Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve,

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

And nor can lots of straight married people, and some straight married people choose not to have children in any case. Also some straight married people engage in sexual activity using bits of their bodies that, as you put it, "anatomically do not complement each other the way a man and a woman do". Are the marriages of all these groups not on a par with marriages between people who only have procreational sex?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Being married to another chap sounds like a cakewalk and rather convivial compared to the great challenging life journey which is heretosexual marriage.

[Aruntraveller]

Being married to another chap sounds like a cakewalk and rather convivial compared to the great challenging life journey which is heretosexual marriage.

Hmmm....that depends on the chap.

[Nearly Sane]

Being married to another chap sounds like a cakewalk and rather convivial compared to the great challenging life journey which is heretosexual marriage.

The typo is an interesting one.

[Owlswing]

 The typo is an interesting one.

Ain't that the truth!

[ProfessorDavey]

Could we possibly stop referring to people as homophobic if they are not completely, 100% on board with gay marriage?

Could we possibly stop referring to people as racist if they are not completely, 100% on board with black people being allowed to marry.

Nope your comments are homophobic in the same manner as my analogous comment is racist.

It may be a considered, thought-out position.

It may well be considered and thought out, but that doesn't stop it being homophobic - similarly if someone has a problem with black people being allowed to marry that is racist, regardless of how considered or thought our their position may be.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

Jeremy would you be claiming that someone who does not agree with black people being able to marry isn't racist? I suspect not.

Is this a glaring lack of consistency on your part - or are you buying into a continuing societal perception that prejudice on the grounds of sexuality is somehow lesser to prejudice on the grounds of race. Seems to me this is just about timing - we are rather further ahead in the struggle for equality on racial grounds than on sexuality. But of course both are equally bad and in due course we will be as horrified at casual homophobia (as per Steve) as we are now about casual racism. Yet, of course, 30 years ago we kind of accepted all sorts of casual racist comment that we would never tolerate now, thank goodness.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Not sure that comparison to black people works. There isn’t a behaviour related to sex that black people can’t do but other races can. This is related to whether certain behaviours make a marriage better or not on par based on a particular historical definition of marriage as being a formal agreement between a man and a woman as a way of protecting their offspring and passing on property. There is less need for these formal arrangements now.

As I pointed out earlier, case law in the 19th century was that there does not need to be sexual relations for a marriage to be valid.

[Roses]

Could we possibly stop referring to people as racist if they are not completely, 100% on board with black people being allowed to marry.

Nope your comments are homophobic in the same manner as my analogous comment is racist.
It may well be considered and thought out, but that doesn't stop it being homophobic - similarly if someone has a problem with black people being allowed to marry that is racist, regardless of how considered or thought our their position may be.

Good well thought out post, which shows up Steve's comments on homosexuality.

[Harrowby Hall]

I am trying to catch up with this continued discussion. I had a problem with my computer and missed an opportunity to comment about four pages ago.

I would just like to say (and I apologise if there has been appropriate discussion) that the biological purpose of sex is reproduction. However, for homo sapiens this is no longer appropriate. For homo sapiens the primary purpose of sex is the maintenance of the pair bond - and this is necessitated by the extremely long developmental period experienced by members of that species.

Human beings take about 12 years before they are able to reproduce. But this developmental milepost is reached before they have achieved full physical maturity and about 10 years before the human brain has fully developed. It is the time taken for the brain to fully develop which is the reason for the long childhood.

It is to the benefit of developing children that they have the protection of two parents. Sex is the reward that the couple receive for staying together. In most cases these are the the parents responsible for the infant's conception and birth. But it does not have to be so, children can be (and are) raised by people who with whom they have no genetic relationship. And children can be raised by two adoptive parents of the same sex. There is no requirement that only one member of the parenting couple should possess a penis or a vagina. The only requirement is that the relationship should be loving and supportive.

Q    Four white, homosexual, American men went into a room together.  What came out?

A    West Side Story




PS

Another couple of points from a few pages ago.

I do not understand why Spud is so obsessed by the "Shalt nots" of the Mosaic commandments. Spud claims to be a Christian and the founder of his religion said that in his new testament there were only two commandments:  (1) to love God, and (2) to love his neighbour as himself. If Spud's neighbour   has a different sexual orientation from Spud that means that Spud is sinning if he treats his neighbour any differently than he treats himself. What other people choose to do with the contents of their underwear is nothing to do with Spud.

RCs, shame and guilt with respect to confession. I speak as a former RC. Shame is public, guilt is private. The confessional is private. No priest would ever shame a confessor, but (I believe) absolution is not automatic. A priest may tell someone that he cannot grant absolution unless that person makes some attempt to make good his sinful action. This may be handing ones self in to the police or returning stolen property or making good some other kind of wrong. But what catholicism is very good at is making people feel guilty. I walked away from religion over half a century ago - but if bearing guilt were an Olympic event then I would be in the medals.

[SteveH]

Good well thought out post, which shows up Steve's comments on homosexuality.

Posts that include the childish word "nope" are rarely good and well thought out, and that was no exception. There is no comparison between homosexuality, which is a behavioural trait found in all races and cultures, and skin colour.

[Spud]

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.

Trent brought his relationship into the debate. My initial comment was related to both homosexuality and abortion. You guys forget that freedom of belief is a human right, so why can someone not make an argument that something is morally wrong without being accused of bigotry?

[Spud]

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.

I've checked, and was surprised to find that incest is legal in France, Spain, Russia and other countries.

Nevertheless, just because something is allowed, that doesn't mean it isn't wrong. It can be allowed because people have desires that are too strong to control, but still viewed as wrong and better to aim at not doing it. People can change according to moral beliefs, and such change can be healthy, if it isn't forced upon them.

[ProfessorDavey]

Trent brought his relationship into the debate. My initial comment was related to both homosexuality and abortion. You guys forget that freedom of belief is a human right, so why can someone not make an argument that something is morally wrong without being accused of bigotry?

Freedom of belief is not absolute, it is conditional - and typically one of the conditions that apply is that the belief doesn't conflict with the freedom from discrimination of people with other protected characteristics. Also that expressing views based on belief cannot incite violence or hate crimes.

However on the point in hand - sure you can express your faith-based views (provided they don't fall foul of the above), but your 'freedom of belief' doesn't mean you are protected from the most robust challenge to those views where they are intolerance and prejudiced. Nor does it protect you from being called a homophobe when you clearly express homophobic views.

[Spud]

Freedom of belief is not absolute, it is conditional - and typically one of the conditions that apply is that the belief doesn't conflict with the freedom from discrimination of people with other protected characteristics. Also that expressing views based on belief cannot incite violence or hate crimes.

However on the point in hand - sure you can express your faith-based views (provided they don't fall foul of the above), but your 'freedom of belief' doesn't mean you are protected from the most robust challenge to those views where they are intolerance and prejudiced. Nor does it protect you from being called a homophobe when you clearly express homophobic views.

Agreed, although I think there is a conflict. Note I have not said that same sex marriage should be banned (it should be tolerated), but have argued that it is morally wrong, in answer to Trent's question.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

On this forum you can have your beliefs robustly challenged even if they are not intolerant or prejudiced. I used to get my belief in Islam robustly challenged just on the basis that the Quran had an Arabic word for unbeliever. Therefore beliefs in same-sex marriage are also open to robust challenge on here. Any moral belief is open to robust challenge on a debate forum.

[ProfessorDavey]

Posts that include the childish word "nope" are rarely good and well thought out, and that was no exception.

So an argument should be dismissed just because a poster uses a colloquial term - sounds like running away from the debate Steve.

There is no comparison between homosexuality, which is a behavioural trait found in all races and cultures, and skin colour.

Yes there is - both are inherent biological characteristics over which the individual has no choice.

In both cases those inherent characteristics have traditionally resulted in individuals possessing those characteristics being treated less favourably by society for no other reason than the possession of those characteristics. Further in both cases that discrimination has typically been based on a view that possession of those characteristics means that individual (or their abilities or behaviours) is considered inferior to other people who do not possess those characteristics.

You could add being female to that list.

[jeremyp]

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.

The difference between a civil partnership and a marriage is that married people can present themselves to each other and to others as being married and everything that the institution represents. That's a distinction that matters to a lot of people including gay people.

I don't understand why the anatomical thing is important to anybody except the partners. Marriage is a human legal institution, not a biological function. In any case, surely one of the things that sets humans apart from other animals is our ability to transcend or biology - to go against our "animal nature".

[Roses]

Posts that include the childish word "nope" are rarely good and well thought out, and that was no exception. There is no comparison between homosexuality, which is a behavioural trait found in all races and cultures, and skin colour.

Many of your posts are very childish when you are having a kiddie's temper tantrum as you seem to do when people don't see it your way. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think there is a difference between skin colour and sexual acts.  One is a characteristic and the other is a behaviour With regards to women, they tend to be physically weaker after puberty than men so if you judge people on strength and speed your moral values would lead you to discriminate against women or you could argue that you are actually trying to protect them from the higher risk of harm.

[Roses]

Agreed, although I think there is a conflict. Note I have not said that same sex marriage should be banned (it should be tolerated), but have argued that it is morally wrong, in answer to Trent's question.

What is morally wrong about it?

[jeremyp]

Steve,

What on earth does “anatomically do not complement each other the way a man and a woman do”

It means Steve thinks marriage should only apply to couples with one penis and one vagina between them.

[SteveH]

Many of your posts are very childish when you are having a kiddie's temper tantrum as you seem to do when people don't see it your way. 

"temper tantrum" is an oxymoron.

[Roses]

"temper tantrum" is an oxymoron.

TEMPER, TEMPER. 

[Aruntraveller]

Trent brought his relationship into the debate.

I brought my relationship into this debate because you and to a lesser extent Steve view homosexuality in the abstract. We are talking about people here.

PS I reject your tolerance.