Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry

[Spud]

Spud,

To the contrary. If you're going to make contemptible and unpleasant statements like "I treat him like a heterosexual" then you must expect to be criticised for it.

This was a way of saying that in order to show that I accept him as a person but do not accept effeminate behaviour, I engage him in manly conversation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Sure. The statement will need to be explained as it does appear unpleasant, I know.

You think?
 

I am talking about the morality of acting on one's sexual orientation. I notice that no-one has addressed my point in #1206. It can be made without reference to God.
Homosexual acts are unnatural.

No they are not. They’re very, very natural – homosexuality has been observed in over 1,000 species. What could be more “natural” than that?

Steve has already explained why,…

….and he’s been corrected on his mistake too.

…but to expand a bit, the man and the woman have different sexual roles. The man penetrates and the woman is penetrated. Homosexual acts reverse those roles, so that men play the role of the female and vice versa. This is what makes the acts dishonoring, and thus, morally wrong.

Absolute fucking idiocy. And nasty fucking idiocy too. If by “roles” you’re trying to imply that procreation is the only role sex has then you couldn’t be more wrong. Sex – recreational as well as procreational – has many roles from pair binding to tribal cohesion to better overall success in protecting the genome.

And while we’re here, who on earth do you think is “dishonoured” by non-procreational sex? The participants? So long as it’s consensual and pleasurable, hardly. You? What the hell has it got to do with you at all, let alone that you should even presume to exercise a moral judgement over it. Your god? First you need to demonstrate that such a thing exists, then that you know what it thinks, then that what it thinks is that how people have sex and with whom is any of its business. Good luck with that.
 
You know the only morally disgusting thing here? Your opinions about this. You really, really need to think hard about yourself here. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

This was a way of saying that in order to show that I accept him as a person but do not accept effeminate behaviour, I engage him in manly conversation.

This is a spoof right? If not though, what the fuck is so wrong with you?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Just to add by the way that if you were a work colleague of mine and I suspected you of being a Christian I’d tolerate you, but would treat you exactly as if you were an atheist. This would be my way of saying I accept you as a person but I don’t accept your filthy moralising behaviour so I would engage you in atheist conversation. 

Hope you’re ok with that.

[Nearly Sane]

This was a way of saying that in order to show that I accept him as a person but do not accept effeminate behaviour, I engage him in manly conversation.

sexist homophobic idiotic impolite shite.

[Aruntraveller]

Seriously. There is no wonder Jesus wept.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Just out of interest, is there any subject at all into which you wouldn't drag bloody atheists/antitheists (you wrongly use these terms interchangeably)? A recipe for scones maybe? An exchange of views on the mating habits of skylarks? Anything?

I have not been known to raise atheists/antitheists on cookery message boards or ornithological sites. To expect similar silence on a religionethics message board is either incredibly cheeky or incredibly stupid.

Pointing out Spud's/Steve's homophobia has nothing to do with atheism. A cleric possessed of a moral compass could say the same. But then again, you knew that already didn't you.     

I can't see that there is any place in your moral philosophy for poles let alone a whole moral compass. I recall you poo pooing a theory that we hunt for a moral norm in an almost homeostatic manner so why the talk about moral compasses now?

On the other hand if you are turning toward moral absolutism/realism, that is progress.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The man penetrates and the woman is penetrated. Homosexual acts reverse those roles, so that men play the role of the female and vice versa.

Are you pegging your argument on this?

[Nearly Sane]

Are you pegging your argument on this?

Cue an 'eh' from LR

[Aruntraveller]

This was a way of saying that in order to show that I accept him as a person but do not accept effeminate behaviour, I engage him in manly conversation.

Spud, you seem to be living in some kind of 70's sitcom influenced alternate reality.

You do know that gay men talk about all sorts of things, and furthermore the things they talk about are exactly the kind of things that straight men talk about.

For example this evening my partner and I have talked about musicals, eurovision, what curtains would go best with our carpet; we did stop talking for a while to ogle a young man cleaning windows across the street (wanked ourselves silly there) then returned to discussing recipes for the coming week, and we've just finished our meal with a very fine glass of pink gin.

I trust you can now see there is absolutely no difference between myself and the average joe. Except of course I talk with an effeminate lisp.

Do you want to be friends now that I've established my incredible masculinity?

[ProfessorDavey]

This was a way of saying that in order to show that I accept him as a person but do not accept effeminate behaviour, I engage him in manly conversation.

This must be a spoof - no-one could really come out with something like that in this day and age ... surely

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I have not been known to raise atheists/antitheists on cookery message boards or ornithological sites. To expect similar silence on a religionethics message board is either incredibly cheeky or incredibly stupid.

It’s neither when the topic has nothing to do with the atheism/antitheism of the person making the argument - here for example. That’s why I explained that a cleric with a functioning moral compass (if you could find one) would also find Steve's and Spud's homophobia to be contemptible.

It’s not a difficult idea, even for you.

I can't see that there is any place in your moral philosophy for poles..

And the king of the straw men walks among us again. Welcome back!

… let alone a whole moral compass.

Oh FFS. Do you think there to be some universal laws about which paintings are good art and which are bad? No? And yet you (presumably) think some art to be good and some to be bad nonetheless without access to such universal absolutes. How come?

I recall you poo pooing a theory that we hunt for a moral norm in an almost homeostatic manner so why the talk about moral compasses now?

Non sequitur – yet another of your logical fallacies.

On the other hand if you are turning toward moral absolutism/realism, that is progress.

Sadly I wish I could say the same of you – yet still you seem to be locked into the same straw men as ever. Oh well.

[SteveH]

I really don't think that my opiion that gay marriage was a step too far (an opinion shared, incidetally, byt the gay journalist Andrew Pierce, wh in general I can't stand: he writes for the Daily Vile) makes me a homophobe. At any rate, I'm not changing my mind, so get used to it.
From Wikipedia:

Pierce was raised, and remains, a Roman Catholic.[16] He is openly gay, strongly supports civil partnerships, and lives in a long-term civil partnership, legalised by the Labour Government's Civil Partnership Act 2004. He was, and remains, opposed to same-sex marriage, legalised by the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. He stated that his opposition to its introduction was the lack of public support for it, the creation of a possible schism between Church and State, and that there were no new rights accorded to it that did not already exist under Labour's 2004 civil partnership law. He also cited the views of several prominent gay people opposed to it, such as Labour MP Ben Bradshaw, and those unsure about it, such as historian David Starkey, and its absence from the election manifestos of the political parties that introduced it.[17] He said it was therefore pointless to introduce it, and criticised Prime Minister David Cameron for treating it as a priority.[18]

[Nearly Sane]

I really don't think that my opiion that gay marriage was a step too far (an opinion shared, incidetally, byt the gay journalist Andrew Pierce, wh in general I can't stand: he writes for the Daily Vile) makes me a homophobe. At any rate, I'm not changing my mind, so get used to it.
From Wikipedia:

I am entirely used to you being a homophobe.

[SteveH]

Spud, you seem to be living in some kind of 70's sitcom influenced alternate reality.

You do know that gay men talk about all sorts of things, and furthermore the things they talk about are exactly the kind of things that straight men talk about.

For example this evening my partner and I have talked about musicals, eurovision, what curtains would go best with our carpet; we did stop talking for a while to ogle a young man cleaning windows across the street (wanked ourselves silly there) then returned to discussing recipes for the coming week, and we've just finished our meal with a very fine glass of pink gin.

I trust you can now see there is absolutely no difference between myself and the average joe. Except of course I talk with an effeminate lisp.

Do you want to be friends now that I've established my incredible masculinity?

[Aruntraveller]

I really don't think that my opiion that gay marriage was a step too far (an opinion shared, incidetally, byt the gay journalist Andrew Pierce, wh in general I can't stand: he writes for the Daily Vile) makes me a homophobe. At any rate, I'm not changing my mind, so get used to it.

I agree with you it doesn't. You are wrong, but it doesn't make you a homophobe.

However, stating that my homosexual relationship with my partner is not on a par with a heterosexual relationship does make you a homophobe.

[Nearly Sane]

You enable Spud by your twee homophobia. Laughing at Trent's post just makes you look creepy

[SteveH]

I'm going to tell you to do something both physically impossible and immoral soon. Grow up, for heaven's sake.

[Roses]

I'm going to tell you to do something both physically impossible and immoral soon. Grow up, for heaven's sake.

It is you who needs to grow up and accept that your posts on this thread are homophobic.

[SteveH]

It is you who needs to grow up and accept that your posts on this thread are homophobic.

I'm not taking lessons in adult behaviour from someone who thinks "talking about yourself again" is sophisticated wit.

[Roses]

I'm not taking lessons in adult behaviour from someone who thinks "talking about yourself again" is sophisticated wit.

Your posts are not doing you any favours whatsoever, it is very sad that you are unable to comprehend that.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Spud,

You think?
 
No they are not. They’re very, very natural – homosexuality has been observed in over 1,000 species. What could be more “natural” than that?

….and he’s been corrected on his mistake too.

Absolute fucking idiocy. And nasty fucking idiocy too. If by “roles” you’re trying to imply that procreation is the only role sex has then you couldn’t be more wrong. Sex – recreational as well as procreational – has many roles from pair binding to tribal cohesion to better overall success in protecting the genome.

And while we’re here, who on earth do you think is “dishonoured” by non-procreational sex? The participants? So long as it’s consensual and pleasurable, hardly. You? What the hell has it got to do with you at all, let alone that you should even presume to exercise a moral judgement over it. Your god? First you need to demonstrate that such a thing exists, then that you know what it thinks, then that what it thinks is that how people have sex and with whom is any of its business. Good luck with that.
 
You know the only morally disgusting thing here? Your opinions about this. You really, really need to think hard about yourself here.

I think the roles being referred to here was the man penetrates and the woman is penetrated. A man being  penetrated is seen as taking on the woman’s role, which was considered the less masculine more passive role. I knew lots of religious and non-religious people who openly held this view before and it was also a feature of sex as an expression of power though not necessarily by way of rape. I am sure less people think of sex in those traditional terms now but people don’t openly voice these opinions now so I have no idea how prevalent this view of sex is today.

ETA: women managed to reclaim some power in the sexual act by being on top. But I assume that’s not really anatomically possible in terms of anal sex?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Your posts are not doing you any favours whatsoever, it is very sad that you are unable to comprehend that.

I’m curious. What does “doing yourself any favours” mean? What favours would anyone need on a message board? It’s a place for discussing ideas.

[Owlswing]

I'm going to tell you to do something both physically impossible and immoral soon. Grow up, for heaven's sake.

There are times when you demonstrate your qualification as a pompous git! As well as a homophobe!

[Nearly Sane]

I'm going to tell you to do something both physically impossible and immoral soon. Grow up, for heaven's sake.

  Does one have to grow up to be a homophobe?