Gay Bishop

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

So should the gay bishop have sex with his partner , would he still be suitable as a bishop in your opinion?

Oddly, there'a a corollary there with the christian fundie registrar refusing to officiate at a gay wedding and getting sacked for it. Similarly I suppose some would say that if the job description for a bishop is not to be gay, then a bishop who comes out has broken his terms of employment.

That the job description for being a bishop is backward and unpleasant is another matter, but in principle at least you could argue that both cases involve a breach of contract.       

[Nearly Sane]

 

NS,

Oddly, there'a a corollary there with the christian fundie registrar refusing to officiate at a gay wedding and getting sacked for it. Similarly I suppose some would say that if the job description for a bishop is not to be gay, then a bishop who comes out has broken his terms of employment.

That the job description for being a bishop is backward and unpleasant is another matter, but in principle at least you could argue that both cases involve a breach of contract.     

But if he doesn't have is sex then he can't be 'really gay'! And can you show me the contract?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So should the gay bishop have sex with his partner , would he still be suitable as a bishop in your opinion?

I'm not sure what my opinion is here or whether I really care which is broadly a similar position to yours but without the hint of mischieve making.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not sure what my opinion is here or whether I really care which is broadly a similar position to yours but without the hint of mischieve making.

broadly similar to which position of mine? And given your continual misrepresentations about what people think, the hint of 'mischieve making' is the sound of breaking glass.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

But if he doesn't have is sex then he can't be 'really gay'!

Yeah right. You'd need a type of thought control clause in the contract I guess: "If you wake up one day with a gay orientation, then you must turn yourself in forthwith, return your dog collar and leave the grace and favour apartments by mid-day" or some such.   

And can you show me the contract?

No - that's why I said "if". They could though just says something like "you can't be a bishop and gay" and hope to get away with it. As the church is exempted from equal opportunities legislation re conducting gay marriage services though, perhaps they would.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

What are you trying to say here?

See above. The "space" most occupy is that anything might be - the Loch Ness monster, your choice of a god, leprechauns, whatever. The problem for the proponent of any of these claims though is to find a logical path from "might be" to "probably is".   

Again you have f*cked up category wise. Argumentum ad ridiculum again.
Bang on about the triumphs of science and close examination will reveal any developments, discoveries and inventions were all mays at one time.

God is unfalsifiable but Leprechauns aren't, neither is the Loch Ness Monster. If your mind was mousse-like prior to your holidays it has definitely turned into loose alvine efflux with the result that you have diarrheoed all over your own Bonfire.

The ''space most occupy'' is also suggestive of an argumentum ad populum

[Sebastian Toe]

God might appear.

..or might not.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Yeah right. You'd need a type of thought control clause in the contract I guess: "If you wake up one day with a gay orientation, then you must turn yourself in forthwith, return your dog collar and leave the grace and favour apartments by mid-day" or some such.   

No - that's why I said "if". They could though just says something like "you can't be a bishop and gay" and hope to get away with it. As the church is exempted from equal opportunities legislation re conducting gay marriage services though, perhaps they would.

No, it can't be about a 'gay orientation' it surely needs to be about acts. If it is about acts, how do we differentiate from any other sin.

Tbh though much of this is already covered in the idea that one should be sincerely sorry for any wrong acts, so you can be 'gay orienated' and not to anything, or do something about it and be sincerely sorry about it. In that case it probably is more likely to he wrong to be in a gay relationship and occasionally indulge in a bit of nookie, than maybe occasionally have sex with a 'proper stranger' since in the first it would not show sincere sorrow.

[Nearly Sane]

Again you have f*cked up category wise. Argumentum ad ridiculum again.
Bang on about the triumphs of science and close examination will reveal any developments, discoveries and inventions were all mays at one time.

God is unfalsifiable but Leprechauns aren't, neither is the Loch Ness Monster. If your mind was mousse-like prior to your holidays it has definitely turned into loose alvine efflux with the result that you have diarrheoed all over your own Bonfire.

The ''space most occupy'' is also suggestive of an argumentum ad populum

in which Vlad shows the problem of induction is too hard for him to understand

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Again you have f*cked up category wise.

There's no "again" because you've never understood that category error does not occur when the two examples are not identical in every respect. Thus when I point out that the negative proof fallacy works equally for "god" and for leprechauns, that's not a category error regardless of how many times you fall off a cliff with your "but one is God and the others are little green men" error. The common category is, "conjectures for which the identical argument has been atempted"     

Argumentum ad ridiculum again.

Something else you've never understood. However ridiculous you find, say, leprechauns (or for that matter an orbiting teapot) to be, the force of the argument is not thereby lost when they're used to illustrate that an argument for God works equally well for anything else, however daft.   

Bang on about the triumphs of science and close examination will reveal any developments, discoveries and inventions were all mays at one time.

Yup - and then logical paths were found to take the from "may bes' to "probably is", which is when the conjecture becomes a fact. The problem with God, leprechauns etc is that there is not such logical path to reclassify them from conjectures.   

God is unfalsifiable but Leprechauns aren't, neither is the Loch Ness Monster. If your mind was mousse-like prior to your holidays it has definitely turned into loose alvine efflux with the result that you have diarrheoed all over your own Bonfire.

Flat wrong as ever. How would you propose to falsify leprechauns or the Loch Ness monster exactly?

The ''space most occupy'' is also suggestive of an argumentum ad populum

No it isn't because I didn't use it to argue for the truth of something. Rather you tried to argue that someone should consider that a "relationship with god" or some such is possible. I merely pointed out that most do that anyway, albeit for the trivial reason that in principle at least anything is possible. Where you went wrong again was to imply that thinking that something is possible has anything whatever to say to whether it's probable.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

No, it can't be about a 'gay orientation' it surely needs to be about acts. If it is about acts, how do we differentiate from any other sin.

Tbh though much of this is already covered in the idea that one should be sincerely sorry for any wrong acts, so you can be 'gay orienated' and not to anything, or do something about it and be sincerely sorry about it. In that case it probably is more likely to he wrong to be in a gay relationship and occasionally indulge in a bit of nookie, than maybe occasionally have sex with a 'proper stranger' since in the first it would not show sincere sorrow.

But in contractual matters you can say whatever you like provided it's legal. You could for example have a clause that said, "If ever you decide that you hate the colour purple then you must declare it and resign forthwith". It's all daft I know, but in matters of contract law you can be. If you don't like it, don't take the job.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

There's no "again" because you've never understood that category error does not occur when the two examples are not identical in every respect. Thus when I point out that the negative proof fallacy works equally for "god" and for leprechauns, that's not a category error regardless of how many times you fall off a cliff with your "but one is God and the others are little green men" error. The common category is, "conjectures for which the identical argument has been atempted"     

Something else you've never understood. However ridiculous you find, say, leprechauns (or for that matter an orbiting teapot) to be, the force of the argument is not thereby lost when they're used to illustrate that an argument for God works equally well for anything else, however daft.   

Yup - and then logical paths were found to take the from "may bes' to "probably is", which is when the conjecture becomes a fact. The problem with God, leprechauns etc is that there is not such logical path to reclassify them from conjectures.   

Flat wrong as ever. How would you propose to falsify leprechauns or the Loch Ness monster exactly?

No it isn't because I didn't use it to argue for the truth of something. Rather you tried to argue that someone should consider that a "relationship with god" or some such is possible. I merely pointed out that most do that anyway, albeit for the trivial reason that in principle at least anything is possible. Where you went wrong again was to imply that thinking that something is possible has anything whatever to say to whether it's probable.     

I don't need to go about falsifying them they are falsifiable since Leprechauns are little men in green jackets with pots of gold and the monster is some kind of poikilothermic amphibious chordate.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't need to go about falsifying them they are falsifiable since Leprechauns are little men in green jackets with pots of gold and the monster is some kind of poikilothermic amphibious chordate.

in which Vlad uses long words to avoid his lack of understanding of the problem of induction

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

But in contractual matters you can say whatever you like provided it's legal. You could for example have a clause that said, "If ever you decide that you hate the colour purple then you must declare it and resign forthwith". It's all daft I know, but in matters of contract law you can be. If you don't like it, don't take the job.

You can't enforce declaration though so though the clause is meaningful it's unenforceable.

In addition to be a contract we need to understand this in terms of what the church in this case thinks, and that is the act

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I don't need to go about falsifying them they are falsifiable since Leprechauns are little men in green jackets with pots of gold and the monster is some kind of poikilothermic amphibious chordate.

And I could equally well quote various of the characteristics people claim for "God".

Your claim though was that "God" cannot be falsified, whereas leprechauns can be. I asked you however how you would falsify leprechauns, and you just told me that you don't need to.

That's dishonest.

Again - if you seriously think that "God" can't be falsified but leprechauns (or an orbiting teapot) can be, how would you go about that?

And as we both know that you have no means to falsify leprechauns, then "God" and leprechauns are in the same category of "conjectures that cannot be falsified".

QED   

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

You can't enforce declaration though so though the clause is meaningful it's unenforceable.

Yes, but only until the employee comes out or declares his dislike of purple. At that point the employer could say, "your contract makes clear that to do so is a gross breach so you're fired". On the bare facts, the employee would have no remedy because the breach would indeed have occurred. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

And I could equally well quote various of the characteristics people claim for "God".

Your claim though was that "God" cannot be falsified, whereas leprechauns can be. I asked you however how you would falsify leprechauns, and you just told me that you don't need to.

That's dishonest.

Hillside just got his arse handed to him on a sling as to what constitutes Falsifiable and he's trying to accuse me of dishonesty to divert attention from his failure!!!

[Nearly Sane]

Hillside just got his arse handed to him on a sling as to what constitutes Falsifiable and he's trying to accuse me of dishonesty to divert attention from his failure!!!

in which Vlad having failed to understand the problem of induction declares his lack of understanding a victory

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Hillside just got his arse handed to him on a sling as to what constitutes Falsifiable and he's trying to accuse me of dishonesty to divert attention from his failure!!!

When you flat out lie you really go for it don't you. The arse handing was all in your direction - if you really think that "God" isn't falsifiable but leprechauns are, stop ducking and diving and tell us how you'd propose to falsify leprechauns then.

Why so coy? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

in which Vlad having failed to understand the problem of induction declares his lack of understanding a victory

What?

[Nearly Sane]

What?

in which Vlad declares his lack of understanding of induction is too confusing for him

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What?

You've misunderstood your failure even to grasp the argument let alone to rebut to be a victory, even as you've put the gun to your head and pulled the trigger.

Again: how would you propose to go about falsifying leprechauns?

If this is going to be yet another question from which you intend endlessly to run away would you at least have the decency to say so so as to save me the effort of continuing to ask it?

Ta.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Incidentally, the employment clause that's enforceable only if the employee declares him/herself to be in breach is pretty much the situation that pertained in the US military for decades with its "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Only when someone did ask/tell were they drummed out of the relevant service.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Incidentally, the employment clause that's enforceable only if the employee declares him/herself to be in breach is pretty much the situation that pertained in the US military for decades with its "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Only when someone did ask/tell were they drummed out of the relevant service.

Mmm I always thought that was based on acts rather than attraction, so you could say I am gay but I have no intention to act.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Mmm I always thought that was based on acts rather than attraction, so you could say I am gay but I have no intention to act.

No - the (stupid) argument was always along the lines of whether a gay soldier would make the right decision in a crisis by saving six colleagues if the one he could save instead was also his boyfriend. Essentially it was painted as a conflict of interest issue. There was no requirement that soldier had been found in flagrante.