Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry

[Owlswing]

Do I care tuppence?

No, I don't.

That doesn't stop you being a homophobe - it just makes you a small-minded thick-skinned homophobe.

[Nearly Sane]

Etymological fallacy.

No, it's long been a term with a pejorative sense when used of women as an attempt to put down their arguments because of their sex. Given you will be aware of that your deliberate choice was to add misogyny to your homophobia.

[jeremyp]

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

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

Jesus Christ. Next you'll be revealing that you are ginger too.

FTR I am left handed.

[Roses]

What is wrong with having ginger hair?

[Outrider]

What is wrong with having ginger hair?

I'm reliably informed that it's an indication of 'soul deficit disorder'...

O.

[jeremyp]

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.

I assume by "Steve" you mean "Spud" and "deines" looks like a typo for "denies" but the word would be the opposite of what I think you meant.

In any case, yes it is.

Sorry. JC (An acronym for Jesus Christ possibly?)

Irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

but you are as unpleasant an homophobic as any who express a wish to eliminate gays by violence.

This is obviously false. Steve has, so far, expressed a belief that gay people should not be allowed to marry (other gay people of the same sex presumably) and that gay relationships are somehow lesser because they can't have standard heterosexual sex. I think he is wrong on both counts but that's a far cry from advocating the slaughter of homosexuals.

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.

There's nothing mere about the difference in degree between advocating the death of gay people and denying them access to a certain legal institution.

Whatever you say about Steve, or even Spud, they are not as bad as those who advocate killing gay people and it's absurd and destructive to suggest they are.

[jeremyp]

What is wrong with having ginger hair?

In actual fact, nothing. But it's a long running tradition to pretend there is for comedic effect. I think it's a trope that originated with Game On

[Sebastian Toe]

In actual fact, nothing. But it's a long running tradition to pretend there is for comedic effect. I think it's a trope that originated with Game On

https://youtu.be/9NA64meSo04

Parental guidance, may seriously offend sensitive red-heads.

[Owlswing]

I assume by "Steve" you mean "Spud" and "deines" looks like a typo for "denies" but the word would be the opposite of what I think you meant.

Your are correct in both your correction of "Steve" to "Spud" and "Deines" to "Denies" - I also meant that his denial of a xchurch marriage.

Irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

This is obviously false. Steve has, so far, expressed a belief that gay people should not be allowed to marry (other gay people of the same sex presumably) and that gay relationships are somehow lesser because they can't have standard heterosexual sex. I think he is wrong on both counts but that's a far cry from advocating the slaughter of homosexuals.

There's nothing mere about the difference in degree between advocating the death of gay people and denying them access to a certain legal institution.

Whatever you say about Steve, or even Spud, they are not as bad as those who advocate killing gay people and it's absurd and destructive to suggest they are.

This, the balance of your reply is irrelevant as my comments were addressed to Jedediah Cleishbotham. hence the JC initials comment!

[Outrider]

In actual fact, nothing. But it's a long running tradition to pretend there is for comedic effect. I think it's a trope that originated with Game On

I think it predates that by quite some way - it was around in my school-days in the early to mid-80s, and 'Game On' didn't start until the 90's.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Your are correct in both your correction of "Steve" to "Spud" and "Deines" to "Denies" - I also meant that his denial of a xchurch marriage.

This, the balance of your reply is irrelevant as my comments were addressed to Jedediah Cleishbotham. hence the JC initials comment!

Steve = Jebediah

[SteveH]

Steve = Jebediah

Jedediah. Minor character from Scott's novels.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

Is that aimed at me Steve - your post is unclear.

What I am trying to do is to get you to think, firstly about your views and secondly about the consequences of those view being expressed.

I cannot silence you but I can (hopefully make your think) - and if you choose to continue to hold such homophobic views and to express them there are consequences. Firstly people like me, and many others here, will call you out robustly for holding those views. Secondly people like Spud will see your comments as giving acceptability and legitimacy to his more extreme view and that in turn will be seen by others again as giving acceptability and legitimacy to homophobic actions, including violence. That's how it goes Steve - and you will be part of the trail of consequences.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

Indeed - and frankly the only people really able to judge a relationship are the two people in that relationship. Surely the 'quality' of a relationship should be based on the consensual mutual love and respect for each other in that relationship. And that has nothing to do with the gender of the individuals in that relationship, nor whether they have chosen to marry or not, nor whether they have children etc. It is much more fundamental than that, but something we cannot really judge from the outside and certainly not something we should be categorising in some sort of bizarre league table.

[SteveH]

Is that aimed at me Steve - your post is unclear.

What I am trying to do is to get you to think, firstly about your views and secondly about the consequences of those view being expressed.

I cannot silence you but I can (hopefully make your think) - and if you choose to continue to hold such homophobic views and to express them there are consequences. Firstly people like me, and many others here, will call you out robustly for holding those views. Secondly people like Spud will see your comments as giving acceptability and legitimacy to his more extreme view and that in turn will be seen by others again as giving acceptability and legitimacy to homophobic actions, including violence. That's how it goes Steve - and you will be part of the trail of consequences.

I am not a homophobe, and you are now being more infuriatingly patronising than ever: "trying to get me to think", quotha! Who the hell do you think you are?

[Nearly Sane]

I am not a homophobe, and you are now being more infuriatingly patronising than ever: "trying to get me to think", quotha! Who the hell do you think you are?

Someone who doesn't want to discriminate  against homosexuals unlike you.

[ProfessorDavey]

I am not a homophobe, and you are now being more infuriatingly patronising than ever: "trying to get me to think", quotha! Who the hell do you think you are?

Someone who knows that if you make homophobic comments, refuse to accept them as such when called out over them, refuses to retract them when called out over them, refuses to accept those comments to be wrong is ... well ... a homophobe. Perhaps not an extreme homophobe, but a homophobe nonetheless.

And no I am not being patronising - I am challenging you to think about exactly what you are saying and the consequences of your comments. If you don't like being challenged in such a manner, perhaps better not to make such comments in the first place.

[ippy]

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

Different subject but the same principle applies non-religious people are discriminated against by the BBC six days a week on the today programme non-religious people are actually not allowed to speak on the 'Thought For the Day' spot within the 'Today programme.

This amounts to the same thing, only it's Jed wanting to discriminate
against homosexual people, so it's just as you say L R.

Regards L R, ippy.   

[Roses]

Different subject but the same principle applies non-religious people are discriminated against by the BBC six days a week on the today programme non-religious people are actually not allowed to speak on the 'Thought For the Day' spot within the 'Today programme.

This amounts to the same thing, only it's Jed wanting to discriminate
against homosexual people, so it's just as you say L R.

Regards L R, ippy.

If it is true 'Thought for the Day', is for people of faith only that is wrong. It is not something I listen to.

[ippy]

If it is true 'Thought for the Day', is for people of faith only that is wrong. It is not something I listen to.

Almost unbelievable L R, but yes it's a fact try the BBC complaints about it they have a standard answer that starts with, It's an opportunity', you'd be amazed at the attempt it makes to turn logic and fair play on its head to excuse itself for banning non-religious speakers from the T4TD spot.
 
BBC Radio 4 the 'Today' programme starts at 0600 to 9000 six days a week not on Sundays, T4TD is about a three minute spot within the 'Today programme.

I think someone like Alan Burns wrote their excuse for them whoever it was must be dead now due to irreversibly turning themselves inside out as they attempted to compose the excuse.

Regards, ippy.

PS I almost forgot there's a 'Pause for Thought' spot on Ken Bruce's early morning BBC's Radio 2 show, same rule as above applies.

[Robbie]

He wrote it shouldn't be regarded as on a par, so yes in his twee homophobia, he regards Trentvoyager's relationship as lesser.

I don't see it that way neither have I ever seen Hercules or whatever he's called say anything remotely homophobic. I see I'll have to be careful or I might be labelled, can assure you nobody has ever considered me homophobic & I come from a family that campaigned for legalisation of homosexuality.

Gay relationships are different to heterosexual, that does not signify inferiority. A comparison would be parents who conceive and give birth in the way that we did and parents who adopt - they are both sets of parents but different. One is not better than the other. After a while nobody thinks about it but it's a fact because we are individuals.

A gay couple differs from a heterosexual one because there is no possibility that gay people will reproduce between themselves, that does not make the relationship inferior but they are two different things . I believe that is what H was saying. Please don't be so determined to seek out prejudice when there is none, there's plenty in existence without that;

[ippy]

I don't see it that way neither have I ever seen Hercules or whatever he's called say anything remotely homophobic. I see I'll have to be careful or I might be labelled, can assure you nobody has ever considered me homophobic & I come from a family that campaigned for legalisation of homosexuality.

Gay relationships are different to heterosexual, that does not signify inferiority. A comparison would be parents who conceive and give birth in the way that we did and parents who adopt - they are both sets of parents but different. One is not better than the other. After a while nobody thinks about it but it's a fact because we are individuals.

A gay couple differs from a heterosexual one because there is no possibility that gay people will reproduce between themselves, that does not make the relationship inferior but they are two different things . I believe that is what H was saying. Please don't be so determined to seek out prejudice when there is none, there's plenty in existence without that;

I'm so glad I'm in my world and not yours Robbie, although at the same time I'm sure you're a very good and well meaning person.

Regards, ippy.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't see it that way neither have I ever seen Hercules or whatever he's called say anything remotely homophobic. I see I'll have to be careful or I might be labelled, can assure you nobody has ever considered me homophobic & I come from a family that campaigned for legalisation of homosexuality.

Gay relationships are different to heterosexual, that does not signify inferiority. A comparison would be parents who conceive and give birth in the way that we did and parents who adopt - they are both sets of parents but different. One is not better than the other. After a while nobody thinks about it but it's a fact because we are individuals.

A gay couple differs from a heterosexual one because there is no possibility that gay people will reproduce between themselves, that does not make the relationship inferior but they are two different things . I believe that is what H was saying. Please don't be so determined to seek out prejudice when there is none, there's plenty in existence without that;

Except since Steve/Jebediah has argued on this thread that there should be no homosexual marriage because their relationship is not on a par with straight ones, and when asked about it by trentvoyager who is gay told him not to be silly, I'm not seeking out prejudice, I'm pointing it out.

[ProfessorDavey]

Gay relationships are different to heterosexual, ...

Each relationship is individual - no two are alike. I don't see the point of specifically dividing them into gay vs straight.

... that does not signify inferiority.

But to state that gay relationships are not on a par with straight ones (as Steve did) implies just that - unless Steve was implying that gay relationships are better. The term 'par' is very clearly about better and worse - to be on a par means to be equal to in quality to, or importance. Therefore not to be on a par implies something to be worse than (or better than) or less important (or more important). It doesn't just mean different.

In the context of gay relationships - describing them as not being on a par doesn't mean different, it clearly means worse of less important (unless Steve thinks they are better or more important) than straight relationships. And I'm sorry but that is a homophobic comment.

[Nearly Sane]

Each relationship is individual - no two are alike. I don't see the point of specifically dividing them into gay vs straight.
But to state that gay relationships are not on a par with straight ones (as Steve did) implies just that - unless Steve was implying that gay relationships are better. The term 'par' is very clearly about better and worse - to be on a par means to be equal to in quality to, or importance. Therefore not to be on a par implies something to be worse than (or better than) or less important (or more important). It doesn't just mean different.

In the context of gay relationships - describing them as not being on a par doesn't mean different, it clearly means worse of less important (unless Steve thinks they are better or more important) than straight relationships. And I'm sorry but that is a homophobic comment.

And he wants to discriminate against homosexuals based on it.