – it’s actual. Your own words condemn you on this point.
…driven theophobes, antitheists, antichristians, people suspisciously acting as if they are inviting us to snigger at the lack of intellectual and social sophistication of amazonians, ant god worshippers, ancients and people who live in glasshouses shouldn't really be throwing stones.
Yes I know that ad homs are all you have, but even if any of that was true (and none of it is) either the arguments that demonstrate your homophobia stand or they don’t. As you (apparently proudly) continue to espouse your homophobia, whatever mad motives you want to make up and ascribe to me are entirely irrelevant: you peddle a homophobic god and a homophobic church. Either finally address that or don’t, but dishonest ad homs are just more of your avoidance.
Your do realise that Jesus would be disgusted with you for your behaviour here right?
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
And so the pattern repeats. You post a string of ad homs, logical fallacies, evasions, straw men etc but never, ever, ever an argument of your own. I take the time and trouble to correct you on each of them using actual arguments. You then just ignore all the corrections you been given, and instead try another string of…
… ad homs, logical fallacies, evasions, straw men etc
That’s not an error. Science is materialistic. What else do you think it might be: fairyistic? Leprechaunistic? Religious faith-istic?
Jeez – when you crash and burn there are no half measures are there.
It’s not “alleged” – it’s actual. Your own words condemn you on this point.
Yes I know that ad homs are all you have, but even if any of that was true (and none of it is) either the arguments that demonstrate your homophobia stand or they don’t. As you (apparently proudly) continue to espouse your homophobia, whatever mad motives you want to make up and ascribe to me are entirely irrelevant: you peddle a homophobic god and a homophobic church. Either finally address that or don’t, but dishonest ad homs are just more of your avoidance.
Your do realise that Jesus would be disgusted with you for your behaviour here right?
How many fucking times do you need to be reminded that science does not equate to materialism and that philosophical materialism doesn't just comprise of thinking that science is the best way of finding things out. Or that a driven religiophobe lecturing someone on homophobia is faintly ridiculous.
You are justifying your religiophobia on historic damage done fine, no doubt a homophobe would justify their phobia on the historic damage done by homosexual excess by the Roman aristocracy.
I think we're done here.
-
Vlad drags Christianity through the sewer, I reckon he is Satan's best buddy.
-
Vlad drags Christianity through the sewer, I reckon he is Satan's best buddy.
And what effect have 'nice' christians, prepared to shut up and be quiet, had on your antitheism?
When you say Satan, what on earth can a professed atheist mean by that ?
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
How many fucking times do you need to be reminded that science does not equate to materialism and that philosophical materialism doesn't just comprise of thinking that science is the best way of finding things out.
Just out of interest, if I offered you £1m do you think even then you’d be able to post something that isn’t flat out lying? Or is your dishonesty so pathological that you just can’t stop yourself from doing it?
First, no-one has said that science “equates” to materialism. What has been said though is that all science is materialistic. Science is the systematic building and organising of knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the material universe. There’s no such thing as non-materialistic science – for that matter, there’s no good reason to think there even is a "non-materialistic".
Second, philosophical materialism exactly does mean that the material is the most reliable (actually the only) paradigm we have for understanding the universe. I know you’ve always tried to straw man philosophical materialism into physicalism (the view that all that exists is necessarily ultimately physical) but just using another lie for your premise blows you out of the water before you even begin.
Or that a driven religiophobe lecturing someone on homophobia is faintly ridiculous.
We’ve already covered your reliance on the ad hom as an avoidance tactic. Just attacking the motives (also dishonestly as it happens) of the person making the arguments that undo you is only avoidance of the arguments themselves. You’re a homophobe. We know that because you keep espousing homophobic opinions. Whether the person pointing this out is a “theophobe” or anything else you want to make up has absolutely no relevance to the arguments that expose you for what you are.
You are justifying your religiophobia on historic damage done fine, no doubt a homophobe would justify their phobia on the historic damage done by homosexual excess by the Roman aristocracy.
Gibberish. Try to focus here: you’re a homophobe, and a self-confessed one at that. Deal with it or don’t, but the fact of it doesn’t change.
I think we're done here.
Yes, we're always “done” when you finally run out of lies to tell.
Why do I keep having a recurring image Jesus sobbing with his head in his hands each time he sees you trashing everything he stood for?
-
Vlad the Homophobe,
And what effect have 'nice' christians, prepared to shut up and be quiet, had on your antitheism?
No-one here asks nice Christians to shut up and be quiet. What actually happens here is that some of us try to persuade one not at all nice (supposed) Christian to stop lying.
When you say Satan, what on earth can a professed atheist mean by that ?
"Satan" is another Christian fantasy figure (see also "god"). If there was such a thing though, he sure struck gold when he found you.
-
If Satan exists he must be awarding Vlad gold medal status for his evil presentation of Christianity. >:(
-
If Satan exists he must be awarding Vlad gold medal status for his evil presentation of Christianity. >:(
You didn't answer my questions. Typical antitheist disrespect?
-
VtH,
You didn't answer my questions. Typical antitheist disrespect?
Said the person who's never, ever, ever answered any questions that other people have ever asked him?
Epic hypocrisy here don't you think?
-
VG,
No, talking about schools and particular religious practices might… etc
Are you familiar with the Gish Gallop? It’s technique in which a debater attempts to overwhelm an opponent with a scattergun volley of arguments, assertions etc such that it’s impossible to respond to them individually without taking excessive time and effort. The person using the technique then looks for whatever’s inevitable been missed by his opponent and uses the omission to claim his “victory”. I mention it because we always seem to reach the same point, only in your case the technique is the opposite of the Gish Gallop: you write posts of such overwhelming length that it’s impossible to address them without taking even more space to do it.
If you want to refine your key points and arguments into digestible form I’ll be pleased to respond to them. In the meantime though I’ve skim read your post, and the brief responses to (what I think are your key points) are as follows:
1. Beliefs that there must be “something more out there” seem to me to be fairly obviously on the same continuum as our species’ need to seek patterns and explanations. “Must be” and “is” are not the same thing, and better it seems a conspiracy theory than no theory at all - at least for some.
2. Beliefs can and do change when further and better information is available. They tend to do so less readily though when the beliefs are not evidence-based to start with.
3. All the research I can find indicates that later life sexual orientation is substantially fixed by the time of birth, just as eye colour is.
4. Critiqueing the methodologies of the studies we do have is not the same thing as producing studies with different results. More research being need does not invalidate the only research on the table so far.
5. Of course babies don’t report same sex attraction (or any sexual attraction for that matter). Sexual attraction occurs later in life when hormonal development triggers it, but the studies we have tell us that it’s most likely latent at birth nonetheless. The same is true of eye colour.
6. Your unqualified assertions were about the impact of societal cultures on sexual orientation.
7. The references to environmental factors concern inter-uterine environments rather than societal ones, and even the family issue (the correlation between increased homosexuality and having older brothers) seems to be to do with hormones the mother produces before birth.
As I say though, happy to respond to specific issues if I've missed them.
-
VG,
Are you familiar with the Gish Gallop? It’s technique in which a debater attempts to overwhelm an opponent with a scattergun volley of arguments, assertions etc such that it’s impossible to respond to them individually without taking excessive time and effort. The person using the technique then looks for whatever’s inevitable been missed by his opponent and uses the omission to claim his “victory”. I mention it because we always seem to reach the same point, only in your case the technique is the opposite of the Gish Gallop: you write posts of such overwhelming length that it’s impossible to address them without taking even more space to do it.
If you want to refine your key points and arguments into digestible form I’ll be pleased to respond to them. In the meantime though I’ve skim read your post, and the brief responses to (what I think are your key points) are as follows:
1. Beliefs that there must be “something more out there” seem to me to be fairly obviously on the same continuum as our species’ need to seek patterns and explanations. “Must be” and “is” are not the same thing, and better it seems a conspiracy theory than no theory at all - at least for some.
2. Beliefs can and do change when further and better information is available. They tend to do so less readily though when the beliefs are not evidence-based to start with.
3. All the research I can find indicates that later life sexual orientation is substantially fixed by the time of birth, just as eye colour is.
4. Critiqueing the methodologies of the studies we do have is not the same thing as producing studies with different results. More research being need does not invalidate the only research on the table so far.
5. Of course babies don’t report same sex attraction (or any sexual attraction for that matter). Sexual attraction occurs later in life when hormonal development triggers it, but the studies we have tell us that it’s most likely latent at birth nonetheless. The same is true of eye colour.
6. Your unqualified assertions were about the impact of societal cultures on sexual orientation.
7. The references to environmental factors concern inter-uterine environments rather than societal ones, and even the family issue (the correlation between increased homosexuality and having older brothers) seems to be to do with hormones the mother produces before birth.
As I say though, happy to respond to specific issues if I've missed them.
BHS the evasive hypocrite
Given your unwillingness to respond to specific points, and as you seem to think we are opponents rather than 2 people on a message board having a discussion, clearly there is no sensible discussion to be had with you here so I thought I would channel you in your posts to Vlad, given how similar your above post is to some of Vlad's posts that you take issue with.
It's quite hypocritical of you to castigate Vlad for being evasive and not addressing points made and repeating assertions, when you have done the same thing here. Saying that you are happy to respond to specific issues issues when you have quite clearly not responded to the specific issues I raised just wastes both our times.
Actions speak louder than words. Trying to dress up your evasiveness with references to the gish gallop won't work. I have experienced this before with you - you make vague assertions and when i pin you down you duck out of responding. On another thread a while ago you told me you were a bit busy and would respond to my post later and then kept ducking out of responding when I reminded you.
I think we both know that you are not going to respond to the specific points I raised - either because you are only on here to showboat rather than have an honest discussion, or because you lack the intellectual capacity, and maybe your monumental ego prevents you from having an honest discussion if your assertions are questioned.
Your own links are far more nuanced in their opinions. if anyone reads them they can see that many of your assertions are not as clear cut as you make out. Which makes sense as the people who carried out the studies you linked to are far too intelligent to make the simplistic assertions you make.
Regarding point 6 - if you quote the unqualified assertions about the impact of societal cultures on sexual orientation that you are referring to, I can then assess and respond accordingly. It may be that you misunderstood my point or it may be that I need to refer to links that I interpreted when I formed my opinion. Your own links spoke about the impact of societal cultures.
In any case, my point about sexual orientation being impacted by societal culture has been about the labels people use for themselves, not whether people who are sufficiently developed to experience sexual attraction feel attracted to people of the same sex, the opposite sex, or both.
Regarding the feeling of sexual attraction itself I think there is a psychological component to sexual attraction. This 2018 article linking to studies of animals raises the idea that considering the extensive similarities between primates and humans, it is reasonable to expect that homoerotic alliance formation, and the related social functions of tension reduction and reconciliation, might play a role in human homoerotic behavior https://psychotherapy.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.2016.70.3.251
The article also links to studies that appear to show that "homoerotic behavior has been noted to increase in same-sex settings including schools, prisons, and religious institutions such as nunneries" though it also supports the genetic component that "it is likely that genetic and early (even prenatal) environmental factors produce a given level of motivation on each dimension that varies between individuals, although research will have to prove this supposition."
-
VG,
BHS the evasive hypocrite
Given your unwillingness to respond to specific points, and as you seem to think we are opponents rather than 2 people on a message board having a discussion, clearly there is no sensible discussion to be had with you here so I thought I would channel you in your posts to Vlad, given how similar your above post is to some of Vlad's posts that you take issue with.
It's quite hypocritical of you to castigate Vlad for being evasive and not addressing points made and repeating assertions, when you have done the same thing here. Saying that you are happy to respond to specific issues issues when you have quite clearly not responded to the specific issues I raised just wastes both our times.
Actions speak louder than words. Trying to dress up your evasiveness with references to the gish gallop won't work. I have experienced this before with you - you make vague assertions and when i pin you down you duck out of responding. On another thread a while ago you told me you were a bit busy and would respond to my post later and then kept ducking out of responding when I reminded you.
I think we both know that you are not going to respond to the specific points I raised - either because you are only on here to showboat rather than have an honest discussion, or because you lack the intellectual capacity, and maybe your monumental ego prevents you from having an honest discussion if your assertions are questioned.
Your own links are far more nuanced in their opinions. if anyone reads them they can see that many of your assertions are not as clear cut as you make out. Which makes sense as the people who carried out the studies you linked to are far too intelligent to make the simplistic assertions you make.
Regarding point 6 - if you quote the unqualified assertions about the impact of societal cultures on sexual orientation that you are referring to, I can then assess and respond accordingly. It may be that you misunderstood my point or it may be that I need to refer to links that I interpreted when I formed my opinion. Your own links spoke about the impact of societal cultures.
In any case, my point about sexual orientation being impacted by societal culture has been about the labels people use for themselves, not whether people who are sufficiently developed to experience sexual attraction feel attracted to people of the same sex, the opposite sex, or both.
Regarding the feeling of sexual attraction itself I think there is a psychological component to sexual attraction. This 2018 article linking to studies of animals raises the idea that considering the extensive similarities between primates and humans, it is reasonable to expect that homoerotic alliance formation, and the related social functions of tension reduction and reconciliation, might play a role in human homoerotic behavior https://psychotherapy.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.2016.70.3.251
The article also links to studies that appear to show that "homoerotic behavior has been noted to increase in same-sex settings including schools, prisons, and religious institutions such as nunneries" though it also supports the genetic component that "it is likely that genetic and early (even prenatal) environmental factors produce a given level of motivation on each dimension that varies between individuals, although research will have to prove this supposition."
Are you feeling unwell or something?
First, I always answer questions; Vlad never answer questions. You're comparing chalk with cheese here.
Second, I merely explained that posting great rambling tracts makes it almost to respond. I also gave you bullet point replies to the points I thought were attempting, and offered to reply more precisely if you would condense your points into digestible form.
What more do you expect?
-
VG,
Are you feeling unwell or something?
First, I always answer questions; Vlad never answer questions. You're comparing chalk with cheese here.
Second, I merely explained that posting great rambling tracts makes it almost to respond. I also gave you bullet point replies to the points I thought were attempting, and offered to reply more precisely if you would condense your points into digestible form.
What more do you expect?
BHS the evasive hypocrite
I am feeling just fine, thank you for asking. Are you feeling well? Your post was one long-winded evasion, so very similar to what you accuse Vlad of.
Sure you can call my post rambling (do you mean the parts of it where I quoted from the studies that you linked to and then questioned your interpretation of those sections?) and tell me to comply with your undefined request to "condense" my points "into digestible form" as a way of avoiding responding to the points I raised.
I don't count your repeated assertions as responses. Your own links are far more nuanced in their opinions. if anyone reads them they can see that many of your assertions are not as clear cut as you make out. Which makes sense as the people who carried out the studies you linked to are far too intelligent to make the simplistic assertions that you make on here.
Just a friendly reminder - if you quote the unqualified assertions about the impact of societal cultures on sexual orientation that you are referring to, I can then assess and respond accordingly. It may be that you misunderstood my point or it may be that I need to refer to links that I interpreted when I formed my opinion. Your own links spoke about the impact of societal cultures.
-
VG,
BHS the evasive hypocrite
I don’t know why you’re still lying about this but it’s up to you.
I am feeling just fine, thank you for asking. Are you feeling well? Your post was one long-winded evasion, so very similar to what you accuse Vlad of.
See above.
Sure you can call my post rambling (do you mean the parts of it where I quoted from the studies that you linked to and then questioned your interpretation of those sections?) and tell me to comply with your undefined request to "condense" my points "into digestible form" as a way of avoiding responding to the points I raised.
I don't count your repeated assertions as responses. Your own links are far more nuanced in their opinions. if anyone reads them they can see that many of your assertions are not as clear cut as you make out. Which makes sense as the people who carried out the studies you linked to are far too intelligent to make the simplistic assertions that you make on here.
Just a friendly reminder - if you quote the unqualified assertions about the impact of societal cultures on sexual orientation that you are referring to, I can then assess and respond accordingly. It may be that you misunderstood my point or it may be that I need to refer to links that I interpreted when I formed my opinion. Your own links spoke about the impact of societal cultures.
You’re the kind of person who, when asked for the time, explains how a watch works. Set out you questions or comments clearly and concisely though and I’ll reply to them (as I always do).
Is that so unreasonable?
-
VG,
Are you feeling unwell or something?
There you go everybody. More projection than the nationwide re-opening of cineworld.
-
VG,
I don’t know why you’re still lying about this but it’s up to you.
See above.
You’re the kind of person who, when asked for the time, explains how a watch works. Set out you questions or comments clearly and concisely though and I’ll reply to them (as I always do).
Is that so unreasonable?
BHS the evasive hypocrite
I see you're still lacking the intellectual capacity to engage. That's up to you - I've experienced your evasiveness before.
I don't count your repeated assertions as responses. Your own links that I quoted back to you are far more nuanced than your simplistic assertions. Which makes sense as the people who carried out the studies you linked to are far too intelligent to make simplistic assertions.
I see you are still having trouble pasting some quotes here of the assertions you say I made about the impact of societal cultures on sexual orientation. I can only assume you were either lying or mistaken. But if you ever get around to doing so, I can then assess and respond accordingly. It may be that you misunderstood my point or it may be that I need to refer to links that I interpreted when I formed my opinion. Your own links spoke about the impact of societal cultures.
-
Who says it has only one primary function? The penis has more than one important function. The hand has multiple functions. As does your mouth.
Nope, won't do. You've declared a primary function without establishing the fact. For all you know God buried the prostate gland up there so that only the truly enlightened could find it.
So, what is the function of the prostate gland?
-
So, what is the function of the prostate gland?
What? You haven't got Google?
You are just bloody lazy:
https://prostatecancernewstoday.com/2017/03/09/nine-things-the-prostate-gland-does/
In the context I have mentioned pay attention to the fourth item on the list.
-
What? You haven't got Google?
You are just bloody lazy:
https://prostatecancernewstoday.com/2017/03/09/nine-things-the-prostate-gland-does/
In the context I have mentioned pay attention to the fourth item on the list.
And currently for Gordon and I, to be a fucking bastard
-
What? You haven't got Google?
You are just bloody lazy:
https://prostatecancernewstoday.com/2017/03/09/nine-things-the-prostate-gland-does/
In the context I have mentioned pay attention to the fourth item on the list.
Basically to get sperm to where it needs to go, then.
-
Basically to get sperm to where it needs to go, then.
Is that into your special sock?
-
Basically to get sperm to where it needs to go, then.
If you think that is all it does then I can only picture you walking around with a permanent damp patch in your groin area.
-
If you think that is all it does then I can only picture you walking around with a permanent damp patch in your groin area.
Incorrect. It stops urine entering the urethra but not when you're walking around. The pelvic floor muscles do that.
-
Incorrect. It stops urine entering the urethra but not when you're walking around. The pelvic floor muscles do that.
I am not incorrect.
If you dispute that, take it up with a urologist. I'm done with stupid for the day.
-
I am not incorrect.
If you dispute that, take it up with a urologist. I'm done with stupid for the day.
If that were the case, wouldn't it be normal for women to have a "permanent damp patch"?
-
If that were the case, wouldn't it be normal for women to have a "permanent damp patch"?
Ain't going to dignify that with a reply.
-
If that were the case, wouldn't it be normal for women to have a "permanent damp patch"?
No - maybe you need to do a bit of homework on the voiding of urine in humans, Spud.
-
No - maybe you need to do a bit of homework on the voiding of urine in humans, Spud.
So apparently there is a change of shape of the prostate before micturition, caused by contraction of muscle at the front of the urethra. Regarding this claim from Trent's link, "The prostate controls the flow of urine down the urethra and stops urine from leaving the bladder until a man needs to urinate", why then do only 6-8% of men who've had their prostate removed develop urinary incontinance?
-
So apparently there is a change of shape of the prostate before micturition, caused by contraction of muscle at the front of the urethra. Regarding this claim from Trent's link, "The prostate controls the flow of urine down the urethra and stops urine from leaving the bladder until a man needs to urinate", why then do only 6-8% of men who've had their prostate removed develop urinary incontinance?
There is more than just the prostate involved.
-
So apparently there is a change of shape of the prostate before micturition, caused by contraction of muscle at the front of the urethra. Regarding this claim from Trent's link, "The prostate controls the flow of urine down the urethra and stops urine from leaving the bladder until a man needs to urinate", why then do only 6-8% of men who've had their prostate removed develop urinary incontinance?
25% initially, falling back to 6-8%, the difference being helped by a variety of methods including drugs and exercises.
-
25% initially, falling back to 6-8%, the difference being helped by a variety of methods including drugs and exercises.
Fair enough. I'm pretty sure your claim that the prostate prevents incontinence is wrong though. Micturition is controlled by the muscles of the bladder wall and the internal and external sphincters. Surgery can cause damage to these or their nerve supply, resulting in incontinence.
There's movement of the prostate while peeimg, according to recent research, but I suspect this is to do with preventing urine entering the seminal ducts.
-
I'm pretty sure your claim that the prostate prevents incontinence is wrong though.
That wasn't my point. My point was that without a prostate you are more likely to suffer incontinence. The rates of incontinence after prostate surgery have over the last two to three decades thankfully fallen with better surgical options and as I said before drugs, exercise and particularly the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) which was introduced in 1972 and refined over the years since.
-
That wasn't my point. My point was that without a prostate you are more likely to suffer incontinence. The rates of incontinence after prostate surgery have over the last two to three decades thankfully fallen with better surgical options and as I said before drugs, exercise and particularly the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) which was introduced in 1972 and refined over the years since.
With respect, TV, that was your point, as you linked to it and also said if I think the prostate is for reproduction [only] then "I can only picture you walking around with a permanent damp patch in your groin area". Now we've established it is not required to prevent damp patches, do you agree it is for reproduction?