Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry

[Nearly Sane]

Men have sticky-out bits, and women have sinky-in bits. The man's sticky-out bit is supposed to go in the woman's sinky-in bit. Men have sinky-in bits round the back, but they have a different purpose. Women, having only sinky-in bits, can only have sex with the help of artificial sticky-out bits.
I hope that is clear enough for even you and LR to understand.

Twee appeal to nature, which fails because it isn't even correct. It also in its own wee twee way ignores many form of sex in order to make use of a begging the question taking penetrative sex as the only form of sex, and with no rationale dismissing anal sex.


Add to all of this your continued avoidance of talking to Trent, other than saying 'Don't be silly' , and your avoidance of his name on posts asking about it to you, even to the extent of editing of the the on topic part of a post asking about your treatment of him makes me wonder if there is a small voice in your head suggesting you   are homophobic, but that to evade it, and shut it up you avoid dealing with and mentioning Trent.


If so, then maybe there is some hope for you to break out of your carapace of homophobia. If not, perhaps you are just so overcome by your homophobia that such cowardly ignorant displays are all you will ever be capable of.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Steve,

“Supposed to go”? According to whom exactly? See, that’s the thing with prejudice – people who are prejudiced will often deny it, and will cite reasons for their positions not being prejudiced at all: “Wot me? Never!”. The trouble though is that their reasons always turn out to be as vapid, meaningless, insubstantive as “not complement”, “supposed” etc.

When you say “supposed” here for example presumably you’re trying to say something like, “if the couple want to procreate, then there’s one type of sexual activity that’s necessary for that and nature is all about procreation, therefore….” etc. Is that right?

Here’s the problem with that though: homosexual behaviour has now been observed in around 1,000 species with likely many more yet to be identified. (Bisexuality by the way has been identified in even more.) Why would this be? Have Trent and his evil cohort been out tempting everything from scarab beetles to dolphins to turn away from the true path with offers of Barbra Streisland records and the lure of fabulous dress sense? Or could it be that there are perfectly good reasons for nature itself requiring some incidence of homosexuality – providing more reliable options for the care of offspring for example?

What you have done is to pick on just one aspect of sexual activity (sticky-in and sticky-out bits as you so scientifically put it), for no good reason decided that that’s what really matters, then decided that people who don’t introduce those particular bits to each other are somehow inferior (“not on a par”) with those who do. Sex though is about much more than procreation – pair bonding, tribal/societal cohesion, optimising the survival of offspring etc and that means sex in any of its forms, not just the sticky-in meets sticky-out type.

Here’s an article about this to get you started:
 
https://phys.org/news/2019-05-scientists-explore-evolution-animal-homosexuality.html
 

I don’t see where Steve said the people were inferior - seemed more like a hierarchy of sexual acts - bit like the metaphors 1st base, 2nd base, 3rd base, all the way. It’s fairly normal to rank actions/ deeds / behaviour though it may not always be PC to do so.

[Nearly Sane]

I don’t see where Steve said the people were inferior - seemed more like a hierarchy of sexual acts - bit like the metaphors 1st base, 2nd base, 3rd base, all the way. It’s fairly normal to rank actions/ deeds / behaviour though it may not always be PC to do so.

He has said their relationships are inferior based on that heirarchy, and that that should be enshrined in law. And he has ignored Trent saying that that makes him feel as if he is being treated as inferior.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

He has said their relationships are inferior based on that heirarchy, and that that should be enshrined in law. And he has ignored Trent saying that that makes him feel as if he is being treated as inferior.

I agree it’s not nice to make people feel inferior...but I’m not surprised it happens. After all, many posters try to make each other feel inferior on here so my impression is it goes with the territory of being on a religion and ethics forum. None of us have to take on board other people’s ethics, moral values or their opinions of our ethics, actions or beliefs.

For example, it doesn’t bother me that some posters think I am irrational or inferior in some way for practising certain religious beliefs. Nor does it bother me if people want to discuss legislating against certain religious practices. It’s good to discuss it on an anonymous forum, which like the real world will be made up of people holding a wide spectrum of beliefs and values. I’m not expecting everyone to agree on the “shoulds” that make up people’s morality.

[Nearly Sane]

I agree it’s not nice to make people feel inferior...but I’m not surprised it happens. After all, many posters try to make each other feel inferior on here so my impression is it goes with the territory of being on a religion and ethics forum. None of us have to take on board other people’s ethics, moral values or their opinions of our ethics, actions or beliefs.

For example, it doesn’t bother me that some posters think I am irrational or inferior in some way for practising certain religious beliefs. Nor does it bother me if people want to discuss legislating against certain religious practices. It’s good to discuss it on an anonymous forum, which like the real world will be made up of people holding a wide spectrum of beliefs and values. I’m not expecting everyone to agree on the “shoulds” that make up people’s morality.

  I honestly have no idea of the point you are making here.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I was responding to your comment that Steve had ignored Trent saying Steve’s comments on same-sex marriage makes Trent feel inferior.

My point was that it is inevitable when discussing moral values that some posters might feel other posters are trying to make them feel inferior, as the discussion of moral values will contain judgements or “shoulds” about people’s behaviour and individual posters might engage in the behaviour being judged. When we have discussions on morals, ethics or beliefs I think we have to accept that individual posters on here might feel inferior so I don’t think Steve ignoring the possible effect on Trent is problematic, if that’s the price that needs to be paid to have a discussion.

[SteveH]

On reflection, the anatomical point is probably invalid - trying to get a conclusion in the imperative mood from premises in the indicative mood, or, in short, an "ought" from an "is". (Hume's law.) Nevertheless, altering the definition of marriage that has been around for millennia seems a bit reckless. What's wrong with marriage for heteros and civil partnership for homos? There's nothing necessarily second-best about civil partnerships, and if civil partners want to regard themselves as husband and husband, or wife and wife, no-one's stopping them.
And that is my last word on the subject. If some posters still regard me as homophobic, fuck 'em.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Whatever else the former non issue of gay marriage was it was for antitheists an opportunity for a bit of linguistic imperialism and an opportunity to stick one on the church.

This whole process of linguistic totalitarianism has now got itself tied up in knots over transsexualism.

[Aruntraveller]

On reflection, the anatomical point is probably invalid - trying to get a conclusion in the imperative mood from premises in the indicative mood, or, in short, an "ought" from an "is". (Hume's law.) Nevertheless, altering the definition of marriage that has been around for millennia seems a bit reckless. What's wrong with marriage for heteros and civil partnership for homos? There's nothing necessarily second-best about civil partnerships, and if civil partners want to regard themselves as husband and husband, or wife and wife, no-one's stopping them.
And that is my last word on the subject. If some posters still regard me as homophobic, fuck 'em.

Oh so much wrong in one post.

So firstly, now that you have admitted that your premise about anatomical compatibility is wrong, are you withdrawing your conclusion based upon that. Namely that homosexual relationships aren't "on a par" with heterosexual ones. Or do you still cleave to that?

Secondly, altering the definition of marriage that has been around for millennia? Come on, skip back in the Tardis a few hundred years and marriage is a different creature altogether. Indeed get on a flight to other parts of the world now and it is still a vastly different institution.

Thirdly, if there is no difference between marriage and civil partnerships as you imply, then I would suggest that a difference which makes no difference is no difference and the distinction between the two is unnecessary.

[ProfessorDavey]

Whatever else the former non issue of gay marriage was it was for antitheists an opportunity for a bit of linguistic imperialism and an opportunity to stick one on the church.

I disagree - people fighting for equality were simply doing that to right a wrong.

If the church placed themselves in the 'wrong' camp that's entirely their fault - they could have supported human rights and equality, but they didn't. They took a position that was (and largely still is) morally bankrupt.

And this isn't the first time the church has positioned itself in that face of what is morally right. See also the continuing refusal of churches to support full equality for women. And also the churches who were through the second half of the 20thC firmly in the camp of segregation and apartheid, justified on biblical grounds.

[ProfessorDavey]

Nevertheless, altering the definition of marriage that has been around for millennia seems a bit reckless.

Firstly that isn't true - the definition of marriage has constantly evolved. Today we consider it to be a consensual loving commitment between two people - that wouldn't have been the case a couple of centuries ago where it was largely arranged (and not really consensual) and about property and power, rather than love.

Secondly the definition of marriage hasn't been changed (it was and remain a consensual loving commitment between two people) - what has been changed is there has been an extension to the people who can get married. Previously it had to be two people of different genders, not that requirement has been lifted. Again there have been numerous points throughout history where the restrictions on which people can and cannot marry has been eased.

[Roses]

Most marriages are very different to what they were in days of yore when men were the head of the house and women were expected to be subservient to them.  Things have changed these days, thank goodness, most marriages are an equal partnership. The fact that gays can marry and be on a par with heterosexuals is a big step forward, which has taken far too long to achieve. Anyone who thinks marriage should only be permitted between men and women is discriminating against gays and is displaying a homophobic attitude.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I don’t see where Steve said the people were inferior - seemed more like a hierarchy of sexual acts - bit like the metaphors 1st base, 2nd base, 3rd base, all the way. It’s fairly normal to rank actions/ deeds / behaviour though it may not always be PC to do so.

He said it here: “…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” (Reply 1066).

“not be regarded as absolutely anatomically on a par with” means “inferior”. QED

[Nearly Sane]

I was responding to your comment that Steve had ignored Trent saying Steve’s comments on same-sex marriage makes Trent feel inferior.

My point was that it is inevitable when discussing moral values that some posters might feel other posters are trying to make them feel inferior, as the discussion of moral values will contain judgements or “shoulds” about people’s behaviour and individual posters might engage in the behaviour being judged. When we have discussions on morals, ethics or beliefs I think we have to accept that individual posters on here might feel inferior so I don’t think Steve ignoring the possible effect on Trent is problematic, if that’s the price that needs to be paid to have a discussion.

Nope, still not getting it. Who is feeling inferior in your scenario? How does that relate to Steve avoiding interacting, other than telling him not to be silly, with Trent?

[Nearly Sane]

Whatever else the former non issue of gay marriage was it was for antitheists an opportunity for a bit of linguistic imperialism and an opportunity to stick one on the church.

This whole process of linguistic totalitarianism has now got itself tied up in knots over transsexualism.

Pish

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve,

On reflection, the anatomical point is probably invalid - trying to get a conclusion in the imperative mood from premises in the indicative mood, or, in short, an "ought" from an "is". (Hume's law.)

Good. As you’ve now withdrawn the justification you offered for gay relationships being “not on a par” with heterosexual ones, does that mean that you no longer believe the former to be not on a par with the latter? 

Nevertheless, altering the definition of marriage that has been around for millennia seems a bit reckless.

There isn’t “the” definition of marriage. There are lots of definitions across time and across societies, and they change sometimes too. So what? Specifically, as we seem to have adapted most social conventions to equal status (you no longer have to be a man to vote for example) why exclude marriage from the principle?

What's wrong with marriage for heteros and civil partnership for homos?

“Homos”? Anyway, there’s nothing wrong with that. What’s is wrong though is marriage for heterosexuals and the exclusion from marriage of homosexuals.

There's nothing necessarily second-best about civil partnerships, and if civil partners want to regard themselves as husband and husband, or wife and wife, no-one's stopping them.

But they are if they want to be married in the same way straight people can be.

And that is my last word on the subject. If some posters still regard me as homophobic, fuck 'em.

It is, and charming. Why not though confront the prejudice rather than insult the people who point it out? Wouldn’t you feel better for the experience of personal growth? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Whatever else the former non issue of gay marriage was it was for antitheists an opportunity for a bit of linguistic imperialism and an opportunity to stick one on the church.

This whole process of linguistic totalitarianism has now got itself tied up in knots over transsexualism.

Kirk: “Bridge to Engineering. Kirk here. Scotty, what the hell’s going on down there?”

Scottie: “It’s the Warp Word Generator Captain. It’s gone all random. I cannae hold it for much longer…”

Kirk: “What about the Basic Coherent Thought engine Scottie? Can you fix it?”

Scottie: “That’s the thing Jim – looks like we jettisoned it a while back. I should’ve known something was wrong when it stared misidentifying the Horse Laugh Nebula…”

Kirk: “Prognosis Scottie?”

Scottie: “We’ve been teetering on the edge of a Gibberish Meltdown for a while now Jim. When it reaches the core sense generator, we’re a gonner…”

Kirk: “Sound the alarm! Abandon ship!”

[ProfessorDavey]

Nevertheless, altering the definition of marriage that has been around for millennia seems a bit reckless. What's wrong with marriage for heteros and civil partnership for homos?

As I've mentioned there is no redefinition of marriage, merely a change in the person that an individual can marry. It seems more equivalent to the scrapping of anti-miscegenation laws which existed in many countries which restricted who an individual could marry to a member of their own race:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws

Scrapping those laws extended who a person could marry (to someone of a different race), just as allowing equal marriage extended who a person could marry to include someone of the same sex. Neither change to the law fundamentally changes the definition of marriage, but each has extended human rights and removed discrimination and lack of equality.

[Roses]

When one is married one should not cheat on one's spouse, so how do the Biblical literalists view the sex workers, concubines, that guy Solomon owned?

[Spud]

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.

No worries mate. Actually I don't view it in the abstract. I have a good friend at work who as far as I know is married to a bloke. I have never mentioned this and treat him like any heterosexual man. I also know someone who says he has changed from gay to straight, and another who is same sex attracted but abstains.

You said,

So how am I dishonouring my partner and myself?

and I have an answer but thought I'd check whether you want me to post it here or in a PM or not at all.

[jeremyp]

When one is married one should not cheat on one's spouse, so how do the Biblical literalists view the sex workers, concubines, that guy Solomon owned?

Several of the patriarchs had more than one wife. What was that about redefining marriage?

[SteveH]

When one is married one should not cheat on one's spouse, so how do the Biblical literalists view the sex workers, concubines, that guy Solomon owned?

As far as I remember, the bible simply mentions them; it doesn't offer either approval or condemnation. If you mean prostitutes, say so - "sex workers" is a tiresome euphemism.

[ProfessorDavey]

I have a good friend at work who as far as I know is married to a bloke.

How can someone be a good friend, yet you don't seem to know whether he is married and if so whether his spouse is a man or a woman. Not my definition of a good friend.

Does your good friend know about your views on gay people Spud?

[Aruntraveller]

"sex workers" is a tiresome euphemism.

Says the poster who brought us "sinky in bits" and "sticky out bits" 

[ProfessorDavey]

Actually I don't view it in the abstract. I have a good friend at work who as far as I know is married to a bloke. I have never mentioned this and treat him like any heterosexual man. I also know someone who says he has changed from gay to straight, and another who is same sex attracted but abstains.

Classic 'I can't be a racist, because I've got a black friend' trope.