Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry

[Nearly Sane]

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.

And in making generalized statements, Steve and Spud already brought your relationship, and indeed mine into it. I note other than tell you not to be silly, which is part of the reason I see Steve as being homophobic hete, he hasn't engaged with you, and has ignored your admirable post talking 1056.

[jeremyp]

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 situation is not completely analogous. There is no law in the UK - nor has there ever been - that says a gay person is not allowed to get married. The inequity of the pre 2014 situation arises from the fact that marriage was traditionally defined as being between a man and a woman and that rules out a gay person marrying somebody who they love.

Steve thinks the ability to have heterosexual sex is important in a marriage. I don't know why he thinks it is important, I suspect it is because "that's the way it's always been". However, unless his reason is "to stop gay people from marrying their lovers", he is not homophobic.

[Aruntraveller]

However, unless his reason is "to stop gay people from marrying their lovers", he is not homophobic.

In which case he is.

[Nearly Sane]

The situation is not completely analogous. There is no law in the UK - nor has there ever been - that says a gay person is not allowed to get married. The inequity of the pre 2014 situation arises from the fact that marriage was traditionally defined as being between a man and a woman and that rules out a gay person marrying somebody who they love.

Steve thinks the ability to have heterosexual sex is important in a marriage. I don't know why he thinks it is important, I suspect it is because "that's the way it's always been". However, unless his reason is "to stop gay people from marrying their lovers", he is not homophobic.

Sorry, I don't get your qualification here. He wants to discriminate against homosexuals because he thinks their relationships are not equal to straight ones. In what way is that not homophobic?.

[jeremyp]

Freedom of belief is not absolute, it is conditional

No. Not unless you advocate putting people in prison for thought crimes.

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.

Beliefs don't conflict with anybody's freedom from discrimination. It's when you act on your beliefs that it becomes problematic. There should be no problem with believing gay marriage is wrong as long as you don't act on that belief by, for example, banning gay married couples from booking your B&B when you allow straight married couples to book it.

[jeremyp]

"temper tantrum" is an oxymoron.

Actually, if anything it is a tautology. An oxymoron is where you juxtapose two contradictory words. "Compassionate Conservatism" just popped into my head as an example.

[SteveH]

Actually, if anything it is a tautology. An oxymoron is where you juxtapose two contradictory words. "Compassionate Conservatism" just popped into my head as an example.

No, it's an oxymoron. Temper means " calmness, slowness to anger": it is what you lose when you get angry.

[jeremyp]

Sorry, I don't get your qualification here. He wants to discriminate against homosexuals because he thinks their relationships are not equal to straight ones. In what way is that not homophobic?.

No that is homophobic. To be honest, I'd forgotten that he wrote that. However, you haven't won the argument just by labelling a statement homophobic.

[jeremyp]

No, it's an oxymoron. Temper means " calmness, slowness to anger": it is what you lose when you get angry.

Nope.

"a person's state of mind seen in terms of their being angry or calm"

[Nearly Sane]

No that is homophobic. To be honest, I'd forgotten that he wrote that. However, you haven't won the argument just by labelling a statement homophobic.

I didn't claim to have won any argument by labelling a statement as homophobic. And the use of the statement has been repeated in several posts by myself, Trent, and Prof D.

I did express my disgust at that, and it wasn't in any sense about being in a lunch mob, but genuine disgust. Especially given Steve's dismissive approach to Trent expressing his concerns.

ETA Autocorrect changed lynch to lunch but that is too good to change.

[ProfessorDavey]

No. Not unless you advocate putting people in prison for thought crimes.

True in absolute terms - but when religious people talk of freedom of belief they don't mean simply the freedom to hold a view in their mind - no they mean the freedom to practice that belief and express their views.

[SteveH]

Nope.

"a person's state of mind seen in terms of their being angry or calm"

No.
"Mental balance or composure, esp. under provocation; calmness; equanimity; (now chiefly in keep or lose ome's temper, out of temper)." 
New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, than which there is no higher authority, except for the Oxford English Dictionary from which it is derived.
I agree with you about "compassionate conservatism" being an oxymoron, though; like "military intelligence"!

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Sorry, I don't get your qualification here. He wants to discriminate against homosexuals because he thinks their relationships are not equal to straight ones. In what way is that not homophobic?.

I thought the “not equal” was based on sexual acts. As in the moral value that some sexual acts are not on par with penetrative sex of vagina by penis? I’m not clear if Steve thinks a sexless marriage between a man and a woman is on par with a marriage with penetrative sex of the specified female orifice.

[Nearly Sane]

I thought the “not equal” was based on sexual acts. As in the moral value that some sexual acts are not on par with penetrative sex of vagina by penis? I’m not clear if Steve thinks a sexless marriage between a man and a woman is on par with a marriage with penetrative sex of the specified female orifice.

Not really sure what difference that makes. He thinks specifically that homosexuals should be discriminated against because their relationships are not in a par with straight ones. Whether that is based on sex acts seems to me to be irrelevant to him being homophobic.

[Nearly Sane]

No.
"Mental balance or composure, esp. under provocation; calmness; equanimity; (now chiefly in keep or lose ome's temper, out of temper)." 
New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, than which there is no higher authority, except for the Oxford English Dictionary from which it is derived.
I agree with you about "compassionate conservatism" being an oxymoron, though; like "military intelligence"!

Leaving aside that dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive, the definition you give allows for temper to be something that can be lost and hence a temper tantrum makes perfect sense. Even if it didn't that it is a much used term with well understood meaning, so you pedantry was pointless.


Anyway I am much more interested in your reaction to Trent's post 1056. Could you read it and if you still think you are not homophobic, explain why? As I have already raised in addition to you wanting to discriminate against homosexuals because you don't think their relationships  are on a par with straight ones, your facile dismissing of Trent's concerns in telling him not to be silly, also seems to me homophobic.

[SteveH]

Leaving aside that dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive, the definition you give allows for temper to be something that can be lost and hence a temper tantrum makes perfect sense. Even if it didn't that it is a much used term with well understood meaning, so you pedantry was pointless.

Exactly - you lose your temper when you get angry. "calmness, equanimity, slowness to anger" is the original meaning. As applied to metalwork, it is what you give to iron or steel to make it pliable and not brittle. The fact that the term "temper tantrum" is widely used doesn't alter the fact that it is wrong.

[ProfessorDavey]

There is no law in the UK - nor has there ever been - that says a gay person is not allowed to get married.

But marriage, under the law, is a consensual loving commitment between two people. Further that commitment can be annulled (and therefore declared void) if there isn't consummation. So I'm struggling to see how a homosexual person could actually make a valid legal commitment of that nature in the days when marriage was required to be between a man and a woman.

[Roses]

Steve has a problem with homosexuality being on a par with heterosexuality.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I did express my disgust at that, and it wasn't in any sense about being in a lunch mob,...

Can I join your lunch mob please? 

[Nearly Sane]

Exactly - you lose your temper when you get angry. "calmness, equanimity, slowness to anger" is the original meaning. As applied to metalwork, it is what you give to iron or steel to make it pliable and not brittle. The fact that the term "temper tantrum" is widely used doesn't alter the fact that it is wrong.

Again dictionaries are not prescriptive.


And I note that you have edited out the part of my post which asked you about Trent's post 1056. That seems like a deliberate and homophobic attempt to avoid engaging with Trent.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Can I join your lunch mob please? 

Autocorrect can sometimes be magnificent.

[Nearly Sane]

But to marriage, under the law, is a consensual loving commitment between two people. Further that commitment can be annulled (and therefore declared void) if there isn't consummation. So I'm struggling to see how a homosexual person could actually make a valid legal commitment of that nature in the days when marriage was required to be between a man and a woman.

One of my best friends came out as gay after 15 years of marriage during which he fathered a child.

[SteveH]

Again dictionaries are not prescriptive.


And I note that you have edited out the part of my post which asked you about Trent's post 1056. That seems like a deliberate and homophobic attempt to avoid engaging with Trent.

As usual, you are wrong. Dictionaries are indeed descriptive, but that's beside the point.
I think I've said all I want or need to say about gay marriage, which was a purely cosmetic bit of Tory me-too-ism. The change that mattered was Labour's introduction of civil partnerships - and if a pair of gay civil partners want to regard themselves as husband and husband, or wife and wife, no-one's stopping them. When all's said and done, though, the issue is vanishingly unimportant: it's not something I would dream of campaigning against.

[Nearly Sane]

As usual, you are wrong. Dictionaries are indeed descriptive, but that's beside the point.
I think I've said all I want or need to say about gay marriage, which was a purely cosmetic bit of Tory me-too-ism. The change that mattered was Labour's introduction of civil partnerships - and if a pair of gay civil partners want to regard themselves as husband and husband, or wife and wife, no-one's stopping them. When all's said and done, though, the issue is vanishingly unimportant: it's not something I would dream of campaigning against.

It is breathtaking that you dismiss Trent thinking that it is important in this way. It underlines that your homophobia is based around a complete disregard for individuals.

[Roses]

As usual, you are wrong. Dictionaries are indeed descriptive, but that's beside the point.
I think I've said all I want or need to say about gay marriage, which was a purely cosmetic bit of Tory me-too-ism. The change that mattered was Labour's introduction of civil partnerships - and if a pair of gay civil partners want to regard themselves as husband and husband, or wife and wife, no-one's stopping them. When all's said and done, though, the issue is vanishingly unimportant: it's not something I would dream of campaigning against.

What is wrong with them marrying if they wish to, like heterosexuals? ANSWER THE QUESTION?