Author Topic: Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry  (Read 104339 times)

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64323
Re: Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry
« Reply #1300 on: May 14, 2020, 07:59:19 PM »

I think that you owe Steve an apology. You are accusing him of words he did not write.
Agree those are Spud's words not Steve's. But Steve still thinks that gay relationship's are not on a par with straight ones so not sure there is that much of a difference

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19469
Re: Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry
« Reply #1301 on: May 14, 2020, 08:27:46 PM »
HH,

Quote
I think that you owe Steve an apology. You are accusing him of words he did not write.

Which I am happy to give. Steve - I apologise for misattributing to you a quote made by Spud. I should have checked before posting.

I cannot though apologise for attributing the sentiment of homophobia in general to you both.   
"Don't make me come down there."

God

SteveH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10398
  • God? She's black.
Re: Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry
« Reply #1302 on: May 14, 2020, 10:52:31 PM »
HH,

Which I am happy to give. Steve - I apologise for misattributing to you a quote made by Spud. I should have checked before posting.

I cannot though apologise for attributing the sentiment of homophobia in general to you both.   
Apology accepted. I wasn't even aware that yiu'd misattributed anything to me before now!
I can live with you and Really Sanctimonious thinking I'm a homophobe, even though i still don't think I am.
I have a pet termite. His name is Clint. Clint eats wood.

Aruntraveller

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11073
Re: Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry
« Reply #1303 on: May 14, 2020, 11:09:52 PM »
Apology accepted. I wasn't even aware that yiu'd misattributed anything to me before now!
I can live with you and Really Sanctimonious thinking I'm a homophobe, even though i still don't think I am.

I'm sure you don't think you are , however your evasion of nearly all the points I have put to you really does suggest that either you just don't like talking to me or you are actually a little bit homophobic. I refer you to my post way back #1056.
Before we work on Artificial Intelligence shouldn't we address the problem of natural stupidity.

The Accountant, OBE, KC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8989
Re: Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry
« Reply #1304 on: May 15, 2020, 12:07:32 AM »
Gabriella,

Nope. The fact that someone thinks another person’s sexual orientation is a thing to be “tolerated” implies that it’s therefore wrong, inferior, “not on a par” etc. Nonetheless, decent, mature person that he is he’ll “tolerate” it despite that wrongness. Utter bollocks. What someone does in bed with a partner has absolutely sweet FA to do with the work colleague claiming to “tolerate” it, so there’s nothing to be tolerated. The only toleration on display here (albeit unwittingly) is the bigot asking you to tolerate his bigotry because of the strategies he’s come up with to maintain it while still operating successfully in the world – ie, by not getting fired.   

You’re missing the point. When the reasoning that exposes bigotry is explained to the bigot he can either resile from his bigotry or he can used mealy-mouthed evasions like, “but I tolerate the gay man in the office” so as to maintain it.   

Yes there is diversity, but there’s also reason and evidence and moral philosophy and the Zeitgeist and…. Again, so what though? Let’s say for example that you found someone who thought enslaving back people was morally good. Is he entitled to think that? Of course he is – that’s freedom of thought. Should he expect to receive both barrels from those who think him to be morally disgusting if he argues for it though? Damn right he should, no matter how much he assures us he “tolerates” the black work colleague by talking to him just as if he were a white person.

You’ve missed the point. The point was that it’s hard to justify tolerating something when that something doesn’t affect you in any way. Would you tolerate my love of playing the bagpipes at 3am for example? No, because you had no idea I did that. “Toleration” in this context is meaningless. If I was your neighbour on the other hand and the piecing shrieks of the thing woke you up (maybe disturbing the sleep you’d need to be able to get up two hours later to take your daughter swimming) then in/tolerance would have meaning, and your exercise of it would be contextual. That’s the point. Steve’s “tolerance” of a gay man in the office is in the former category – what on earth does he think he’s tolerating exactly other than his own bigotry?       
No. I am not missing the point though I can tolerate you thinking I am. Humans have evolved in a way whereby as a society they ascribe abstract concepts such as values to sexual activities, unlike other primates. One reason for this could be the increase in STIs in society where there is increased sexual activity but I do not think that’s the only reason for society developing abstract values and restrictions related to sexual activity.

Some societies have developed in a way whereby they place more value on individuality than others - this was evident in the way different people reacted to lock down with some governments taking a more prescriptive and systematic approach and their citizens being more compliant. Societies that prioritise personal freedom, autonomy and diversity will assign a different moral value to certain behaviours compared to societies that prioritise compliance with social norms or the zeitgeist.

Regarding the “on par” comment - I have been thinking about that and it depends on the criteria that’s being judged. If the criteria is love and companionship then same sex marriages are on par. If the criterion is the chances of procreation to pass on the genes of the couple with some variation for continuity of the species, society, it’s traits, traditions and values, then logically same sex marriages are not on par for that purpose. It’s up to individuals what criteria they judge behaviour on regardless of zeitgeist as much as it is your prerogative to judge/ tolerate/ swear at others for their judgements.

If a person sees individual freedom as the most important priority they will hold a different moral view from someone who does not prioritise individual freedom. The different views can be tolerated - or not - again it depends on what the individuals who make up society decide to do. Individual posters on this forum getting hysterical about a moral view they don’t like doesn’t change anything, though they are of course free to swear and rage as much as they like if it makes them feel better in some way. My sub-conscious preference appears to be that I am more tolerant of Steve’s views on same sex marriage than I am of hysterical emotional reactions to his views, whereas I actively like Trent’s response. But that’s just my sub-consciously driven preferences. If that gets me labelled a homophobe, I prefer that outcome compared to not having the freedom to discuss the possible implications of Steve’s comment.

The Searching for God thread had lots of arguments supporting the idea that our likes and dislikes are determined by nature/nurture or are random, and our conscious brain becomes aware of these sub-conscious preferences. Reasoning by your conscious brain cannot apparently change what you sub-consciously like or dislike but it can allow you to tolerate what you dislike because there is perceived benefit to tolerating it. For example, tolerating behaviour such as people exhibiting their religious values and acts that they find meaning in or posters posting emotional rants on here.

Your bagpipe example misses the point. Marriage and other publicly displayed social constructs, values and rituals are not like playing bagpipes in your home where someone else does not know you are doing it. People are not getting married at home with no one knowing about it.

« Last Edit: May 15, 2020, 12:10:35 AM by Gabriella »
I identify as a Sword because I have abstract social constructs e.g. honour and patriotism. My preferred pronouns are "kill/ maim/ dismember"

Quite handy with weapons - available for hire to defeat money laundering crooks around the world.

“Forget safety. Live where you fear to live.” Rumi

SteveH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10398
  • God? She's black.
Re: Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry
« Reply #1305 on: May 15, 2020, 07:29:26 AM »
I've been giving this part of the thread some thought.

I'm not unduly upset by Steve's post stating that "gay relationships should not be regarded as absolutely on a par with heterosexual ones", I am perplexed by it, however. Perplexed because like some posters have pointed out he has never struck me as anything approaching homophobic. Some of you will remember that we've had experience here and on the BBC of some real practitioners of the art.

Anyhow, I got to thinking about my own homophobia (internalised, or some such). By which I mean there are things in my life I absolutely don't do because of the way I perceive that my own homosexuality limits me.

So for instance, I never, ever, use public toilets due to an overwhelming fear that people might think I am using the toilet for a purpose other than that which it is designed for. I do not interact with children outside of my family and friends because of the old, stupid idea that gay people are paedophiles. So if a child is in trouble or misbehaving I do not get involved for fear of misunderstanding (that fear I appreciate may in some ways extend to heterosexual men). Those are just two areas where my internalised homophobia directs my actions in ways which aren’t helpful to me, or indeed, to wider society.

So, my point is, that I do think Jemediah’s (Steve’s) posting on this has been homophobic and only a little upsetting to me by him saying my relationship isn’t on a par with heterosexual ones; here comes the but, but if I have taken in and am still affected by internalised homophobia, I can’t be too hard on somebody who has never been homophobic on here in the past who shows that he also hasn’t quite shaken off his conditioning either societal or religious and posted something a little bit stupid.

We all arrive at realisations about how we think about issues, be that LGBT issues or race, or womens rights, etc.  at different times and I hope Steve will eventually come to realise that actually there is no difference between my relationship and say NS’s relationship. At the same time recognising that there is a world of difference between any two relationships.
This is the post I'm supposed to be avoiding. I'm not sure what Trent is expecting me to say, but I think there is an obvious difference between homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships, although both can be loving, faithful, and mutually serving, or the opposite. Therefore, I don't regard gay relationships, under those conditions, as in the least sinful or inferior, and have defended them in the past on social media against real homophobes. That being the case, what's wrong with marriage for heteros, and civil partnerships for gays? They are different, but not nercessarily of different value.
I have a pet termite. His name is Clint. Clint eats wood.

Outrider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14561
Re: Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry
« Reply #1306 on: May 15, 2020, 08:17:46 AM »
This is the post I'm supposed to be avoiding. I'm not sure what Trent is expecting me to say, but I think there is an obvious difference between homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships, although both can be loving, faithful, and mutually serving, or the opposite.

What's the difference? A man or woman is in love with someone in both.  Someone is in love with a man or a woman in both.  Those people get up to some combination of sexual activities that (hopefully) bring them mutual pleasure, typically in private.  What's the significant difference?

Quote
Therefore, I don't regard gay relationships, under those conditions, as in the least sinful or inferior, and have defended them in the past on social media against real homophobes. That being the case, what's wrong with marriage for heteros, and civil partnerships for gays? They are different, but not nercessarily of different value.

Different but (notionally) equal was Apartheid in South Africa.  If it's not a significant difference why does it need a different word? Why do we have to differentiate if they're equal?

O.
Universes are forever, not just for creation...

New Atheism - because, apparently, there's a use-by date on unanswered questions.

Eminent Pedant, Interpreter of Heretical Writings, Unwarranted Harvester of Trite Nomenclature, Church of Debatable Saints

Aruntraveller

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11073
Re: Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry
« Reply #1307 on: May 15, 2020, 08:23:48 AM »
Quote
If the criterion is the chances of procreation to pass on the genes of the couple with some variation for continuity of the species, society, it’s traits, traditions and values, then logically same sex marriages are not on par for that purpose.

But then some man-woman marriages are not "on a par" because of medical reasons - infertility, older couples remarrying, for example. I don't think Steve was arguing for those people to have civil partnerships instead of marriages.
Before we work on Artificial Intelligence shouldn't we address the problem of natural stupidity.

Roses

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7989
Re: Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry
« Reply #1308 on: May 15, 2020, 08:38:06 AM »
This is the post I'm supposed to be avoiding. I'm not sure what Trent is expecting me to say, but I think there is an obvious difference between homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships, although both can be loving, faithful, and mutually serving, or the opposite. Therefore, I don't regard gay relationships, under those conditions, as in the least sinful or inferior, and have defended them in the past on social media against real homophobes. That being the case, what's wrong with marriage for heteros, and civil partnerships for gays? They are different, but not nercessarily of different value.

If you think gay relationships aren't sinful or inferior why shouldn't they marry like heterosexuals? Your 'reasoning' makes no sense at all. ::)
"At the going down of the sun and in the morning we will remember them."

Aruntraveller

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11073
Re: Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry
« Reply #1309 on: May 15, 2020, 08:53:59 AM »
This is the post I'm supposed to be avoiding. I'm not sure what Trent is expecting me to say, but I think there is an obvious difference between homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships, although both can be loving, faithful, and mutually serving, or the opposite. Therefore, I don't regard gay relationships, under those conditions, as in the least sinful or inferior, and have defended them in the past on social media against real homophobes. That being the case, what's wrong with marriage for heteros, and civil partnerships for gays? They are different, but not nercessarily of different value.

The point of the post was to try to make you see the issue differently and to prompt you to examine what you had said and why. If I am still subject to society's past conditioning then there is every chance that you could be too, not a given, but a chance.

You seem to have rowed back on your original "not on a par" statement.

IF you can't see a difference between Civil partnerships and marriage why are you still clinging to a different definition?

In the eyes of a lot of gay people, including myself now, the very existence of the distinction is enough to prove that some don't value our relationships as equal. I'm not saying that's what you think, but it does come across that way with your different but equal premise.

Someone once said equality does not come with qualifiers.

Only in some people's minds apparently.
Before we work on Artificial Intelligence shouldn't we address the problem of natural stupidity.

The Accountant, OBE, KC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8989
Re: Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry
« Reply #1310 on: May 15, 2020, 09:12:44 AM »
But then some man-woman marriages are not "on a par" because of medical reasons - infertility, older couples remarrying, for example. I don't think Steve was arguing for those people to have civil partnerships instead of marriages.
Fair point.

On a practical level I think some people may decide to differentiate relationships on the basis of same sex and opposite sex as a quicker method of sorting categories, because it would be impossible to carry out exhaustive tests on fertility issues, which could take years, before deciding what category of marriage to put people into - those couples who are capable of  procreating with each other vs those who definitely aren’t capable. Especially as sometimes there is no medical explanation for the woman not getting pregnant for years. A friend even went through the long adoption process after 10 years of a childless marriage and then fell pregnant just as she and her husband adopted a 15 month old.

Equally, many people in a particular society might ignore statistical probability of couple procreation as a criteriion for categorising legal relationships, because they prioritise other factors - individual freedom, abstract notions of equality, protection of minorities etc
« Last Edit: May 15, 2020, 09:16:34 AM by Gabriella »
I identify as a Sword because I have abstract social constructs e.g. honour and patriotism. My preferred pronouns are "kill/ maim/ dismember"

Quite handy with weapons - available for hire to defeat money laundering crooks around the world.

“Forget safety. Live where you fear to live.” Rumi

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33187
Re: Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry
« Reply #1311 on: May 15, 2020, 09:24:46 AM »
I'm sure you don't think you are , however your evasion of nearly all the points I have put to you really does suggest that either you just don't like talking to me or you are actually a little bit homophobic. I refer you to my post way back #1056.
What is the difference between changing the definition of marriage and what looks to you like Steve changing the definition of homophobia?
« Last Edit: May 15, 2020, 09:49:09 AM by The Chasm of Equivocation »

Aruntraveller

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11073
Re: Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry
« Reply #1312 on: May 15, 2020, 09:55:25 AM »
What is the difference between changing the definition of marriage and what looks to you like Steve changing the definition of homophobia?

Changing the definition of marriage hurts no one. If you don't like two men getting married, don't go the wedding.

I don't think I've claimed Steve has changed the definition of homophobia, if I have then explain how I have cos I honestly can't see it.
Before we work on Artificial Intelligence shouldn't we address the problem of natural stupidity.

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33187
Re: Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry
« Reply #1313 on: May 15, 2020, 10:01:33 AM »
Changing the definition of marriage hurts no one. If you don't like two men getting married, don't go the wedding.

I don't think that's clear.

Isn't that a bit like saying if you disagree with church don't attend one. People round here aren't following your logic since they are here publicly complaining about church and in some extreme manifestations openly expressing a desire to eliminate religion from the public forum. Why don't they just shut the fuck up and not attend church, following your logic?
« Last Edit: May 15, 2020, 10:45:55 AM by Trentvoyager »

Outrider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14561
Re: Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry
« Reply #1314 on: May 15, 2020, 10:11:57 AM »
Isn't that a bit like saying if you disagree with church don't attend one. People round here aren't following your logic since they are here publicly complaining about church and in some extreme manifestations openly expressing a desire to eliminate religion from the public forum. Why don't they just shut the fuck up and not attend church, following your logic?

So long as 'The Church' just involves itself in singing hymns and talking to their imaginary friend, yeah fine.  When they start lecturing the populace on what should or shouldn't be legal, though, then they get push back.  If they are, by the fact of their existence, lending credence to the fact that religion has some sort of merit at the same time that religion is the motivator behind war crimes, homophobia, misogyny and slaughter around the world, then there's a cause to stand up and push back.

O.
Universes are forever, not just for creation...

New Atheism - because, apparently, there's a use-by date on unanswered questions.

Eminent Pedant, Interpreter of Heretical Writings, Unwarranted Harvester of Trite Nomenclature, Church of Debatable Saints

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64323
Re: Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry
« Reply #1315 on: May 15, 2020, 10:21:38 AM »
What is the difference between changing the definition of marriage and what looks to you like Steve changing the definition of homophobia?
  oh look a bit of straightsplaining

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33187
Re: Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry
« Reply #1316 on: May 15, 2020, 10:27:18 AM »
So long as 'The Church' just involves itself in singing hymns and talking to their imaginary friend, yeah fine.  When they start lecturing the populace on what should or shouldn't be legal, though, then they get push back.  If they are, by the fact of their existence, lending credence to the fact that religion has some sort of merit at the same time that religion is the motivator behind war crimes, homophobia, misogyny and slaughter around the world, then there's a cause to stand up and push back.

O.
You seem to be saying here that people who want to change the definition of marriage aren’t themselves lecturing the populace on what should or shouldn’t be legal. That is just laughable.

That religion is the motivator behind war crimes and homophobia and slaughter is just antitheist spin.
How many were killed in God free soviet Russia or by the god free Khmer Rouge?

Roses

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7989
Re: Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry
« Reply #1317 on: May 15, 2020, 10:33:21 AM »
You seem to be saying here that people who want to change the definition of marriage aren’t themselves lecturing the populace on what should or shouldn’t be legal. That is just laughable.

That religion is the motivator behind war crimes and homophobia and slaughter is just antitheist spin.
How many were killed in God free soviet Russia or by the god free Khmer Rouge?

Over the centuries belief in religion has more than likely been responsible for many more deaths than communism.
"At the going down of the sun and in the morning we will remember them."

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64323
Re: Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry
« Reply #1318 on: May 15, 2020, 10:43:49 AM »
Over the centuries belief in religion has more than likely been responsible for many more deaths than communism.
Religion and communism don't kill people, people do.

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33187
Re: Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry
« Reply #1319 on: May 15, 2020, 10:43:52 AM »
Over the centuries belief in religion has more than likely been responsible for many more deaths than communism.
what about dynastic ambition, nationalism, tribalism and politics?
If you exclusively focus on religion then that is just antireligionism.

Anyway what about the little reported Austin atheist own goal.
When challenged on their TV show as to why religionists had accrued more charity the answer was that atheism hadn’t been around for as long as religion.

By the same logic therefore we can look forward to Atheism catching up on charity, slaughter, oppression and anything else atheists have accused religion of.

Aruntraveller

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11073
Re: Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry
« Reply #1320 on: May 15, 2020, 10:48:08 AM »
I don't think that's clear.

Isn't that a bit like saying if you disagree with church don't attend one. People round here aren't following your logic since they are here publicly complaining about church and in some extreme manifestations openly expressing a desire to eliminate religion from the public forum. Why don't they just shut the fuck up and not attend church, following your logic?

And following your logic I have no problem with it as long as the Churches and their followers stay the fuck out of trying to regulate my life.


PS I put your quote right in your previous post to make it read right.
Before we work on Artificial Intelligence shouldn't we address the problem of natural stupidity.

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19469
Re: Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry
« Reply #1321 on: May 15, 2020, 10:51:31 AM »
Gabriella,

Who was it who said, “I’m sorry I’ve written such a long letter, but I didn’t have time to write a shorter one”? You have a rambling, discursive style so it’s hard to know what points you think you’re making sometimes but I’ll respond to what I think they are at least.

Quote
No. I am not missing the point though I can tolerate you thinking I am.

As it was my point I think I’m entitled to decide whether you’ve missed it, especially when I explain it to you again. Don’t you?

Quote
Humans have evolved in a way whereby as a society they ascribe abstract concepts such as values to sexual activities, unlike other primates. One reason for this could be the increase in STIs in society where there is increased sexual activity but I do not think that’s the only reason for society developing abstract values and restrictions related to sexual activity.

We’ve also evolved to have morality about all sorts of non sex-related activities too. As other species don’t have morality at all (except perhaps in some cases in proto forms) what point do you think you are making?

Quote
Some societies have developed in a way whereby they place more value on individuality than others - this was evident in the way different people reacted to lock down with some governments taking a more prescriptive and systematic approach and their citizens being more compliant. Societies that prioritise personal freedom, autonomy and diversity will assign a different moral value to certain behaviours compared to societies that prioritise compliance with social norms or the zeitgeist.

Zeitgeists vary across societies, yes. How does this relate to anything you think you’re replying to?

Quote
Regarding the “on par” comment - I have been thinking about that and it depends on the criteria that’s being judged. If the criteria is love and companionship then same sex marriages are on par. If the criterion is the chances of procreation to pass on the genes of the couple with some variation for continuity of the species, society, it’s traits, traditions and values, then logically same sex marriages are not on par for that purpose. It’s up to individuals what criteria they judge behaviour on regardless of zeitgeist as much as it is your prerogative to judge/ tolerate/ swear at others for their judgements.

Except so far as I’m aware homophobes don’t apply the same moral judgment to those who wish to marry but not to have children. It’s a stupid rationale for determining moral status in any case (not least because childless couples also play an important role in genomic success), but if someone did want to use it nonetheless then they should use it consistently – gay people, infertile people, pensioners, people who wish to have only non-procreational sex etc. should all be “not on a par” in their opinion.

That’s not what homophobes say though is it. Why do you think that is do you suppose?       

Quote
If a person sees individual freedom as the most important priority they will hold a different moral view from someone who does not prioritise individual freedom. The different views can be tolerated - or not - again it depends on what the individuals who make up society decide to do.

I have no idea what point you think you’re making here but clearly it doesn’t work. Should my “individual freedom” to kill my neighbours be “tolerated” for example? What you’re edging toward here so far as I can tell is a spectrum – total individual freedom at one end and total control at the other. Different societies at different times and places have put the cursor at different places along that spectrum. Again, so what though? 

Quote
Individual posters on this forum getting hysterical about a moral view they don’t like doesn’t change anything, though they are of course free to swear and rage as much as they like if it makes them feel better in some way.

Can you identify anyone who’s been “hysterical” or are you just poisoning the well with pejorative language?

Quote
My sub-conscious preference appears to be that I am more tolerant of Steve’s views on same sex marriage than I am of hysterical emotional reactions to his views, whereas I actively like Trent’s response. But that’s just my sub-consciously driven preferences. If that gets me labelled a homophobe, I prefer that outcome compared to not having the freedom to discuss the possible implications of Steve’s comment

That’s called a non sequitur. No-one has denied you that freedom, and nor is your “sub-conscious preference” to be homophobic been denied to you. You are though to some degree a thinking being, and you should conceptually at least be able to understand why it is homophobic when the reasons are explained to you. 

Quote
The Searching for God thread had lots of arguments supporting the idea that our likes and dislikes are determined by nature/nurture or are random, and our conscious brain becomes aware of these sub-conscious preferences. Reasoning by your conscious brain cannot apparently change what you sub-consciously like or dislike but it can allow you to tolerate what you dislike because there is perceived benefit to tolerating it.

You’ve misunderstood. A highly complex system like consciousness is essentially a feedback arrangement. I might have a firm moral view about something, but when my reasons for justifying it are shown to be wrong then I have the opportunity to think, “actually I was wrong about that” and so my opinion changes. That’s what happens in an open system that acquires data from its environment.

Quote
For example, tolerating behaviour such as people exhibiting their religious values and acts that they find meaning in or posters posting emotional rants on here.

Who has had an “emotional rant” here, or is this more poisoning of the well? What’s actually happened is that the homophobes have been told why they’re homophobes, but also they’ve been dealt with in very firm terms. Shall I tell you why? It’s because they (and now you) are trying to sanitise some very nasty opinions that have even nastier real world consequences. I’m not suggesting for one moment that Spud or Steve or you will wander the streets at night looking for young men to beat up, but other people do. It happens. And where do you think these people find succour and support for their actions? Yes, from authority figures like clerics who assert flooding to be caused by the legalisation of equal marriage, from sweaty men in pubs who make anti-gay jokes, from mealy-mouthed ever-so-‘umble contributors to message boards who try to justify their contemptible views – in other words, from all the people who contribute in their various ways to the Zeitgeist. You may want be part of that but I don’t, and I see nothing wrong with saying so in no uncertain terms.

Quote
Your bagpipe example misses the point. Marriage and other publicly displayed social constructs, values and rituals are not like playing bagpipes in your home where someone else does not know you are doing it. People are not getting married at home with no one knowing about it.

No it doesn’t, and the point remains that people of the same sex are having hanky panky in bedrooms all the time – what possible business is that of yours, let alone to think it’s something to be “tolerated”? If the sound is coming through your wall on the other hand (whether the sex is gay, straight or anything else) then the thing to be tolerated is the disturbance to your right to peace and quiet, not the fact of which bits are going where on the other side of the wall. 
« Last Edit: May 15, 2020, 11:23:19 AM by bluehillside Retd. »
"Don't make me come down there."

God

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33187
Re: Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry
« Reply #1322 on: May 15, 2020, 10:52:59 AM »
And following your logic I have no problem with it as long as the Churches and their followers stay the fuck out of trying to regulate my life.


PS I put your quote right in your previous post to make it read right.
I’m having my life regulated or attempted regulation all the time. You sound lucky that it’s just the church in your case.

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19469
Re: Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry
« Reply #1323 on: May 15, 2020, 11:12:41 AM »
Vlad,

Quote
I’m having my life regulated or attempted regulation all the time. You sound lucky that it’s just the church in your case.

By people who were voted for. The point here is that "the church" enjoys an entirely unwarranted position in daily life for all of us for reasons of tradition only. Religiously-affiliated schools (primary in particular), guaranteed media access, seats in the HoL etc. Get rid of all that (and more) and treat them as private members' clubs and then - but only then - would you have point.     
« Last Edit: May 15, 2020, 11:18:59 AM by bluehillside Retd. »
"Don't make me come down there."

God

SteveH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10398
  • God? She's black.
Re: Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry
« Reply #1324 on: May 15, 2020, 11:17:49 AM »
If you think gay relationships aren't sinful or inferior why shouldn't they marry like heterosexuals? Your 'reasoning' makes no sense at all. ::)
You wouldn't know reasoning if it jumped up and bit you on the bum, LR sweetie.
I have a pet termite. His name is Clint. Clint eats wood.