Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry

[Outrider]

Because you asked someone to go back and answer your 'point' in #1206...

In Moses' time, Israel were simply told not to have homosexual relations and expected to obey, because they had experienced God first hand.

Moses almost certainly is a mythical figure, there wasn't really a Moses.

When it comes to Paul writing to the Romans, he uses a concept they already understand when talking about sexuality - the argument from nature.

You don't 'understand' the naturalistic fallacy if you deploy it thinking it's a point, that's part of why it's a fallacy.  The naturalistic fallacy says that because what you say upsets me I should hunt you down and beat you to a pulp because that's how primitive creatures establish primacy - the whole point of morality and humanity is to try to rise above baser instincts where they are problematic.

He says that because mankind worshiped created things rather than their creator, God gave them over to both excessive lusts and unnatural desires.

And Gandalf says that you shouldn't trifle in the affairs of wizards, but that doesn't make it true either.  The argument from authority is really, really threadbare when your 'authority' is make believe.

Homosexual desires are unnatural.

Except that it isn't:

No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue

- referenced here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

Shoes are unnatural, should we all go barefoot? So, when you look at it, is typing on the internet.  Except that... we're human, we're tool-making, consciously-thinking, morally-capable independent animals.  If we make a decision to rise above base instincts, that capacity is part of our nature.  Even if the rest of the animal kingdom were suppressing the natural expression of homosexual behaviour, which they aren't, us choosing not to is entirely natural FOR US.

Steve has already explained why, but to expand a bit, the man and the woman have different roles, in that the man penetrates and the woman is penetrated.

Your sex life must be so, so limited if you thank that's the whole picture.  Sometimes sex isn't penetrative at all, sometimes everyone 'get into it'... who are you to tell someone else what's the 'correct' way for them to find or give pleasure?  Next you'll be telling me sex is only between two people at a time...

Homosexual acts reverse those roles, so that men play the role of the female and vice versa.

Can you explain who's being penetrated by two tribbing lesbians, please?

This is what makes the acts dishonoring, and thus, morally wrong.

Dishonouring who? How?  If a straight man is pegged by his straight wife because they're both having fun is that 'morally wrong' and 'dishonouring'?  Is it more morally wrong for you to try to impose on them your sexual preferences in the guise of 'sin police' or for them to enjoy themselves in private in a way that has absolutely no negative effect on anyone?

So, in summary:

"Homosexuality is unnatural" - not it isn't, all sorts of animals do it.
"Homosexuality in humans is unnatural" - no it isn't, humanity has a natural capacity to rise above base instincts.
"X is unnatural, and therefore morally wrong" - that's the naturalistic fallacy
"Moses said homosexuality is wrong" - Moses wasn't real.
"Someone in my holy book said homosexuality is wrong" - someone in your holy book could be wrong, given they thought it was Moses that seems likely.
"God say it's wrong" - That's just an appeal to authority to try to enforce one of those subjective moral judgements that religion is supposed to be so set again.

On a grade of 1-10 that arguments scores an F- 'Must try harder'...  Except, don't try harder, just try to manifest that 'God is love' mentality and forget all the bronze age homophobic nonsense that's been wrapped around someone's attempts to marshal society into a breeding programme for religious soldiers.  If two people care for each other, what they do or don't choose to do in a private setting isn't a moral question, at worst it's a healthcare question and at best it's something to be happy for them about.

O.

[SteveH]

  Does one have to grow up to be a homophobe?

Oh, for fuck's sake, give it a fucking rest!

[Owlswing]

Oh, for fuck's sake, give it a fucking rest!

Back at you. Bruv, back at you!

[Nearly Sane]

Oh, for fuck's sake, give it a fucking rest!

Why should I give your homophobia which you continue to display on this thread a 'rest'?

[Aruntraveller]

ETA: women managed to reclaim some power in the sexual act by being on top. But I assume that’s not really anatomically possible in terms of anal sex?

If I am understanding you correctly, yes it is possible. I'd draw a diagram but a) This site doesn't have the facility and b) I don't want to be accused of peddling porn!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If I am understanding you correctly, yes it is possible. I'd draw a diagram but a) This site doesn't have the facility and b) I don't want to be accused of peddling porn!

But isn't this message board 'Porn for atheists'?

[Outrider]

But isn't this message board 'Porn for atheists'?

No, we've got real porn, with men being penetrated in the female fashion and dominant women dishing it out.  This is porn for believers who get a hard-on from trolling people with an argument by ejaculating their word-salad all over the internet and getting their little 'soulgasm' of having spread the seed word.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, we've got real porn, with men being penetrated in the female fashion and dominant women dishing it out.  This is porn for believers who get a hard-on from trolling people with an argument by ejaculating their word-salad all over the internet and getting their little 'soulgasm' of having spread the seed word.

O.

I say......Isn't that a bit strong?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

If I am understanding you correctly, yes it is possible. I'd draw a diagram but a) This site doesn't have the facility and b) I don't want to be accused of peddling porn!

Fair enough - sorry I think I didn’t elaborate enough - I was thinking facing away from the person you are on top of relinquishes some power but maybe people feel that’s not the case.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Some thoughts from members of the gay community on notions of masculinity, gender roles, tops and bottoms.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.insider.com/the-most-common-myths-about-gay-sex-between-men-2019-6%3famp

[Owlswing]

But isn't this message board 'Porn for atheists'?

If that is the case what the **** are YOU doing here?

[Nearly Sane]

If that is the case what the **** are YOU doing here?

Wanking with words

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wanking with words

Careful now. It's nearly time for me to chose another handle.

[Owlswing]

Careful now. It's nearly time for me to chose another handle.

I, for one. could not give a tinker's cuss for what you call yourself until you change your handle to "The Foul-mouthed Theist Homophobic" - then I might, just possibly, give a damn!


TO VLAD

Apologies for this - got the monikers mixed-up again! Sorry!

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

This article runs through some of the differences in approach between humans and other primates in relation to reproductive and social sex from an anthropological perspective. Not really surprising that there are such diverse views on sexual morality.

https://www.sapiens.org/evolution/human-sex-evolution-creative-sex/

Humans, like other primates, seek one another out for sexual activity and have lots of social sex. But here is where many of the similarities cease.

Our sexuality is tied to the societies we live in; the rules, laws, and belief systems we participate in; and the partnerships, bonds, and alliances we form, rupture, and create anew. Humans are the only mammalian species we know of where a percentage of the species has a consistent homosexual sexual orientation, and we are the only species to take vows of chastity (and sometimes maintain them). We are very rare among primates in that we often form long-term bonds between two individuals that can be related to sex and reproduction. We are unique in having sets of symbolic associations between sex, age, ethics, morality, and behavior: For humans, when, how, where, and with whom we have sex matters a great deal, not just to the individuals having sex but to their communities and the society as a whole.

[ProfessorDavey]

Humans are the only mammalian species we know of where a percentage of the species has a consistent homosexual sexual orientation,

But in non human species we can only really assess behaviour, not orientation so this comment is meaningless. If non human species are engaging in homosexual behaviour how would you know that this isn't because the are sexually attracted to others of the same gender.

and we are the only species to take vows of chastity (and sometimes maintain them).

There are certainly many examples of individuals in other species who do not engage in sexual activity. You are asking about the motivation for that behaviour (or lack thereof) again how on earth can we know. And using the term 'vow' in this context is totally inappropriate as it is a human notion, reflecting a societally-accepted position that some members of that society choose, or feel compelled by societal norms to accept. It is a societal construct, and you can easily see analogous scenarios in other highly social species in which certain members do not engage in sexual activity driven by a broader societal norm structure.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But in non human species we can only really assess behaviour, not orientation so this comment is meaningless. If non human species are engaging in homosexual behaviour how would you know that this isn't because the are sexually attracted to others of the same gender.
There are certainly many examples of individuals in other species who do not engage in sexual activity. You are asking about the motivation for that behaviour (or lack thereof) again how on earth can we know. And using the term 'vow' in this context is totally inappropriate as it is a human notion, reflecting a societally-accepted position that some members of that society choose, or feel compelled by societal norms to accept. It is a societal construct, and you can easily see analogous scenarios in other highly social species in which certain members do not engage in sexual activity driven by a broader societal norm structure.

I have not read the book but can only imagine that Professor Fuentes meant there is no evidence for orientation in non-human species. If evidence for orientation in non-humans is found, he will probably revise his opinion.

Regarding the term ‘vow’ in this context or any other wording in his book, I think his point was to highlight the difference in sexual behaviour between humans and other primates due to the higher cognitive functions that humans possess and their capacity for abstract thoughts and their capacity to hold beliefs. We can see that because humans have this capacity their views on sexual behaviour are very diverse.

But you can always discuss it further with the author  - according to Wiki “ Agustín Fuentes is an American primatologist and biological anthropologist at the University of Notre Dame. His work focuses largely on human and non-human primate interaction, pathogen transfer, communication, cooperation, and human social evolution.“

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Spud,

Just to add by the way that if you were a work colleague of mine and I suspected you of being a Christian I’d tolerate you, but would treat you exactly as if you were an atheist. This would be my way of saying I accept you as a person but I don’t accept your filthy moralising behaviour so I would engage you in atheist conversation. 

Hope you’re ok with that.

I actually think that’s a reasonable position to take - the subject of this thread is bigotry, which as I understand it is intolerance for someone else’s beliefs/ race/ way of life so isn’t tolerance despite disagreement and disapproval of behaviour a good thing in the context of this thread title?

Human higher cognitive functions seem to derive meaning from imaginative abstract thoughts and mental representations and this cognitive drive to find meaning seems to feed into the evolution of our current moral systems from our historical social, cultural, economic, political, and religious interactions and beliefs. So I find positive meaning in the abstract notion of tolerance and have therefore tried to adopt tolerance as part of my moral values.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I actually think that’s a reasonable position to take - the subject of this thread is bigotry, which as I understand it is intolerance for someone else’s beliefs/ race/ way of life so isn’t tolerance despite disagreement and disapproval of behaviour a good thing in the context of this thread title?

No. Tolerance implies that there’s something to be tolerated. At best I suppose you could argue that the bigot is “tolerating” his own bigotry by finding a way of being in the world that contains it in work, social etc situations.   

Human higher cognitive functions seem to derive meaning from imaginative abstract thoughts and mental representations and this cognitive drive to find meaning seems to feed into the evolution of our current moral systems from our historical social, cultural, economic, political, and religious interactions and beliefs.

I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. If it’s something like, “people find their moral positions to have meaning for them” then fine, but so what? Moral positions can change, and so therefore can the meanings people attach to them. Thus someone who previously thought equal marriage was morally wrong and now thinks it morally right might derive the meaning, “I used to be a bigot about that, but now I’m not”. Again, so what though?   

So I find positive meaning in the abstract notion of tolerance and have therefore tried to adopt tolerance as part of my moral values.

So do I. In general tolerance – live and let live etc – is a good thing. I might for example find my life to be inconvenienced by a neighbour starting his car at six in the morning, but I also know that’s his only way to get to his job and thus to support his family so I tolerate it. On the other hand though, if that man happens to be gay who am I to presume to “tolerate” him when his sexual orientation has bugger all (as it were) to do with me?   

[Harrowby Hall]

But in non human species we can only really assess behaviour, not orientation so this comment is meaningless. If non human species are engaging in homosexual behaviour how would you know that this isn't because the are sexually attracted to others of the same gender.

Animals do not have "gender". Gender is a human social construct.

There are certainly many examples of individuals in other species who do not engage in sexual activity. You are asking about the motivation for that behaviour (or lack thereof) again how on earth can we know.

It would be interesting to know whether the individual animals observed engaging in "homosexual" behaviour might also be observed engaging in "heterosexual" behaviour. In non-primate species sex does not have any expressive value and is merely stimulus-response drive behaviour.  The female emits some (frequently pheremonal) signal which stimulates the male to inseminate her. I have heard it said that in many (perhaps most) mammalian species the likelihood is that the majority of males die virgins. Dominant males mate, subordinate males do so at the risk of serious injury from an infuriated dominant male (who has earned that status by being able to see off any challenger). Perhaps same sex mounting attempts are being performed by sexually aroused males who are unable to gain access to a female but are driven to act.

Then there are females ...

I once heard a farmer describe the action of a cow attempting to mount another cow as "bulling". He said that it was a sign that the cow was in oestrous and had not been inseminated and needed the attention of a bull. I have idea whether this s true or not.

[ProfessorDavey]

Animals do not have "gender". Gender is a human social construct.

I'm not sure that is necessarily true. Gender means characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity and those go beyond mere genetics/anatomy (i.e. sex) but pertain also to behaviour and so-called 'gender roles' within a society. Now many social non human species have highly developed gendered behaviour and role and I think there is significant evidence across a range of species that individuals adopting specific gendered behaviour and roles does not always align with biological sex of that individual. In effect those non human societies are also operating in a manner where gender is not synonymous with biological sex.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

No. Tolerance implies that there’s something to be tolerated. At best I suppose you could argue that the bigot is “tolerating” his own bigotry by finding a way of being in the world that contains it in work, social etc situations.

I disagree because I think there is nearly always something to be tolerated - it goes with the territory of social participation and interaction. This thread expresses disapproval of the intolerance of people who express a particular moral value. On the Searching for God thread it was argued that people cannot choose their likes/ desires/ wants though they could resolve a conflict between competing wants. In that context it follows that people inevitably have to tolerate things they do not choose to dislike but which they nevertheless do dislike. There are many behaviours in society that people will dislike without choosing to dislike it. Tolerance is very useful in resolving those conflicts and provides an advantage to people who have developed or evolved that ability. It may be that different people have different capacities for tolerance.

I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. If it’s something like, “people find their moral positions to have meaning for them” then fine, but so what? Moral positions can change, and so therefore can the meanings people attach to them. Thus someone who previously thought equal marriage was morally wrong and now thinks it morally right might derive the meaning, “I used to be a bigot about that, but now I’m not”. Again, so what though?

Yes I agree the meaning people find in abstract concepts can change. I am just stating that it is not surprising that there is diversity in this as there is in most other biologically driven functions. Hence the need to find a balance between freedom, personal security and tolerating that diversity in society. Diversity of thought could lead to curiosity, innovation and exploration of ideas - which can lead to positive and negative outcomes.

So do I. In general tolerance – live and let live etc – is a good thing. I might for example find my life to be inconvenienced by a neighbour starting his car at six in the morning, but I also know that’s his only way to get to his job and thus to support his family so I tolerate it. On the other hand though, if that man happens to be gay who am I to presume to “tolerate” him when his sexual orientation has bugger all (as it were) to do with me?   

Regarding your specific example of the car engine, before lockdown my neighbours had to tolerate me starting the car 4 mornings a week at 5am, returning at 5.40am and starting the car again at 6.45am to drop my daughter at swim squad practice, come back and pick her up again. It was a 5.30am engine start on a Saturday for the same reason. My point being that she swims because she likes it - nothing to do with jobs or providing for family. There are behaviours or moral values we tolerate that we don’t choose to dislike, simply because it has meaning for others and we see a benefit to getting along amicably.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I'm not sure that is necessarily true. Gender means characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity and those go beyond mere genetics/anatomy (i.e. sex) but pertain also to behaviour and so-called 'gender roles' within a society. Now many social non human species have highly developed gendered behaviour and role and I think there is significant evidence across a range of species that individuals adopting specific gendered behaviour and roles does not always align with biological sex of that individual. In effect those non human societies are also operating in a manner where gender is not synonymous with biological sex.

We would have to find a way to ascertain if the behaviour that does not conform to normal biological roles was due to environmental factors. Compared to other species humans seem to have a more abstract concept of gender and highly individualised meanings that gender terms hold for them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I disagree because I think there is nearly always something to be tolerated - it goes with the territory of social participation and interaction. This thread expresses disapproval of the intolerance of people who express a particular moral value.

Nope. The fact that someone thinks another person’s sexual orientation is a thing to be “tolerated” implies that it’s therefore wrong, inferior, “not on a par” etc. Nonetheless, decent, mature person that he is he’ll “tolerate” it despite that wrongness. Utter bollocks. What someone does in bed with a partner has absolutely sweet FA to do with the work colleague claiming to “tolerate” it, so there’s nothing to be tolerated. The only toleration on display here (albeit unwittingly) is the bigot asking you to tolerate his bigotry because of the strategies he’s come up with to maintain it while still operating successfully in the world – ie, by not getting fired.   

On the Searching for God thread it was argued that people cannot choose their likes/ desires/ wants though they could resolve a conflict between competing wants. In that context it follows that people inevitably have to tolerate things they do not choose to dislike but which they nevertheless do dislike. There are many behaviours in society that people will dislike without choosing to dislike it. Tolerance is very useful in resolving those conflicts and provides an advantage to people who have developed or evolved that ability. It may be that different people have different capacities for tolerance.

You’re missing the point. When the reasoning that exposes bigotry is explained to the bigot he can either resile from his bigotry or he can used mealy-mouthed evasions like, “but I tolerate the gay man in the office” so as to maintain it.   

Yes I agree the meaning people find in abstract concepts can change. I am just stating that it is not surprising that there is diversity in this as there is in most other biologically driven functions. Hence the need to find a balance between freedom, personal security and tolerating that diversity in society. Diversity of thought could lead to curiosity, innovation and exploration of ideas - which can lead to positive and negative outcomes.

Yes there is diversity, but there’s also reason and evidence and moral philosophy and the Zeitgeist and…. Again, so what though? Let’s say for example that you found someone who thought enslaving back people was morally good. Is he entitled to think that? Of course he is – that’s freedom of thought. Should he expect to receive both barrels from those who think him to be morally disgusting if he argues for it though? Damn right he should, no matter how much he assures us he “tolerates” the black work colleague by talking to him just as if he were a white person.

Regarding your specific example of the car engine, before lockdown my neighbours had to tolerate me starting the car 4 mornings a week at 5am, returning at 5.40am and starting the car again at 6.45am to drop my daughter at swim squad practice, come back and pick her up again. It was a 5.30am engine start on a Saturday for the same reason. My point being that she swims because she likes it - nothing to do with jobs or providing for family. There are behaviours or moral values we tolerate that we don’t choose to dislike, simply because it has meaning for others and we see a benefit to getting along amicably.

You’ve missed the point. The point was that it’s hard to justify tolerating something when that something doesn’t affect you in any way. Would you tolerate my love of playing the bagpipes at 3am for example? No, because you had no idea I did that. “Toleration” in this context is meaningless. If I was your neighbour on the other hand and the piecing shrieks of the thing woke you up (maybe disturbing the sleep you’d need to be able to get up two hours later to take your daughter swimming) then in/tolerance would have meaning, and your exercise of it would be contextual. That’s the point. Steve’s “tolerance” of a gay man in the office is in the former category – what on earth does he think he’s tolerating exactly other than his own bigotry?       

[Harrowby Hall]

That’s the point. Steve’s “tolerance” of a gay man in the office is in the former category – what on earth does he think he’s tolerating exactly other than his own bigotry?       

I think that you owe Steve an apology. You are accusing him of words he did not write.