Professor Rosaria Butterfield gives a powerful and brave speech to students.

[Alan Burns]

Then we just ignore the bible as being an artefact from antiquity that no longer has the social force it once had: and that really is 'good news', Alan.

The choice to ignore is yours to make, Gordon. Because God gives you the freedom to do so through the power of your human soul.

Others have chosen differently:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=har4itYxlBg

[Dicky Underpants]

The authority being quoted is the word of Jesus Christ.  There is no higher authority.

You have been told twice now that the text cited occurs in none of the earliest manuscripts. This has been accepted for over 100 years now by most serious scholars:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery&ved=2ahUKEwjyq9eewriEAxVMU0EAHTleAJUQFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw05I9GILcLqg2BS0BjOKhuC

And even if this were not the case, there is no reason to have implicit trust in the veracity of any ancient text as being divinely authorative just because another dodgily translated text from another part of the collection (The Epistles) tells you that you should. Or just because your Church says the same.

[Nearly Sane]

The authority being quoted is the word of Jesus Christ.  There is no higher authority.

It would appear that I'm to take both those statements on your authority

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No.

I would move that any distaste or dislike of any aspect of homosexuality constitutes homophobia.

What seems to be happening is that posters are considering their level of dislike and moving the boundaries of homophobia so they fall outside it.

What then do you say constitutes homophobia?

[Nearly Sane]

I would move that any distaste or dislike of any aspect of homosexuality constitutes homophobia.

What seems to be happening is that posters are considering their level of dislike and moving the boundaries of homophobia so they fall outside it.

What then do you say constitutes homophobia?

I don't believe that is what you think.

[Gordon]

The authority being quoted is the word of Jesus Christ.  There is no higher authority.

The authority being quoted by you involves the alleged and unsubstantiated "word of Jesus Christ".

So the above description is more like it: you're over-reaching again, Alan, since while you may personally accept what the NT says about Jesus on the basis of your personal faith alone, what you cannot do is mitigate the risks of mistakes or lies which, in my view, compromise all these 'Jesus says' presumptions to the extent that they cannot be taken seriously as documented history (before we even get to the supernatural nonsense).

There is no higher authority

It can't be supremely authoritative if someone like me can just dismiss this "word of Jesus Christ" without consequences and where, in the context of this thread, changes to marriage legislation in various legislatures no longer adhere with what you mistakenly, and fondly, regard as being authoritative - if any 'authority' isn't considered to be binding then it isn't really 'authoritative' at all. 

Plus I'm fairly sure that neither you, nor Christianity at large, has the authority to dictate what is deemed to be authoritative.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't believe that is what you think.

I think that is because you have departed from the plain meaning of "phobia".
Having taken that step it's then possible to label people as it suits don't you think

[Nearly Sane]

I think that is because you have departed from the plain meaning of "phobia".
Having taken that step it's then possible to label people as it suits don't you think

No, I don't believe that is what you think because I think you are as so often on here lying. I don't believe that you think that not participating in homosexual activity because it isn't to your taste is homophobic, else you are stating that your not being a Muslim makes you an Islamophobe. I also don't believe you that you are not aware of the meaning of homophobia in current usage. Your alsi wring about the 'plain meaning' of phobia beung something you don't want to do 

I think you are trying to play inept verbal games to distract from the suffering of gay and lesbian people because fellow members of your religion want them treated as second class citizens.  I'm not sure if it is more tedious than it is distasteful.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, I don't believe that is what you think because I think you are as so often on here lying. I don't believe that you think that not participating in homosexual activity because it isn't to your taste is homophobic, else you are stating that your not being a Muslim makes you an Islamophobe. I also don't believe you that you are not aware of the meaning of homophobia in current usage. Your alsi wring about the 'plain meaning' of phobia beung something you don't want to do 

I think you are trying to play inept verbal games to distract from the suffering of gay and lesbian people because fellow members of your religion want them treated as second class citizens.  I'm not sure if it is more tedious than it is distasteful.

And still no commitment to a definition of homophobia.

[jeremyp]

The holy sacrament of marriage is defined in the bible as the union of a man and a woman and is not open to re interpretation to comply with modern secular societies' views.

Fortunately, the Bible is not the law. There's no reason to pay attention to anything it says.

[jeremyp]

Anne Atkins was quoting clearly from the teachings of the New Testament - not from her own personal opinion.

She was quoting from a passage in the New Testament that was added at least two hundred, probably three hundred years after the death of Jesus. It's a fake, a forgery.

[jeremyp]

No, Nearly Sane is correct.

No he isn't. He's talking nonsense to peddle a pedantic point of view.

If, as you seem to suggest, Christianity is one of those "things that is so easy to discount that we can talk about them with what amounts to be certainty", then the religion would not still have the overwhelmingly powerful influence in the world that it has,

So lets add ad populum to the list of fallacies that are raining down on this thread.

[Outrider]

The authority being quoted is the word of Jesus Christ.  There is no higher authority.

What is being quoted is scripture. The allegation is that this is, to one extent or another (it's not consistent), is the 'word of Jesus', depending on which branch of the Abrahamic faith you accept that's a greater or lesser or authority, but that fails to appreciate that arguments from authority are logically flawed. It's not enough that Jesus, God, Tiny Tiim or the Tooth Fairy says 'this is what should be', they have just as much need to support their assertions as anyone else, or they can be dismissed on the same basis.

You're all invested in your 'God given free will' Alan, try using it. WHY is this a problem? That you and Professor Butterfield think Jesus said it was problematic isn't an explanation, it's an excuse for a behaviour without a justification.

I would move that any distaste or dislike of any aspect of homosexuality constitutes homophobia.

OK.

What seems to be happening is that posters are considering their level of dislike and moving the boundaries of homophobia so they fall outside it.

No, what's happening is you're conflating a lack of personal interest in taking part in homosexuality with some sort of active disapproval of the existence of homosexuality because, it appears, the best argument you can manage is 'we're terrible, but you're terrible with us, so that's somehow OK.'

What then do you say constitutes homophobia?

Behaviour based on the idea that there's an argument against allowing gay people to be gay people free of judgement, restriction, shaming or additional social or legal hoops to jump through.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

No he isn't. He's talking nonsense to peddle a pedantic point of view.
So lets add ad populum to the list of fallacies that are raining down on this thread.

I await you showing how supernatural claims are not like natural claims is nonsense. You seen to think that pointing this out gives them some form of validity when it's precisely the opposite.

Also DU isn't saying that because lots of people are religious that it's true. So you've misunderstood him.

[SteveH]

And still no commitment to a definition of homophobia.

Anti-gay prejudice. What's the problem?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What is being quoted is scripture. The allegation is that this is, to one extent or another (it's not consistent), is the 'word of Jesus', depending on which branch of the Abrahamic faith you accept that's a greater or lesser or authority, but that fails to appreciate that arguments from authority are logically flawed. It's not enough that Jesus, God, Tiny Tiim or the Tooth Fairy says 'this is what should be', they have just as much need to support their assertions as anyone else, or they can be dismissed on the same basis.

You're all invested in your 'God given free will' Alan, try using it. WHY is this a problem? That you and Professor Butterfield think Jesus said it was problematic isn't an explanation, it's an excuse for a behaviour without a justification.

OK.

No, what's happening is you're conflating a lack of personal interest in taking part in homosexuality with some sort of active disapproval of the existence of homosexuality because, it appears, the best argument you can manage is 'we're terrible, but you're terrible with us, so that's somehow OK.'

Behaviour based on the idea that there's an argument against allowing gay people to be gay people free of judgement, restriction, shaming or additional social or legal hoops to jump through.

O.

Oh there we go again, something merely being the lack of interest or belief, rather than a dislike or distaste....
Firstly, own the distaste or dislike
Secondly , personal disinterest in it...maybe. Until it can be weaponised to stick one on Christianity.

[Outrider]

Oh there we go again, something merely being the lack of interest or belief, rather than a dislike or distaste....

I have no personal interest in the BDSM lifestyle, I have no problem with others partaking if that's what they wish. It's a disinterest in personal involvement, not a distaste for other's activities.

Firstly, own the distaste or dislike

No distaste or dislike to own. Are we perhaps projecting a little, here?

Secondly , personal disinterest in it...maybe. Until it can be weaponised to stick one on Christianity.

Yes, because it's the straight-but-disinterested with an established history of trying to deny Christianity access to social institutions like marriage, isn't it? Oh, wait, no, that's not what happened.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I believe a very early paper by the zoologist Desmond Morris was entitled "Homosexuality in the Ten-spined Stickleback".

Interesting, I can't recall any edict, bulla, epistle or homily denouncing gay stickleback.

[Outrider]

Interesting, I can't recall any edict, bulla, epistle or homily denouncing gay stickleback.

The Catholic line is that homosexuality is "contrary to the natural law". Numerous papers have documented homosexual activity in over a thousand species fundamentally countering that assertion.

O.

[splashscuba]

I will email Commander Dawkins for instructions.

Glad to hear it. See you at the secret club meeting.

[splashscuba]

I don't mind them believing that, because it's true. The only thing atheists necessarily have in common is their lack of belief in deities.

How dare you. You are barred from the athiest global cabal.

[splashscuba]

The holy sacrament of marriage is defined in the bible as the union of a man and a woman and is not open to re interpretation to comply with modern secular societies' views.

Club rule again. The rest of us can marry who we want as defined by the marriage act.

[splashscuba]

The authority being quoted is the word of Jesus Christ.  There is no higher authority.

What about these gods then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity

[Dicky Underpants]

Interesting, I can't recall any edict, bulla, epistle or homily denouncing gay stickleback.

Keep up at the back there! The conversation at this point had swerved to Sriram going on about "the Natural Order".

[Nearly Sane]

The Catholic line is that homosexuality is "contrary to the natural law". Numerous papers have documented homosexual activity in over a thousand species fundamentally countering that assertion.

O.

It doesn't. Natural law does not equal anything that hapoens in nature. That said, natural law is a posh hand wave of 'stuff I like and dislike'