Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry

[bluehillside Retd.]

Re the racism analogy, perhaps a better example would be to assert that interracial marriage is wrong on the basis that people of different skin pigmentations are "not compatible" as Steve put it. That's the problem I think - people will use terms like "not compatible" as if they mean something, and then claim to have made an argument so the charge of homophobia/racism is misplaced. It isn't though - "not compatible" is just a way of saying, "this is my prejudice but I don't like to call it that". And that I'm afraid is homophobia.

As for "I tolerate that" who the fuck does someone think they are to tolerate something personal to others as if it needs tolerating? Does Trent "tolerate" Steve's heterosexuality? Is Steve content with being thus tolerated? Sometimes...     

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Autocorrect can sometimes be magnificent.

Was that a "no" then? I'll bring my own crisps if that helps? 

[SteveH]

What is wrong with them marrying if they wish to, like heterosexuals? ANSWER THE QUESTION?

Ooh, get her! Thumbscrews and electric shocks next? Ve haf vays of making you talk!

[Nearly Sane]

Ooh, get her! Thumbscrews and electric shocks next? Ve haf vays of making you talk!

Yep, be flippant and ignore your homophobia.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Autocorrect can sometimes be magnificent.

Was that a "no" then? I'll bring my own crisps if that helps?

You are more than welcome when we get to a new normal when Gordon and I have our next lunch mob.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Not really sure what difference that makes. He thinks specifically that homosexuals should be discriminated against because their relationships are not in a par with straight ones. Whether that is based on sex acts seems to me to be irrelevant to him being homophobic.

I’m not entirely sure either - it’s hard to be sure about meanings and words. What I think it means is if the “on par” related to whether the physical anatomy fits to attempt to produce genetically related off-spring then the quality of a marriage seems to be based on the chances of procreation to perpetuate the species. This seems different to arguing that relationships are not on par because there is a perceived difference in the ability to love your partner, which would be the same for same sex and opposite sex marriages. Anyway, we can’t measure love objectively to compare or differentiate on those grounds, plus love is not a necessary component of marriage.

[Nearly Sane]

I’m not entirely sure either - it’s hard to be sure about meanings and words. What I think it means is if the “on par” related to whether the physical anatomy fits to attempt to produce genetically related off-spring then the quality of a marriage seems to be based on the chances of procreation to perpetuate the species. This seems different to arguing that relationships are not on par because there is a perceived difference in the ability to love your partner, which would be the same for same sex and opposite sex marriages. Anyway, we can’t measure love objectively to compare or differentiate on those grounds, plus love is not a necessary component of marriage.

It's different but I don't see it as making a difference as to whether Steve is homophobic, which he is.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Re the racism analogy, perhaps a better example would be to assert that interracial marriage is wrong on the basis that people of different skin pigmentations are "not compatible" as Steve put it. That's the problem I think - people will use terms like "not compatible" as if they mean something, and then claim to have made an argument so the charge of homophobia/racism is misplaced. It isn't though - "not compatible" is just a way of saying, "this is my prejudice but I don't like to call it that". And that I'm afraid is homophobia.

As for "I tolerate that" who the fuck does someone think they are to tolerate something personal to others as if it needs tolerating? Does Trent "tolerate" Steve's heterosexuality? Is Steve content with being thus tolerated? Sometimes...     

Steve used the word “complementary” in relation to the anatomy required for procreation, which would not apply to inter-racial marriages.

I think it was Spud who made that comment about “tolerate” in relation to same sex marriages.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

It's different but I don't see it as making a difference as to whether Steve is homophobic, which he is.

Quite possibly- the label is not really important to me any more than someone being labelled racist or Islamophobic is important- I’m more interested in the discussing the thoughts and ideas behind the moral values.

In Steve’s case, his latest comments suggest he finds the difference between marriage and civil partnership s cosmetic and unimportant rather than him trying to do anything to prevent same sex marriage. There are moral campaigns that I find unimportant but I would not stop other people campaigning for them. Though there might be some that I would actively oppose while still agreeing others who believe in them have a right to campaign for them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Steve used the word “complementary” in relation to the anatomy required for procreation, which would not apply to inter-racial marriages.

Happy to be corrected re the word “complementary” rather than “compatible” but it’s a difference without significance I think. Also, he made no mention of procreation. What he actually said (in response to the question “OK then, Steve why don't you like the idea of gays getting married?”) was: “Because civil patrnership gives them the same legal rights as marriage (or if it doesn't, as someone on here asserted, it should be revised so that it does), and the fact that gays are only about 2% of the population, and anatomically do not complement each other the way a man and a woman do, suggests that it should not be regarded as absolutely on a par with heterosexual marriage.” (Reply 1066)

I still don’t know what he means by “anatomically do not complement each other the way a man and a woman do” other than something like, “anatomically I find what gay people do a bit ikky”.   

I think it was Spud who made that comment about “tolerate” in relation to same sex marriages.

I know, which is why I said just “who the fuck does someone think they are” rather refer to a poster by name.

[Roses]

Ooh, get her! Thumbscrews and electric shocks next? Ve haf vays of making you talk!

The fact that you won't answer the question says it all about your attitude towards gays.

[SteveH]

The fact that you won't answer the question says it all about your attitude towards gays.

I can't even remember what the question was!

[Owlswing]

I don't know if I've got it wrong, but I thought that the "Civil Partnership" cop out had nothing to do with the law, it was to get around the fact that the Christian marriage service states that marriage is bond, or something like that, between a man and a woman.

I cannot remember ever seeing a LAW that prevented the marriage of two gays, male or female, but the barrier was the wording of the Christian wedding service, and the well known refusal of the Church and its followers to drag itself kicking and screaming (having a temper tantrum?) into the twentieth century instead of insisting on using a ceremony dating from who knows how far back in history.

[Roses]

I can't even remember what the question was!

In spite of being asked the question so many times by different posters your memory has failed you, you poor old soul, you will soon need a carer.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve,

I can't even remember what the question was!

How about, what did you mean by “the fact that gays…anatomically do not complement each other the way a man and a woman do”?

[SteveH]

Steve,

How about, what did you mean by “the fact that gays…anatomically do not complement each other the way a man and a woman do”?

I meant the gays, anatomically, do not complement each other the way a man and a woman do. I'dn't've thought it was difficult to understand.

[Roses]

I meant the gays, anatomically, do not complement each other the way a man and a woman do. I'dn't've thought it was difficult to understand.

In your prejudiced opinion!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve,

I meant the gays, anatomically, do not complement each other the way a man and a woman do. I'dn't've thought it was difficult to understand.

Humour me...

[SteveH]

In your prejudiced opinion!

Its a matter of solid, anatomical fact. I don't think you know what "prejudiced" means.

[Roses]

Its a matter of solid, anatomical fact. I don't think you know what "prejudiced" means.

You seem to think gay marriage is wrong but have not explained WHY, which therefore makes you prejudiced in favour of heterosexuals.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve,

Its a matter of solid, anatomical fact. I don't think you know what "prejudiced" means.

What solid anatomical fact do you think the words "do not complement each other" establish?   

[SteveH]

Steve,

What solid anatomical fact do you think the words "do not complement each other" establish?

Men have sticky-out bits, and women have sinky-in bits. The man's sticky-out bit is supposed to go in the woman's sinky-in bit. Men have sinky-in bits round the back, but they have a different purpose. Women, having only sinky-in bits, can only have sex with the help of artificial sticky-out bits.
I hope that is clear enough for even you and LR to understand.

[Roses]

Men have sticky-out bits, and women have sinky-in bits. The man's sticky-out bit is supposed to go in the woman's sinky-in bit. Men have sinky-in bits round the back, but they have a different purpose. Women, having only sinky-in bits, can only have sex with the help of artificial sticky-out bits.
I hope that is clear enough for even you and LR to understand.

I don't see what that has got to do with two people of the same sex, who are in love, wishing to get married if they want to do so.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve,

Men have sticky-out bits, and women have sinky-in bits. The man's sticky-out bit is supposed to go in the woman's sinky-in bit. Men have sinky-in bits round the back, but they have a different purpose. Women, having only sinky-in bits, can only have sex with the help of artificial sticky-out bits.
I hope that is clear enough for even you and LR to understand.

“Supposed to go”? According to whom exactly? See, that’s the thing with prejudice – people who are prejudiced will often deny it, and will cite reasons for their positions not being prejudiced at all: “Wot me? Never!”. The trouble though is that their reasons always turn out to be as vapid, meaningless, insubstantive as “not complement”, “supposed” etc.

When you say “supposed” here for example presumably you’re trying to say something like, “if the couple want to procreate, then there’s one type of sexual activity that’s necessary for that and nature is all about procreation, therefore….” etc. Is that right?

Here’s the problem with that though: homosexual behaviour has now been observed in around 1,000 species with likely many more yet to be identified. (Bisexuality by the way has been identified in even more.) Why would this be? Have Trent and his evil cohort been out tempting everything from scarab beetles to dolphins to turn away from the true path with offers of Barbra Streisland records and the lure of fabulous dress sense? Or could it be that there are perfectly good reasons for nature itself requiring some incidence of homosexuality – providing more reliable options for the care of offspring for example?

What you have done is to pick on just one aspect of sexual activity (sticky-in and sticky-out bits as you so scientifically put it), for no good reason decided that that’s what really matters, then decided that people who don’t introduce those particular bits to each other are somehow inferior (“not on a par”) with those who do. Sex though is about much more than procreation – pair bonding, tribal/societal cohesion, optimising the survival of offspring etc and that means sex in any of its forms, not just the sticky-in meets sticky-out type.

Here’s an article about this to get you started:
 
https://phys.org/news/2019-05-scientists-explore-evolution-animal-homosexuality.html
 

[Roses]

An interesting article BHS. I have seen male dogs trying to have it off with each other from time to time.