Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry

[Nearly Sane]

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.

The ongoing homophobia from you and from Steve/Jebediah is a fucking disgrace. The constant denigration of trentvoyager's relationship that  the two of you are carrying out on this thread shows that while it might not need the Bible for some Christians to excuse their small minded bigotry, there are still Christians such as you both who will seek any excuse for their unpleasant little prejudices. I honestly don't know whether I dislike your more overt homophobia. or Steve's 'I think gay people are fine but their relationship isn't on a par with a straight relationship' schtick - at least you front up to your bigotry as opposed to the twee dishonest stuff from Steve. Either way you both show Christianity in an appalling light.

[SteveH]

The ongoing homophobia from you and from Steve/Jebediah is a fucking disgrace. The constant denigration of trentvoyager's relationship that  the two of you are carrying out on this thread shows that while it might not need the Bible for some Christians to excuse their small minded bigotry, there are still Christians such as you both who will seek any excuse for their unpleasant little prejudices. I honestly don't know whether I dislike your more overt homophobia. or Steve's 'I think gay people are fine but their relationship isn't on a par with a straight relationship' schtick - at least you front up to your bigotry as opposed to the twee dishonest stuff from Steve. Either way you both show Christianity in an appalling light.

This is outrageous! I have never denigrated Trent's relationship, nor would I. There is a huge difference between Spud, a biblical literalist who is absolutely opposed to gay relationships, and I, who emphatically am not. You are a self-righteous disgrace, and I think you should apologise.

[Nearly Sane]

This is outrageous! I have never denigrated Trent's relationship, nor would I. There is a huge difference between Spud, a biblical literalist who is absolutely opposed to gay relationships, and I, who emphatically am not. You are a self-righteous disgrace, and I think you should apologise.

You have said it isn't on a par with a straight one - that is denigrating it. And that you seek to avoid then it just makes you a liar as well as a homophobe

[Roses]

The attitude of those two posters is the sort of thing I had in mind when I created this thread. I must admit I am surprised at how many posts it has attracted. Maybe one day it might be made a 'sticky' like 'Searching for God'.

[Nearly Sane]

Get stuffed.

No, because I'm not going to let you push your twee homophobia on here unchallenged

[ProfessorDavey]

This is outrageous! I have never denigrated Trent's relationship, nor would I. There is a huge difference between Spud, a biblical literalist who is absolutely opposed to gay relationships, and I, who emphatically am not. You are a self-righteous disgrace, and I think you should apologise.

Steve, while your comments may not be on a par with Steve's in terms of extremism (see what I did there), low level homophobia (such as claiming gay relationships aren't on a par with straight ones), which you do engage in provides the oxygen to the more hateful comments of people like Spud. Over the centuries the most hateful comments and actions have always been justified and normalised because a larger body of less extreme people engage in lower level hate. In order to stamp out the likes of Spud you have to practice what you preach - you cannot reasonably denounce him while all the time engaging in homophobia yourself (even at a lower level).

There is no threshold of tolerance to hate - you either reject (and therefore should not engage in it) or you are part of the enabling crowd that leads to Spud and gay people hospitalised in random homophobic attacks. Which group do you want to be part of Steve? - it is your choice, but that choice comes with consequences.

[SteveH]

My position is clear, and reasonable, whatever you think, and I do not intend to be patronised into silence by you, any more than I will be insulted into silence by Really Self-righteous.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

While challenging what you perceive as homophobia is a good thing, presumably on this forum we still need to discuss different strands of morality where it is relevant to social issues today. Is discussing same-sex marriage or relationships any different from discussing the morality of Muslim polygyny in the UK or other consensual relationships?

I don't buy the argument that giving oxygen to that debate on a debating forum leads to Muslim-bashing. I think the discussion of ideas should be had as open discussion is too important to reaching understanding between opposing sides and learning tolerance without violence, but yes I agree we should always be aware of the extremists on the different sides of the debate. It's up to the criminal justice system to prevent and police criminal acts. It's up to people to seek to change views persuasively.

Personally I don't think NS's efforts on this forum are persuasive and probably counter-productive, but if it makes him feel better, that's his choice of the persona he wishes to adopt on here.

[Roses]

My position is clear, and reasonable, whatever you think, and I do not intend to be patronised into silence by you, any more than I will be insulted into silence by Really Self-righteous.

It isn't reasonable if you don't think gays should have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals when it comes to marriage.

[ippy]

So how am I dishonouring my partner and myself?

While you're at it asking questions of Spud, why not ask him what he thinks of left handers as well, if he does answer about left handers this answer'll probably make as much sense as his views of people that happen to be gay.

Regards Trent, ippy.

[Nearly Sane]

My position is clear, and reasonable, whatever you think, and I do not intend to be patronised into silence by you, any more than I will be insulted into silence by Really Self-righteous.

Your position is certainly clear but it isn't reasonable, and is also homophobic. You can call people self righteous all you like but it  isn't going to take away from the fact you don't want homosexuals to have the same rights as heterosexuals.

[Roses]

While you're at it asking questions of Spud, why not ask him what he thinks of left handers as well, if he does answer about left handers this answer'll probably make as much sense as his views of people that happen to be gay.

Regards Trent, ippy.

As I have mentioned before, being left handed was looked down upon at one time. My mother and her older brother were punished for using their left hands for writing when at school. My uncle had polio as a baby and couldn't use his right hand! I write with my left hand but do everything else with my right. An elderly man saw me writing when I was a child, he said my parents should spanked me for doing so!

[Aruntraveller]

While you're at it asking questions of Spud, why not ask him what he thinks of left handers as well, if he does answer about left handers this answer'll probably make as much sense as his views of people that happen to be gay.

Regards Trent, ippy.

Tell me about it. I'm left handed and gay.

There's no end to the shit god deals out ;-)

[ippy]

Tell me about it. I'm left handed and gay.

There's no end to the shit god deals out ;-)

You definitely need to be locked up as one of societies extreme outcasts, it's too late for capital punishment, if I'd known this Trent_________

Regards, ippy

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

My position is clear, and reasonable, whatever you think, and I do not intend to be patronised into silence by you, any more than I will be insulted into silence by Really Self-righteous.

Presumably you don't think there is a formula that can be used to decide whether one relationship is on par with another relationship? It seems to be your personal preference based on some arbitrary criteria you (along with many others) have chosen..

There are so many different types of relationships - marriages without any sex, marriages with some sexual acts but not others, emotionally or financially abusive marriages with non-abusive sexual acts; marriages which don't produce children; marriages that result in poverty and hardship; polygamy; marriages of duty; marriages of convenience; loveless marriages; marriages that appear horrible but the people in them are happy etc

I don't see how there can be any objective judgement about the quality of a marriage, though obviously society through Parliament, judges, social workers etc can legislate against certain behaviours they view as having an unacceptable cost to individuals or society.   

[ippy]

As I have mentioned before, being left handed was looked down upon at one time. My mother and her older brother were punished for using their left hands for writing when at school. My uncle had polio as a baby and couldn't use his right hand! I write with my left hand but do everything else with my right. An elderly man saw me writing when I was a child, he said my parents should spanked me for doing so!

I had an aunt Euphemia, yes that was her name, Feeny for short and she was made to sit on her left hand while she was doing any writing at school, I believe she developed a tick of some sort more than likely was connected to this treatment but fortunately it wasn't a lasting condition.

Regards, ippy.

[SteveH]

It isn't reasonable if you don't think gays should have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals when it comes to marriage.

Being unreasonable and disagreeing with you are two different things.

[Roses]

Being unreasonable and disagreeing with you are two different things.

You are being UNREASONABLE if you don't think gays should have the same marriage rights as heterosexuals.

[SteveH]

You are being UNREASONABLE if you don't think gays should have the same marriage rights as heterosexuals.

You are being SHOUTY and HYSTERICAL if you use capital letters.

[Roses]

You are being SHOUTY and HYSTERICAL if you use capital letters.

Oh dear, it is you who seems to have lost it by having a childish temper tantrum as other posters don't agree with you.

[Nearly Sane]

You are being SHOUTY and HYSTERICAL if you use capital letters.

That's better than being a homophobe though. And there is now apparent misogyny as well with the word hysterical in this context.

[SteveH]

That's better than being a homophobe though. And there is now apparent misogyny as well with the word hysterical in this context.

Etymological fallacy.

[Owlswing]

My position is clear, and reasonable, whatever you think, and I do not intend to be patronised into silence by you, any more than I will be insulted into silence by Really Self-righteous.

Precisely! You seem to think that low-level homophobia is less of an unpleasance than the virtiolic homophobia that Steve deines by quoting the bible.

Sorry. JC (An acronym for Jesus Christ possibly?) but you are as unpleasant an homophobic as any who express a wish to eliminate gays by violence.

It is merely a matter of degree and my hatred of anti-gays like you gets greater the more you try to excuse your attitude.

 

[SteveH]

Precisely! You seem to think that low-level homophobia is less of an unpleasance than the virtiolic homophobia that Steve deines by quoting the bible.

Sorry. JC (An acronym for Jesus Christ possibly?) but you are as unpleasant an homophobic as any who express a wish to eliminate gays by violence.

It is merely a matter of degree and my hatred of anti-gays like you gets greater the more you try to excuse your attitude.

Do I care tuppence?
No, I don't.

[Owlswing]

I had an aunt Euphemia, yes that was her name, Feeny for short and she was made to sit on her left hand while she was doing any writing at school, I believe she developed a tick of some sort more than likely was connected to this treatment but fortunately it wasn't a lasting condition.

Regards, ippy.

My mother had the same treatment at school and wound up being able to write both right and left handed and also, just for a party trick could also write backwards, legibly, with both hands.