Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry

[Aruntraveller]

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.
Modify message

Post it here if you wish.

[SteveH]

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

That was sarcasm; "sex worker" isn't.

[jeremyp]

That was sarcasm; "sex worker" isn't.

Not all sex workers are prostitutes.

ETA although, in the context of Solomon's courts they probably were.

[Aruntraveller]

That was sarcasm; "sex worker" isn't.

Is that sarcasm as in the Trump style?

[SteveH]

As I've mentioned there is no redefinition of marriage, merely a change in the person that an individual can marry.

and what is that, if not a redefinition of marriage?

[SteveH]

Not all sex workers are prostitutes.

Explain, please. I'd have thought they were synonymous.

[SteveH]

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

I agree, but "trope" and "narrative" are the two most irritating pseudo-intellectualisms around today.

[jeremyp]

Explain, please. I'd have thought they were synonymous.

Porn stars as an example.

[jeremyp]

Explain, please. I'd have thought they were synonymous.

And, if they are synonymous, then there's no problem with calling them sex workers is there.

[ProfessorDavey]

and what is that, if not a redefinition of marriage?

So when some countries decided that a black man could marry a white woman, rather than just a black woman - was that redefining marriage or simply extending the number of people a person could marry?

When countries altered the age at which people can marry - is that redefining marriage of just extending the ability to marry to a wider group in society.

Changing the details of who someone can marry doesn't redefine marriage just alters the nature of the group of people who can marry and who they can marry.

[SteveH]

And, if they are synonymous, then there's no problem with calling them sex workers is there.

Nor with calling them "prostitutes".

[SteveH]

Porn stars as an example.

I don't think "sex worker" covers porn stars. (Nor does anything else, fnarr fnarr.)

[jeremyp]

So when some countries decided that a black man could marry a white woman, rather than just a black woman - was that redefining marriage or simply extending the number of people a person could marry?

When countries altered the age at which people can marry - is that redefining marriage of just extending the ability to marry to a wider group in society.

Changing the details of who someone can marry doesn't redefine marriage just alters the nature of the group of people who can marry and who they can marry.

I'm not sure all this quibbling about what counts as redefinition is really important. The legal definition of marriage has been changed by allowing same sex marriage but the nature of marriage is totally unaffected neither are any of the legal rights or obligations for people already married.

As you have pointed out, this change is insignificant compared to some of the previous changes is the "definition" of marriage. In the Hebrew Bible, it was an institution between one man and at least one woman, sometimes hundreds as pointed out by LR. In more recent times, marriage has been used as a tool for diplomacy and business. Love didn't come into it for the ruling classes. It's quite recent that marriage didn't effectively make the woman a possession of the man.

The definition of marriage has change continuously throughout history. It's nonsense to suggest that we can't make this little change to extend it to more people just because it's never been done that way before.

[jeremyp]

Nor with calling them "prostitutes".

Fine, but why then did you erroneously correct Little Roses?

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think "sex worker" covers porn stars. (Nor does anything else, fnarr fnarr.)

It does


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_worker

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

I have never mentioned this and treat him like any heterosexual man.

What the hell does that mean? Why not just treat him like you would any other person? Should a gay person treat you like he would any gay person? You really haven't thought this though have you.   

[Roses]

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.

I said sex worker, if you don't like the term TOUGH!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

I'm sure that's true of people fighting for equality but do antitheists fit that bill? Not sure about that.

Though I am tempted to dismiss your post as antitheistic arse-pull designed to cover the shedding of crocodilic tears over the former non issue of Gay marriage, I applaud your conversion to moral realism to the point of inflicting what you see as absolute right on others.

I do expect to see you lapse into moral relativism though.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm sure that's true of people fighting for equality but do antitheists fit that bill? Not sure about that.

Though I am tempted to dismiss your post as antitheistic arse-pull designed to cover the shedding of crocodilic tears over the former non issue of Gay marriage, I applaud your conversion to moral realism to the point of inflicting what you see as absolute right on others.

I do expect to see you lapse into moral relativism though.

You are supposed to put milk on cornflakes, not vodka.

[Roses]

You are supposed to put milk on cornflakes, not vodka.

 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm sure that's true of people fighting for equality but do antitheists fit that bill? Not sure about that.

Though I am tempted to dismiss your post as antitheistic arse-pull designed to cover the shedding of crocodilic tears over the former non issue of Gay marriage, I applaud your conversion to moral realism to the point of inflicting what you see as absolute right on others.

I do expect to see you lapse into moral relativism though.

The scene: Kirk and Scottie in the escape pod, looking wistfully at the abandoned USS Enterprise as it spirals slowly toward the black hole:

Kirk: “She was a fine ship Scottie”

Scottie: “Aye Captain, that she was”

Suddenly Lieutenant Uhura appears behind them

Uhura: “Captain, we’re picking up an intermittent signal from the ship. It’s impossible to understand though… just random words, gibberish really. Looks like the Warp Coherence Generator has finally given up”

Kirk: “So sad. We knew it would happen when it started spewing out all those misunderstandings of philosophical terms and making up its own versions of everything we said to it, but there’s no going back now. Scottie – plot a course for Alpha Centauri”

Scottie: “Aye aye captain!”

Somewhere off the starboard bow there’s a brief flare as the badly damaged onboard logic engine explodes, then nothing…       

[Stranger]

You are supposed to put milk on cornflakes, not vodka.

Couldn't help thinking of Rowley Birkin...

[Roses]

Couldn't help thinking of Rowley Birkin...

WOW, I wonder if that guy and Vlad are one and the same?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

WOW, I wonder if that guy and Vlad are one and the same?

Like me Rowley Birkenstock’s is a much loved Paul Whitehouse character.

Little roses.....please choose your Paul Whitehouse character from the following list:

First old git

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm not sure all this quibbling about what counts as redefinition is really important. The legal definition of marriage has been changed by allowing same sex marriage but the nature of marriage is totally unaffected neither are any of the legal rights or obligations for people already married.

As you have pointed out, this change is insignificant compared to some of the previous changes is the "definition" of marriage. In the Hebrew Bible, it was an institution between one man and at least one woman, sometimes hundreds as pointed out by LR. In more recent times, marriage has been used as a tool for diplomacy and business. Love didn't come into it for the ruling classes. It's quite recent that marriage didn't effectively make the woman a possession of the man.

The definition of marriage has change continuously throughout history. It's nonsense to suggest that we can't make this little change to extend it to more people just because it's never been done that way before.

Marriage is a constantly evolving social construct - there is no doubt of that.

Regarding definitions - I think it depends on whether you include those who can, and cannot avail themselves of marriage, within the definition or whether that is effectivity an eligibility element.

If you include the eligibility criteria you end up with a horrible clunky definition, even now when eligibility has been extended for civil marriage. So you'd end up with:

'A consensual loving and legally-binding commitment made in public between two people of sound mind who have not previously been married and/or have completed the process of divorce, who are over 18 (or 16-18 with additional parental consent) and who are not close blood relatives or are an adoptive parent or child of their intended spouse or are an in-law depending on the circumstances.'

And this would have been even more clunky in the past, and/or in religious of other jurisdiction context, when there were restrictions on same sex marriage, divorcees being able to marry, marriage between people of different races, restrictions on marriage between people of different religious faiths etc etc.

Sounds a bit clunky to me - in my mind better to separate the heart of what we consider marriage to be currently (what marriage is):

'A consensual loving and legally-binding commitment made in public between two people'

From the eligibility criteria (who can and cannot get married)