Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't see it that way neither have I ever seen Hercules or whatever he's called say anything remotely homophobic.

See my comment above - claiming that gay relationships are not on a par with straight ones is clearly homophobic as par relates to quality or importance - unless you believe that Steve was meaning that gay relationships are better or more important than straight ones, which I doubt.

[Owlswing]

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

Actually even  some faiths are excluded - Pagans, for instance!

[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;

Steve/Jebediah saying trentvoyager's relationship is not on a par with with mine, and that homosexuals should be discriminated against
'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.'

And where he tells Trentvoyager not to be silly for not wanting to be discriminated against

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16912.900

[ProfessorDavey]

... that does not make the relationship inferior but they are two different things . I believe that is what H was saying.

But he didn't say that they were different - he said that gay relationships were not on a par with straight ones - that clearly implies inferiority, not mere difference.

[jeremyp]

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!

Ah, did you not know that  Jedediah Cleishbotham is Steve? I apologise: you have been away for a while and hence you might not have known that.

[Owlswing]

Ah, did you not know that  Jedediah Cleishbotham is Steve? I apologise: you have been away for a while and hence you might not have known that.

Until NS pointed it out I did not make the connection.

[Aruntraveller]

I've been giving this part of the thread some thought.

I'm not unduly upset by Steve's post stating that "gay relationships should not be regarded as absolutely on a par with heterosexual ones", I am perplexed by it, however. Perplexed because like some posters have pointed out he has never struck me as anything approaching homophobic. Some of you will remember that we've had experience here and on the BBC of some real practitioners of the art.

Anyhow, I got to thinking about my own homophobia (internalised, or some such). By which I mean there are things in my life I absolutely don't do because of the way I perceive that my own homosexuality limits me.

So for instance, I never, ever, use public toilets due to an overwhelming fear that people might think I am using the toilet for a purpose other than that which it is designed for. I do not interact with children outside of my family and friends because of the old, stupid idea that gay people are paedophiles. So if a child is in trouble or misbehaving I do not get involved for fear of misunderstanding (that fear I appreciate may in some ways extend to heterosexual men). Those are just two areas where my internalised homophobia directs my actions in ways which aren’t helpful to me, or indeed, to wider society.

So, my point is, that I do think Jemediah’s (Steve’s) posting on this has been homophobic and only a little upsetting to me by him saying my relationship isn’t on a par with heterosexual ones; here comes the but, but if I have taken in and am still affected by internalised homophobia, I can’t be too hard on somebody who has never been homophobic on here in the past who shows that he also hasn’t quite shaken off his conditioning either societal or religious and posted something a little bit stupid.

We all arrive at realisations about how we think about issues, be that LGBT issues or race, or womens rights, etc.  at different times and I hope Steve will eventually come to realise that actually there is no difference between my relationship and say NS’s relationship. At the same time recognising that there is a world of difference between any two relationships.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

Agreed. Society still seems to be made up of a lot of people who think a relationship that does not result in marriage and produce healthy genetically-related offspring to propagate the species, add value to the economy and national security is not on par with relationships  that do result in those outcomes. So I would not necessarily single out a phobia of same sex relationships - it could be more to do with a different set of priorities and values. Our priorities and values are not homogeneous in a morally pluralistic society.

[Roses]

I've been giving this part of the thread some thought.

I'm not unduly upset by Steve's post stating that "gay relationships should not be regarded as absolutely on a par with heterosexual ones", I am perplexed by it, however. Perplexed because like some posters have pointed out he has never struck me as anything approaching homophobic. Some of you will remember that we've had experience here and on the BBC of some real practitioners of the art.

Anyhow, I got to thinking about my own homophobia (internalised, or some such). By which I mean there are things in my life I absolutely don't do because of the way I perceive that my own homosexuality limits me.

So for instance, I never, ever, use public toilets due to an overwhelming fear that people might think I am using the toilet for a purpose other than that which it is designed for. I do not interact with children outside of my family and friends because of the old, stupid idea that gay people are paedophiles. So if a child is in trouble or misbehaving I do not get involved for fear of misunderstanding (that fear I appreciate may in some ways extend to heterosexual men). Those are just two areas where my internalised homophobia directs my actions in ways which aren’t helpful to me, or indeed, to wider society.

So, my point is, that I do think Jemediah’s (Steve’s) posting on this has been homophobic and only a little upsetting to me by him saying my relationship isn’t on a par with heterosexual ones; here comes the but, but if I have taken in and am still affected by internalised homophobia, I can’t be too hard on somebody who has never been homophobic on here in the past who shows that he also hasn’t quite shaken off his conditioning either societal or religious and posted something a little bit stupid.

We all arrive at realisations about how we think about issues, be that LGBT issues or race, or womens rights, etc.  at different times and I hope Steve will eventually come to realise that actually there is no difference between my relationship and say NS’s relationship. At the same time recognising that there is a world of difference between any two relationships.

I am so very sorry that you have been made to feel uncomfortable about your sexuality because of the nastiness of anti-gay bigots.    Anyone who thinks all paedophiles are gay are totally looney tunes, there are plenty of heterosexuals who are paedophiles, including some famous names like Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris.

Gay or straight a person should have the same rights to an adult consensual relationship and feel happy in the skin they are in.

[Owlswing]

I am so very sorry that you have been made to feel uncomfortable about your sexuality because of the nastiness of anti-gay bigots.    Anyone who thinks all paedophiles are gay are totally looney tunes, there are plenty of heterosexuals who are paedophiles, including some famous names like Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris.

Gay or straight a person should have the same rights to an adult consensual relationship and feel happy in the skin they are in.

The problem is trying to get a dyed-in-the-wool Christian to agree with you!

[Roses]

The problem is trying to get a dyed-in-the-wool Christian to agree with you!

If you mean by that a Biblical literalist, you are probably correct. Most Christians aren't literalists, and many are gay, including clergy, who are not shy where their sexuality is concerned.

[Owlswing]

If you mean by that a Biblical literalist, you are probably correct. Most Christians aren't literalists, and many are gay, including clergy, who are not shy where their sexuality is concerned.

Which, combined with the RC'c problem priests, demonstrates the Christian religions capacity for double standards!

[SteveH]

See my comment above - claiming that gay relationships are not on a par with straight ones is clearly homophobic as par relates to quality or importance - unless you believe that Steve was meaning that gay relationships are better or more important than straight ones, which I doubt.

Could we possibly stop referring to people as homophobic if they are not completely, 100% on board with gay marriage? It may be a considered, thought-out position. I think that kind of name-calling is called poisoning the well, and is regarded as a logical fallacy, but I'll leave it to the fallacy-hunters on here to conferm or correct that.

[Roses]

If a person doesn't treat homosexuals in the same way as heterosexuals where marriage is concerned, they obviously have some sort of prejudice, however much they like to pretend they don't.

[jeremyp]

If a person doesn't treat homosexuals in the same way as heterosexuals where marriage is concerned, they obviously have some sort of prejudice, however much they like to pretend they don't.

I think the point is that flinging around accusations of homophobia is not constructive and I do not think Steve is homophobic. Steve has said he does not agree with the idea of same sex marriage^*. He has given his reasons and he has presented an argument (which I think contains fallacies). I'd rather have a discussion with Steve about why I think his reasoning is fallacious than have him hounded out of the conversation. Incidentally, a few pages back I did try to point out a couple of flaws in his argument, but it all got drowned out in the general verbal lynching.

^*I do not use the term "gay marriage" because gay people have never been banned from getting married, only from marrying anybody they might be in love with.

[Roses]

OK then, Steve why don't you like the idea of gays getting married?

[SteveH]

OK then, Steve why don't you like the idea of gays getting married?

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.

[Owlswing]

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.

You just don't get it do you? The homophobia is instutionalised in the Christian Churches (via the Bible) who do NOT want to allow gays to get married in church and the government, for some reason, was not willing to tell them to shut up and obey the law, so the law was changed to allow a "Civil Partnership" to allow the Chruch to continue to be homophobic withoout breaking the law!

As has been said before the Church's homophobia is Biblical in origin and some christians are not prepared to admit it!

[Nearly Sane]

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.

What is your reaction to Trentvoyager's post 1056 on this page?

[Roses]

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.

I don't get that at all! Surely it shouldn't matter whether you are gay or straight, if you love each other and wish to get married, there should be nothing to stop you doing so.

BTW what is your take on gays having children?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve,

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.

What on earth does “anatomically do not complement each other the way a man and a woman do” mean, and in any case of all the characteristics you could have selected to differentiate why pick in that one specifically to decide that equal marriage isn’t ”on a par” with heterosexual only marriage?   

[Aruntraveller]

and the fact that gays are only about 2% of the population

What the buggery bollocks has numbers got to do with matters of equality?

[Nearly Sane]

I think the point is that flinging around accusations of homophobia is not constructive and I do not think Steve is homophobic. Steve has said he does not agree with the idea of same sex marriage^*. He has given his reasons and he has presented an argument (which I think contains fallacies). I'd rather have a discussion with Steve about why I think his reasoning is fallacious than have him hounded out of the conversation. Incidentally, a few pages back I did try to point out a couple of flaws in his argument, but it all got drowned out in the general verbal lynching.

^*I do not use the term "gay marriage" because gay people have never been banned from getting married, only from marrying anybody they might be in love with.

What is your reaction to trentvoyager's post 1056 on this page?

[SteveH]

BTW what is your take on gays having children?

And that's another thing: they can't, except with the co-operation of a woman friend, and one of them adopting. That said, I'm fine with gays (male or female) having children.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve,

Could we possibly stop referring to people as homophobic if they are not completely, 100% on board with gay marriage? It may be a considered, thought-out position. I think that kind of name-calling is called poisoning the well, and is regarded as a logical fallacy, but I'll leave it to the fallacy-hunters on here to conferm or correct that.

Homophobia is the dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people. Telling us that homosexual marriage can’t be “on a par” with heterosexual marriage (ie, it’s less deserving of or entitled to parity) because gay people “anatomically do not complement each other the way a man and a woman do” with no rationale to support that statement implies a prejudice. Hence homophobia.