Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry

[Aruntraveller]

It depends on how you define abnormal. The mode is to be heterosexual so you could say it is not normal or it is abnormal to be gay, but you would be ignoring the pejorative tone of using “abnormal” in that context. So the real question about whether LR’s interpretation is correct is really whether Steve intended his remarks to be pejorative. I don’t think he did even if he unintentionally offended the gay members of his audience.

He didn't offend me, unintentionally or otherwise. I don't think there are any other gay members in the audience.

I'm just interested in his hierarchy of relationships where mine isn't quite up to the mark on the basis of not having the right bits for each other. Presumably some heterosexuals who have certain physical deformities are to be denied marriage on the same basis.

It's all so difficult trying to work out the order of things. I just need help from Steve to understand how he works out his classification of relationships.

[Owlswing]

It's all so difficult trying to work out the order of things. I just need help from Steve to understand how he works out his classification of relationships.

In three words - From the Bible!

[SteveH]

In three words - From the Bible!

Don't be silly - you know perfectly well that I'm not a biblical literalist.

[Nearly Sane]

Don't be silly - you know perfectly well that I'm not a biblical literalist.

So given that why do you think that trentvoyager's relationship is not on a par with mine?

[Owlswing]

 So given that why do you think that trentvoyager's relationship is not on a par with mine?

How many times are you going to ask that question before the realisation dawns that you are not going to get an answer?

[Owlswing]

Don't be silly - you know perfectly well that I'm not a biblical literalist.

You might not be, but the notion that homosexuals cannot be married in a chgurch does.

And I thought you's given up! I just knew my luck couldn't be that good!

[Nearly Sane]

How many times are you going to ask that question before the realisation dawns that you are not going to get an answer?

Why won't you answer why you are homophobic?

[Owlswing]

 Why won't you answer why you are homophobic?

Why should I. I'm actually bi!

[Nearly Sane]

Why should I. I'm actually bi!

Apologies, I thought I was replying to SteveH. As to how many times I will ask that of him, who knows.

[Owlswing]

 Apologies, I thought I was replying to SteveH. As to how many times I will ask that of him, who knows.

Maybe you should start a Sweep on it?

[SteveH]

So given that why do you think that trentvoyager's relationship is not on a par with mine?

The anatomical details, as I've already explained. It was you who brought it down to individuals, not me.

[SteveH]

You might not be, but the notion that homosexuals cannot be married in a chgurch does.

Does what? That sentence doesn't even make sense!

[Nearly Sane]

The anatomical details, as I've already explained. It was you who brought it down to individuals, not me.

What about the anatomical details allows you to justify  your homophobia?

And if you make a generic statement it applies to individuals. Is it merely that you are uncomfortable when it is pointed out that your homophobia applies to trentvoyager that you want to avoid that?

[SteveH]

I approve of civil partnerships, and I think Trent's relationship is great, and to be celebrated. That makes me a homophobe?

[Nearly Sane]

I approve of civil partnerships, and I think Trent's relationship is great, and to be celebrated. That makes me a homophobe?

You think his relationship is not on a par with mine. That makes you a homophobe.

[Owlswing]

I approve of civil partnerships, and I think Trent's relationship is great, and to be celebrated. That makes me a homophobe?

The fact that you refuse him a church marriage does!

[Owlswing]

Does what? That sentence doesn't even make sense!

Apologies for the mis-type! The last word should read "IS"

[Nearly Sane]

The fact that you refuse him a church marriage does!

He doesn't want him to have a civil marriage.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Very erudite answer. Spud has got a point: I don't think faithful, mutually serving and loving homosexual relationships are sinful, and I welcomed the equalisation of the age of consent, and later the introduction of civil partnerships, which gave homosexual couples the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples, but the anatomical point does suggest that gay relationships should not be regarded as absolutely on a par with heterosexual ones, which is why I think gay marriage was a step too far, since it didn't give gay couples any new rights, and was thus purely cosmetic.

Sir James Wilde in A v B (1868) LR 1 P&D 559, 562 stated that a sexual relationship is not necessary for there to be a valid marriage, so the anatomical point appears to be irrelevant to whether a civil marriage is valid or not.

[Spud]

Sir James Wilde in A v B (1868) LR 1 P&D 559, 562 stated that a sexual relationship is not necessary for there to be a valid marriage, so the anatomical point appears to be irrelevant to whether a civil marriage is valid or not.

The original question was regarding the morality of active homosexuality, not marriage. Trent says so what if the anatomy and physiology is not compatible (except in using the same public loos). Well here is a question, so what if a long lost 60 year-old brother meets his 69 year old post-menopausal sister and they fall in love. Is there any reason why they should not make out? Or can we say that it is just plain wrong? Or is it okay to have an affair and cover it up so no-one gets hurt?
The point being that some things should not be done because they are dishonoring to each other.

[SteveH]

You think his relationship is not on a par with mine. That makes you a homophobe.

Who appointed you Trent's spokesman, and what does Trent think about it?

[Aruntraveller]

If you read back you can see what I've said.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The original question was regarding the morality of active homosexuality, not marriage. Trent says so what if the anatomy and physiology is not compatible (except in using the same public loos). Well here is a question, so what if a long lost 60 year-old brother meets his 69 year old post-menopausal sister and they fall in love. Is there any reason why they should not make out? Or can we say that it is just plain wrong? Or is it okay to have an affair and cover it up so no-one gets hurt?
The point being that some things should not be done because they are dishonoring to each other.

My impression is that society's interpretation of morality reflects their particular squeamishness about certain issues and changes according to time, technology and geography, which is presumably why you find morals are not the same in different countries and cultures at different times.

The UK prioritises individual freedom and happiness compared to many other countries. That's just the way the history of this country has shaped social norms. Society has become more morally pluralistic and multi-cultural rather than homogenous over time. Who knows - it may be that consenting brother and sister relationship or same sex sibling sexual relationships may be considered legal, acceptable (on par with other relationships?) in the future depending on medical advances in contraception and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. It does not mean that a large percentage of the population would be interested in pursuing such relationships, but many in society may accept that it is ok that other people find them desirable - if medical risks can be overcome with technology. Of course there will be others who will continue to condemn such relationships since diversity in moral opinions is normal.

[Nearly Sane]

Who appointed you Trent's spokesman, and what does Trent think about it?

He's already asked much the same question.
 

[Aruntraveller]

The point being that some things should not be done because they are dishonoring to each other.

So how am I dishonouring my partner and myself?