quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:


First, the Salvation Army has always been seen as an extremist religious group.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Sorry, since when, and by who's authority, has the ordinary, orthodox, traditional view of church, religion, culture and society all round the world for 2000 years and more, suddenly become equatable to murderous, violent, criminal extremism?

---

quote:

---

As I said, people can - and do - disagree with what churches teach and individual Christians believe; that's not the issue. Call me intolerant, narrow-minded, even unloving if you like: people have a right to express their distaste for Christian teachings, but heck, an extremist in the legal and penal definition of the word??

---

quote:

---

Am I to be imprisoned with an IS bomber, a kidnapper, a sniper, a person who incites others to kill, maim, rape and torture?

---

quote:

---

Seriously? A middle aged teacher who tells her class that she thinks same sex marriage is wrong?
An extremist?

---

quote:

---

An elderly priest who tells a young parishioner that the church teaches that marriage is only for heterosexual couples?

---

quote:

---

A young youth leader who speaks to a group of his teen fellowship and in the context of a discussion says that his church believes 'one man and one woman'?

---

quote:

---

All extremists in the new legally defined, punishable way?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
By whom?
Against what standard?
And comparable to what?

---

quote:

---

What, in your opinion, makes us 'extremist'?
What, specifically, is the charge?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

In short, if your objection is that the law is supposed to be about "them" but is also being applied to "us", I have a hard time taking your objection seriously.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

What about The Salvation Army which, alongside other churches, has in the last year re-confirmed its belief that marriage is the New Testament standard of the voluntary union of one man to one woman for life to the exclusion of all others?

Are we extremists now?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I think on paper I would probably sound like an extremist :S

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
one MP's reported opinion and one blog's reaction to that opinion

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The word extremist tells you more about the person using the word than it does about the person or idea described as extreme.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The word extremist tells you more about the person using the word than it does about the person or idea described as extreme.

---

Rubbish. How the word is used, tells you about a person not that it is used. There are extremist positions. Look to the right or left of the position. If there is not much further place to go, it is extreme. Even if you agree with it.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Really?

Give me an example of objectively extreme positions both right and left.
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
FWIW I don't think Mudfrog is an extremist at all. My view is that "extremist" refers more to the methods one uses or supports while Mudfrog is more akin to a "radical" in that he is at odds with what he sees as current ways but wouldn't countenance extreme measures to oppose them.

FWIW, the Chancellor of the Exchequer sent a note to civil servants this week asking for suggestions on how departments could save money. Suggesting the cancellation of HS2, Trident replacement and the aircraft carriers is hardly extremism but is distinctly radical.
 

---

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
Statist communism and fascism are surely both extremes of the left and the right?
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Give me an example of objectively extreme positions both right and left.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Really?

Give me an example of objectively extreme positions both right and left.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
FWIW I don't think Mudfrog is an extremist at all. My view is that "extremist" refers more to the methods one uses or supports while Mudfrog is more akin to a "radical" in that he is at odds with what he sees as current ways but wouldn't countenance extreme measures to oppose them.

FWIW, the Chancellor of the Exchequer sent a note to civil servants this week asking for suggestions on how departments could save money. Suggesting the cancellation of HS2, Trident replacement and the aircraft carriers is hardly extremism but is distinctly radical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The problem is that people who 30 years ago - sorry, TWO years ago - held a reasonable, allowable and, more pertinently, legally-supported view, i.e. marriage is a heterosexual union, now find themselves labelled as extremists and targetted by exactly the same law that targets the people who use Youtube to show Christians being beheaded - and they haven't even said anything yet!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What are you going to do, send us for reprogramming? Re-educating? Assimilation??

---

quote:

---

The National Secular Society and the Christian institute – two organisations with often diametrically opposing interests – said they shared fears that the broad scope of extremism could represent a major threat to free speech.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

Give me an example of objectively extreme positions both right and left.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What is extremist is where a government can suddenly invent a law that targets terrorists and use it on its own citizens whose only crime is to have an opinion that has a longer pedigree than one of the governments own laws.

All of a sudden it's a crime to have a belief founded on conscience. What this government - and other totalitarian regimes - cannot do, is to legislate to control my opinions.

I am not the extremist. The government is.

The ironic thing about this is that my gay friend who thinks 'gay marriage is bloody stupid' would now be considered a homophobic extremist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
All of a sudden it's a crime to have a belief founded on conscience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Teachers can oppose same sex marriage as much as they like, but they shouldn't be teaching these views to children.

When we teach about religion we say 'Christians believe ...' and 'Muslims believe ...' etc. We never say 'I believe' - that would be abuse of power imo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Gay marriage is wrong and should not be allowed. Extreme one side.
Churches should be forced to marry gay people. Extreme other side.
Equal marriage under state law is what should be, let the churches do what they will. Not extreme.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In fact that is true for everything and everybody. Believe whatever you want, it's fine with me. That the earth is flat? That black people were ordained by God to be slaves? That Donald Trump speaks with the Voice of Jesus? Sure, I'm good with it. These are your pathologies -- live with them.

But. The moment your nuttiness impacts other people? There is a problem. You do not get to impose your insanities upon me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Gay marriage is wrong and should not be allowed. Extreme one side.
Churches should be forced to marry gay people. Extreme other side.
Equal marriage under state law is what should be, let the churches do what they will. Not extreme.

---

And that proves my point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
All of a sudden it's a crime to have a belief founded on conscience.

---

No, it is not. This is absurd rhetoric. You can believe whatever stupid things you want, as long as they stay in your head. What is against the law is to DO certain things, like impose your personal beliefs on innocent schoolchildren over whom you have a position of authority, or incite violence against gay people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Sorry, LC. That is shifting the issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... but because disagreeing with 'gay marriage' or 'same sex marriage' is not a position confined to Christians and not even religious people; we can all cite examples of gay people who have also said they don't agree with it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... They (we) have stayed exactly where we were all along and it's the government that has suddenly run off into the far extreme corner and is now shouting at us from a distance through a megaphone for being extreme!!!

It's not us that moved, it's you bloody lot!!
What are you going to do, send us for reprogramming? Re-educating? Assimilation??

---

quote:

---

Well...
Of course the world didn't stand still. The world grew.
In a couple of years, the new highway came through
And they built it right over those two stubborn Zax
And left them there, standing un-budged in their tracks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Look to the right or left of the position. If there is not much further place to go, it is extreme. Even if you agree with it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
FWIW I don't think Mudfrog is an extremist at all. My view is that "extremist" refers more to the methods one uses or supports while Mudfrog is more akin to a "radical" in that he is at odds with what he sees as current ways but wouldn't countenance extreme measures to oppose them.

FWIW, the Chancellor of the Exchequer sent a note to civil servants this week asking for suggestions on how departments could save money. Suggesting the cancellation of HS2, Trident replacement and the aircraft carriers is hardly extremism but is distinctly radical.

---

Thank you, I think that is a good way of putting it. I would agree that someone like Mudfrog is radical, Christian Concern et al would probably be extremist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

Those who think that gay marriage is totally wrong, that there is no shadow of an argument for it, do seem to hold an extreme position in the second sense. It's hard to see how they could be any more against it. Belief in divine revelation doesn't seem to leave much room for arguments to the contrary...

But that doesn't mean that they all think that this is the big issue that they have to die in a ditch over. There may be more important things that are wrong with society. So they're not all extreme in their actions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I can see what you're getting at, Mudfrog, but - call me complacent - I don't see anyone battering down the door of your Citadel and hauling you off to the cells any time soon ...

If they do, though, let me know and I'll come and visit you in prison.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:


Only last year the Salvation Army's General issued an amendment to our ceremonies book that affirmed the Army's teaching that we uphold the New Testament standard of marriage as being the voluntary union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others.

Is that written phrase alone extremist hate speech? Will we be ordered to remove it from our book?
Is that the next step?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
... I think the difference is in what context is the teacher speaking. If s/he is teaching in a government funded school in the US, s/he would be expected to affirm equal marriage. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
True in Britain of Nonconformists ... but Anglican clergy may not have that option. Does anyone here know?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

Do we really think that? Do we really think that every teacher in every government funded school should peddle the government's views to the pupils?

---

quote:

---

In the UK a lot of schools are the responsibility of the local authority. Do we really believe that it's every teacher's job to support the local authority's policies in the class room. If there is an election and political control changes, do we think that the way history is taught should immediately change accordingly? Do the Tolpuddle Martyrs suddenly become heroes or villains?

---

quote:

---

I am sure there are some local education authorities who'd like that to be the case. I'm sure the national Department of Education would like to have that sort of control over academies. But do we agree with them?

---

quote:

---

Do we really think that because the government is the government and is always telling us it has been elected, its money is entitled to buy our consciences?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So at some future wedding when I stand and say, 'The Salvation Army upholds the NT standard....' you can't see a problem with me publicly disagreeing with a law my government has passed?

---

quote:

---

The point is that the Government has decided to apply the word extremist in a legally defined way to people (in the first instance, teachers) who publicly say 'we do not believe in same sex marriage, we think it is wrong.'
The government is not only wanting to ban a teacher from stating this in front of her class, teaching it - let's assume, in an RE class - but also legally preventing people from expressing this view on social media. - they are making the expression of disagreement with the government on this matter a crime.

---

quote:

---

The issue is not that's a disagreement over homosexuality; it's a disagreement over redefining marriage - a reasonable position to hold and entirely legal until recently - and the sudden rebranding of teaching such a traditional definition of marriage as a hate crime, as extremism punishable by law alongside those who use social media to incite the killing of people by suicide bombers.

---

quote:

---

How is it that we have come to this point where, for example, a Christian teacher who has been in the profession for 40 years, has upheld a biblically conservative theology and practice, is suddenly a political and religious extremist because she won't put her conscience and her understanding of the Bible and church teaching aside and yield to party diktat and be forced to teach a position that is entirely alien to her.

---

quote:

---

Personally I find that worrying and carries with it some echoes of mid twentieth century totalitarian regimes where to go against the party would result in a swift removal from your position.

---

You really have no idea.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Have you actually read what the Home Secretary wants to do?
 

---

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
I must have missed the bit where churches are going to be forced to marry gay people. After all, the Catholic church has been getting on quite nicely for umpteen decades refusing to marry divorcees.

If ever the day comes when legislation is passed on whom religious bodies must marry, it strikes me that this is an excellent argument for separating civil and religious marriage, as is already the case in many European countries.

No one’s going to jail for disagreeing with the government’s decision to allow gay people to have civil marriages.

On teaching in schools – my husband once had to supervise a lesson where a person from an outside organisation was talking about the acceptance of difference. The person spent five minutes on gender, ethnic… difference, and then got onto his main point, which was about homosexuality.

As it so happens, 70% of the kids in my husband’s school are from Muslim homes. Homosexuality as a perfectly acceptable way to live? They were having none of it. “Say what you like, Monsieur, that’s not what my Dad told me.” Husband en rouge was rather impressed how well they expressed themselves, telling the speaker that they respected him as a person but they thought he was wrong. And incidentally, that if he was really serious about accepting everyone, that he needed to respect their right to believe as Muslims that homosexuality is sinful.

Now actually, husband en rouge does hold a traditional view on sexuality. However, he never expressed it at any point in the lesson. He knew the kids well enough to have an idea how they were going to react, so he just sat back and let them have at it. If any of the kids were actually rude to the speaker, he pulled them up, but he stuck to the line of “you have to respect everyone, but you don’t have to agree with everyone” which is what the lesson was actually supposed to be about. He’s never been asked to supervise a session like this again ( ) but the school direction couldn’t complain about how he behaved. Wise as serpents, innocent as doves .
 

---

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
How is it that we have come to this point where, for example, a Christian teacher who has been in the profession for 40 years, has upheld a biblically conservative theology and practice, is suddenly a political and religious extremist because she won't put her conscience and her understanding of the Bible and church teaching aside and yield to party diktat and be forced to teach a position that is entirely alien to her.

---

I imagine anti-miscegenationists felt much the same when incitement to racial hatred became a crime. As a teacher you have no right to inflict your bigotry on your students.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Can you explain why disagreeing that marriage should be redefined is 'bigotry' please...?

Is it not a reasonable viewpoint, seeing that the alternative has only been law since March 2014?

Are all views that are in opposition to Government legislation 'bigotry'?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I don't know where this idea that anyone is going to be forced to conduct SSM against their conscience comes from ...

Over in the US it seems that a lot of conservative Christians are worried lest the Federal Government alters the rules on tax exemption for religious bodies in order to have a platform to 'force' religious groups to conduct same-sex marriages ...



Are we really seriously expecting this to happen?

I'm 'conservative' enough theologically to have some concerns about slippery-slope arguments - and I do part company with a lot of my fellow liberals/lefties on issues like abortion ...

I'm not yet convinced, though, that the practice of 'assisted suicide' in some European countries is the thin end of a very large wedge that will lead to compulsory euthanasia and the genocide of everyone over the age of 80 - which is how some conservative Christians in the US seem to regard it ...

Nor do I believe that SSM is going to lead to public tolerance of paedophilia, bestiality and polygamy - which is again another of the bogey-men that many conservative Christian are putting forward.

There are and have been, it has to be said, some academic voices calling for greater toleration of things most of us would find repugnant or unacceptable - but these are minority voices and whilst I feel there is a need for vigilance - the relaxing of certain taboos would trouble me ... I don't believe the barbarians are at the gates just yet ...

So, no, I'm not expecting anyone to vet what Mudfrog says or doesn't say in his own religious setting and context.

That said, I can foresee a few test-cases where particular activists try to push the envelope a bit ...

As la vie en rouge says, separating the marriage/registration thing out as some European countries have done would go some way towards avoiding the kinds of issues that some fear could arise.

As far as the CofE goes ... I don't see the Government (of any stripe) trying to coerce it to perform SSM anytime soon - but that doesn't mean that the CofE itself at some point may change its rubrics to accommodate that ... which is not inconceivable, of course, if it continues on a 'liberalising' trajectory.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
hosting/

If this thread becomes dominated by the discussion of SSM rather than what it means to be an extremist, then it's headed for Dead Horses.

Thank you for your attention.

/hosting
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't know where this idea that anyone is going to be forced to conduct SSM against their conscience comes from ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

How is it that we have come to this point where, for example, a Christian teacher who has been in the profession for 40 years, has upheld a biblically conservative theology and practice, is suddenly a political and religious extremist because she won't put her conscience and her understanding of the Bible and church teaching aside and yield to party diktat and be forced to teach a position that is entirely alien to her.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
hosting/

If this thread becomes dominated by the discussion of SSM rather than what it means to be an extremist, then it's headed for Dead Horses.

Thank you for your attention.

/hosting

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

Can you imagine any government making it a crime to publicly disagree with a Parliamentary vote on any other issue? Fox hunting, Trident, Abortion, Assisted suicide? Welfare reform?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

Can you imagine any government making it a crime to publicly disagree with a Parliamentary vote on any other issue? Fox hunting, Trident, Abortion, Assisted suicide? Welfare reform?

---

'Publicly disagree' is very different from teaching a class of children.

Of course, as teachers, we will discuss all these matters, when appropriate. What we will not do is put forward our stance on them. We must remain neutral, or we will very quickly veer into indoctrination, be it about political/religious/social/any other matter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

Is it a crime to to simply disagree with a democratic decision?
I just looked it up:
45% of Tory MPs, 9% of Labour and 7% of Liberal Democrats voted against the same sex marriage act.
Obviously I accept that in a democracy the majority won the vote (thank God for that democracy) but 45% is a significant minority of the ruling party to disagree with its own law.

Can you imagine any government making it a crime to publicly disagree with a Parliamentary vote on any other issue? Fox hunting, Trident, Abortion, Assisted suicide? Welfare reform?

When you start silencing the opposition by calling people who hold the opposing view 'extremists' and punishing them by law, you've got nowhere to go when the extremists really do start saying horrible things. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
who would have thought that the government would suddenly bring in the charge of hate crime and extremism on people for disagreeing with, basically, what is a government policy on the status of marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Can you explain why disagreeing that marriage should be redefined is 'bigotry' please...?

Is it not a reasonable viewpoint, seeing that the alternative has only been law since March 2014?

Are all views that are in opposition to Government legislation 'bigotry'?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

Can you imagine any government making it a crime to publicly disagree with a Parliamentary vote on any other issue? Fox hunting, Trident, Abortion, Assisted suicide? Welfare reform?

---

'Publicly disagree' is very different from teaching a class of children.

Of course, as teachers, we will discuss all these matters, when appropriate. What we will not do is put forward our stance on them. We must remain neutral, or we will very quickly veer into indoctrination, be it about political/religious/social/any other matter.

---

Interesting. And so no teacher would ever tell his/her class that they disagree with any Government policy?

I find that very hard to believe!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
they can't really believe.

Do we really imagine that any teacher - yet alone at secondary level - feels that he or she is constrained to express her opinion on how asylum seekers should be treated, or whether benefits should be capped by the thought that because he or she is paid by the taxpayer, he or she is obliged to defend government policy?

Pull the other one please.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:


As we've heard above, good RE teachers often are scrupulous in not giving their religious opinion on contentious subjects.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

Can you imagine any government making it a crime to publicly disagree with a Parliamentary vote on any other issue? Fox hunting, Trident, Abortion, Assisted suicide? Welfare reform?

---

'Publicly disagree' is very different from teaching a class of children.

Of course, as teachers, we will discuss all these matters, when appropriate. What we will not do is put forward our stance on them. We must remain neutral, or we will very quickly veer into indoctrination, be it about political/religious/social/any other matter.

---

Interesting. And so no teacher would ever tell his/her class that they disagree with any Government policy?

I find that very hard to believe!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
As a general rule it's a very good idea for teachers to keep their opinions out of the classroom situation. It's more than possible to teach any subject without having to nail your colours to the mast.

But, if a teacher did so, they wouldn't be reprimanded, I wouldn't think - but I would expect it to be discussed during their appraisal meetings if it came to the attention of their mentors.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I don't think any teacher should be saying anything in class that will lead to some kids hearing "your parents aren't really married".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by la vie en rouge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
As a general rule it's a very good idea for teachers to keep their opinions out of the classroom situation. It's more than possible to teach any subject without having to nail your colours to the mast.

But, if a teacher did so, they wouldn't be reprimanded, I wouldn't think - but I would expect it to be discussed during their appraisal meetings if it came to the attention of their mentors.

---

Not quite. The reason I find the story about my husband’s “supervision” of this lesson entertaining is that this was a lesson with an agenda – to teach the kids that there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality. Note that this is a French State school. The message was strongly at odds with what their parents teach them at home and they were having no truck with it. And said so, in a pretty articulate and intelligent sort of way. Big time fail for the message the school was trying to teach.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
who would have thought that the government would suddenly bring in the charge of hate crime and extremism on people for disagreeing with, basically, what is a government policy on the status of marriage.

---

Have you any evidence that the government is/will bring a charge of hate crime and/or extremism in relation to disagreeing with government policy?

Because, so far the only link given in support of such an action is a blog commenting on a statement by a Conservative MP who is not a minister, let alone a spokesperson for the relevant government department, nor a member of any of the select committees that reviewed the relevant legislation. Basically, his statements of government policy are about as reliable as mine - unless he's directly quoting the relevant Cabinet Minister or the PM ... in which case the actual words of said minister should be easy to find.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
le vie en rouge,

What is missing from your husband's behaviour is tolerance. It is good that he did not allow the children to show disrespect to the speaker, but the issue goes beyond this. The lesson that needs to be actively taught is tolerance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
le vie en rouge,

What is missing from your husband's behaviour is tolerance. It is good that he did not allow the children to show disrespect to the speaker, but the issue goes beyond this. The lesson that needs to be actively taught is tolerance.

---

How were the children being intolerant?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Had the speaker been better prepared and more nuanced, there was actually a very interesting discussion to be had about how people live together who have differing moral values.

---

quote:

---

*I thought about removing this expression, seeing as how I am talking about Muslim kids, but OTOH, I think they were about as impressed with him as they would have been with a pig’s breakfast.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
... I think the difference is in what context is the teacher speaking. If s/he is teaching in a government funded school in the US, s/he would be expected to affirm equal marriage. ...

---

Do we really think that? Do we really think that every teacher in every government funded school should peddle the government's views to the pupils?

---

quote:

---

I think this is relevant to the original question. Are these kids extremists? No, they are normal, moderate Muslims. Branding them extremists strikes me as highly counterproductive because it leaves you with nothing to say about real extremism, which is a genuine danger to young Muslims.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Gay marriage is wrong and should not be allowed. Extreme one side.
Churches should be forced to marry gay people. Extreme other side.
Equal marriage under state law is what should be, let the churches do what they will. Not extreme.

---

And that proves my point.

---

Mind illustrating how?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
X is wrong/right and you cannot do otherwise is extreme.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The problem is that people who 30 years ago - sorry, TWO years ago - held a reasonable, allowable and, more pertinently, legally-supported view, i.e. marriage is a heterosexual union, now find themselves labelled as extremists and targetted by exactly the same law that targets the people who use Youtube to show Christians being beheaded - and they haven't even said anything yet!!

These people - and I count myself as one of them - simply believe that marriage should be defined one particular way: the way it's been defined by common acceptance until 2 years ago.

They haven't altered their views, they haven't campaigned to change any laws, they haven't demanded legislation, etc. They've simply just been themselves and now they are being condemned as extremists overnight simply because they believe something that was perfectly OK a couple of years ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
X is wrong/right and you cannot do otherwise is extreme.

---

So if X="murder" then the position "Murder is wrong and you cannot do otherwise" is extreme?. From a certain point of view, maybe, but it doesn't seem terribly meaningful to call people who think murder should be illegal "extremists".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The problem is that people who 30 years ago - sorry, TWO years ago - held a reasonable, allowable and, more pertinently, legally-supported view, i.e. marriage is a heterosexual union, now find themselves labelled as extremists and targetted by exactly the same law that targets the people who use Youtube to show Christians being beheaded - and they haven't even said anything yet!!

These people - and I count myself as one of them - simply believe that marriage should be defined one particular way: the way it's been defined by common acceptance until 2 years ago.

They haven't altered their views, they haven't campaigned to change any laws, they haven't demanded legislation, etc. They've simply just been themselves and now they are being condemned as extremists overnight simply because they believe something that was perfectly OK a couple of years ago.

---

Mudfrog

You seem to be confused by the word 'extremist'. You probably think it has something to do with having an opinion that is in a small radical minority in society or someone who wants to make extreme radical changes to society.

However the people here calling you extremist are 'progressives' and they have a particular definition of extremism. If someone wants to change society in the direction of being more progressive then they are not an extremist, no matter how radical the change they want to make, no matter how much of a minority view it is. If someone advocates violence to achieve progressive goals then 'we can't condone that but we must understand the root causes, blah, blah.'

On the other hand someone who thinks that society should move in the direction of being less 'progressive' is an extremist even if the change they want to make is very small and popular with many people.

I hope that clarifies things for you

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
You framed the issue as being about gay marriage and defined all those opposed to gay marriage as extremists. Of the 195 countries in the world, only 19 of them allow same sex marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:


You framed the issue as being about gay marriage and defined all those opposed to gay marriage as extremists. Of the 195 countries in the world, only 19 of them allow same sex marriage. With the exception of South Africa and Israel, both outliers for historical and demographic reasons, no nation in Africa or Asia allows same sex marriage. Nearly every nation that allows same sex marriage is either in Europe or has a majority of people of European descent. In Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico, support for same sex marriage hovers around 50/50. In other words, you've framed the question in a way that makes extremists of billions of people of different races and creeds extremists while declaring as mainstream a view that is predominantly held by relatively affluent center left white people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
You framed the issue as being about gay marriage and defined all those opposed to gay marriage as extremists. Of the 195 countries in the world, only 19 of them allow same sex marriage.

---

This line of reason perforce presupposes that if something is extremist, it is extremist in every single country on earth.

That's stupid.

---

And still is.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
No, it isn't.

Your detailed argument has been soundly refuted.


 

---

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
Mudfrog - of all the things to be concerned about the Home Secretary doing, perhaps focus on the actual things she has done and not what you think she might do. They are not one and the same. There are plenty of things she has done affecting real people, rather more important.

Churches (and as far as I know, non-Christian religious groups) have widespread exemption from equality legislation, to the extent that they have exemption in such ways that negatively affect their own congregations eg the CoE being exempt from disability legislation. Has it not occurred to you, Mudfrog, that equality legislation protects Christians too?

This kind of paranoia about government legislation does Christians zero favours and makes churches look incredibly unappealling. If you want to protest about the government, maybe start with protesting their treatment of the poor and vulnerable and not imaginary legislation.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Your detailed argument has been soundly refuted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Even in countries with large majorities in favor of gay marriage, widespread support developed only in the last decade.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

This kind of paranoia about government legislation does Christians zero favours and makes churches look incredibly unappealling.

---

Amen.

So much so that I rarely admit that I go to Church. Most of the new friends I have made in my new occupation in the last two years don't know that I'm a Christian. I shall keep it that way unless asked outright, even then with many qualifiers. 'Christian' is starting to mean 'anti-equality' in this country
 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm assuming that the reason only some countries have laws against denial of the Holocaust is because those are the countries where denial of the Holocaust has been a significant and disruptive problem.

You're rather reminding me of the story I heard recently about a small Pacific island being told that if it wanted aid money, one of the requirements was that it had a law banning the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

---

quote:

---

'Christian' is starting to mean 'anti-equality' in this country

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm assuming that the reason only some countries have laws against denial of the Holocaust is because those are the countries where denial of the Holocaust has been a significant and disruptive problem.

You're rather reminding me of the story I heard recently about a small Pacific island being told that if it wanted aid money, one of the requirements was that it had a law banning the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

---

Direct experience of the Holocaust, and possession of nuclear weapons, are particular to specific countries.

Sexuality issues are common to all humanity, so it would seem that any principle which is asserted regarding them, regardless of the actual content of the principle, must necessarily be universal on the model of a Kantian categorical imperative.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It is extremist, in the sense of irrational and immoral, by any criteria to object to someone's ethnicity, since it is something they cannot control.

It is extremist in the same sense to object to someone's having an orientation, which they can't help, but not extremist to object to how they respond to the orientation, over which they have a choice.

It is extremist to object to married men's having an orientation to be polyamorous, but not extremist to object to their committing adultery - unless the objection takes the form of wanting to imprison or execute them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It concerns me a bit, as we'd never tolerate such misleading, slanted headlines aimed at any other group

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
Boogie:

quote:

---

'Christian' is starting to mean 'anti-equality' in this country

---

And it will go on meaning 'anti-equality' if the only people who are willing to claim a Christian identity in public are anti-gay, anti-feminist fundamentalists.

---

Fair point.

I'm also to the left of the Greens politically - and have no qualms at all about revealing that.



[ 06. August 2015, 14:49: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gramps49:
Using the example of an RE teacher. I would think the teacher would be obligated to show how the definition of marriage has changed through the history of the Bible. There were at least six different definitions that I know of. Even in the New Testament, while Paul and Jesus, did use the example of one man and one woman, in their illustrations, a man could still have multiple wives.

I would even go so far as to say the RE teacher would also have to explain why liberal Christians can uphold equal marriage and why more conservative Christians still have problems. There are basically seven key scripture verses that seem to prohibit equal marriage from the conservative view, but liberals have a much different understanding of the same verses.

So, s/he should present both sides of the argument and let the students decide for themselves. Now, if the students ask him/her, "Well, what do you think?" I think the teacher should be able to say, "This is my view, but it is only my view and it is up to you to decide for yourselves what to accept." I am sure civics teachers are asked all the time what party they belong to. They are able to identify their political leanings, but they also have to encourage their students to think for themselves.

Now it would be extreme for a RE teacher to pressure students into thinking his/her beliefs are the only correct beliefs. The key point is "pressuring" students to believe as s/he does.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by lilbuddha:
"You framed the issue as being about gay marriage and defined all those opposed to gay marriage as extremists."? How so? You then go on to define extremism in terms of all countries. Did your interlocutor use that definition? If not you have created a straw man and are equivocating on "all".

---

quote:

---

originally posted by orfeo:
This is quite irrelevant. Laws apply in the here and now. You might just as well argue that we don't need laws against using a mobile phone while driving because it wasn't a problem when you were a kid.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by orfeo:
And, as mousethief has been trying to point out to you, laws only apply in particular places. I'm assuming that the reason only some countries have laws against denial of the Holocaust is because those are the countries where denial of the Holocaust has been a significant and disruptive problem.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by mrcheesy:
Wait, extending rights and freedoms to excluded groups is extremist?

---

Koch brothers been called extremists for decades and all they wanted was to extend rights and freedoms for everybody.
 

---

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bibliophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The problem is that people who 30 years ago - sorry, TWO years ago - held a reasonable, allowable and, more pertinently, legally-supported view, i.e. marriage is a heterosexual union, now find themselves labelled as extremists and targetted by exactly the same law that targets the people who use Youtube to show Christians being beheaded - and they haven't even said anything yet!!

These people - and I count myself as one of them - simply believe that marriage should be defined one particular way: the way it's been defined by common acceptance until 2 years ago.

They haven't altered their views, they haven't campaigned to change any laws, they haven't demanded legislation, etc. They've simply just been themselves and now they are being condemned as extremists overnight simply because they believe something that was perfectly OK a couple of years ago.

---

Mudfrog

You seem to be confused by the word 'extremist'. You probably think it has something to do with having an opinion that is in a small radical minority in society or someone who wants to make extreme radical changes to society.

However the people here calling you extremist are 'progressives' and they have a particular definition of extremism. If someone wants to change society in the direction of being more progressive then they are not an extremist, no matter how radical the change they want to make, no matter how much of a minority view it is. If someone advocates violence to achieve progressive goals then 'we can't condone that but we must understand the root causes, blah, blah.'

On the other hand someone who thinks that society should move in the direction of being less 'progressive' is an extremist even if the change they want to make is very small and popular with many people.

I hope that clarifies things for you

---

All you've done is throw the doubt and argument onto a different word, "progressive".

Same-sex marriage is not very "progressive" in any case - more radical people in the LGBT community are in fact rather unhappy at what they perceive as a desire to go back to a thoroughly traditional institution, borrowed from heterosexuals.

And in the cases of the UK and New Zealand, at least, introduced by Conservative governments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

originally posted by mousethief:
"You framed the issue as being about gay marriage and defined all those opposed to gay marriage as extremists."? How so? You then go on to define extremism in terms of all countries. Did your interlocutor use that definition? If not you have created a straw man and are equivocating on "all".

---

Lilbuddha defined opposition to gay marriage as extremist.

---

quote:

---

Gay marriage is wrong and should not be allowed. Extreme one side.
Churches should be forced to marry gay people. Extreme other side.
Equal marriage under state law is what should be, let the churches do what they will. Not extreme.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Furthermore, I don't see why extremism is measured by country.

---

quote:

---

Let us also assume that in the 21st Century UK that Mudfrog's views on gay marriage are extremist. By that reasoning, nearly all UK Shipmates are political extremists. In fact, the only UK shipmate I know for sure who is not a political extremist is Marvin the Martian.

Why do I say this?

Opposition to gay marriage stands at around 32%. Support for Labour in the most recent election was 30%. So, if Mudfrog is an extremist, Labour supporters are also extremists.

---

quote:

---

The ancient Sumerians had marriage and homosexuality. Cell phones they did not have.

---

quote:

---

Again...both marriage and same sex attraction are ubiquitous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macrina:
As I see it the law seems to be saying you cannot teach an exclusive position on religious or ethical views.

If you personally, or the denomination your school belongs to believe that INSERT DEAD HORSE here then of course you can teach that. But you can't teach it to the exclusion of all other positions.

So you have to say I/we believe that INSERT DEAD HORSE HERE is right and moral for these reasons but there are those who disagree with this position for these other reasons and teach those too.

If people do that then I don't really have any problem with whatever positions they take provided they give space to others to disagree. I have a serious problem when the right to dissenting opinion disappears under 'But God'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I agree with you, Barnabas62. And it worries me, because in spite of all the hoopla about tolerance, I think we are seeing a lot more real intolerance which could quickly turn into something nasty.

Ex. Why is it that whenever I see Christianity mentioned in my news feed it is inevitably some headline like "Christians and their creepy attitudes toward daughters" or "Christians trying to stop free healthcare for poor women"? The former is always an article about a very specific minor subculture of Christians (the ones with purity balls etc), but it is generalized to smear all of Christianity without exception; the latter headline is normally code for "Here's an instance of people peacefully standing outside an abortion clinic with signs," which may not float your political boat, but it's a far cry from deliberately targeting the poor and preventing them from getting dental treatment, cancer care, etc.

I've only seen these kinds of blatant anti-Christian stretches in the past couple of years. It concerns me a bit, as we'd never tolerate such misleading, slanted headlines aimed at any other group, and it seems to me the intention here is to stir up hate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If the police treat you as a terrorist simply for liking an unfashionable country, then I'm thinking maybe Mudfrog is right about this after all.

Craziness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If the police treat you as a terrorist simply for liking an unfashionable country, then I'm thinking maybe Mudfrog is right about this after all.

Craziness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
How the Met handled that is not good. But it in no way validates Mudfrog's the sky is falling and Christians will be fed to the lions POV.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Can I ask why we think that a Western government from 2015 onwards would NOT begin to introduce laws that severely restrict freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom to express beliefs, freedom to dissent from Government philosophies?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
You know what just struck me?

This entire debate is basically centred around an incident where politicians suggested something to stop nasty Muslims, and people tended to nod their heads and say "yes, let's stop the nasty Muslims", and then someone suggested that actually it could apply to Christians as well and everyone started losing their shit.

This is a recurring theme in recent years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
You know what just struck me?

This entire debate is basically centred around an incident where politicians suggested something to stop nasty Muslims, and people tended to nod their heads and say "yes, let's stop the nasty Muslims", and then someone suggested that actually it could apply to Christians as well and everyone started losing their shit.

This is a recurring theme in recent years.

---

Erm, the fundamental difference is that the 'nasty Muslims' (as you put it) are prone to blowing up buses and slicing the heads off people, whereas the Christians we are talking about are simply saying, 'actually we are of the opinion that marriage should only be one man and one woman.'

Spot the difference.
I don't see any Christians from the local Methodist church turning up to a registar's office on a wet Thursday afternoon wielding a meat cleaver with which to behead the groom and his husband, shouting 'Jesus is Lord!'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
You know what just struck me?

This entire debate is basically centred around an incident where politicians suggested something to stop nasty Muslims, and people tended to nod their heads and say "yes, let's stop the nasty Muslims", and then someone suggested that actually it could apply to Christians as well and everyone started losing their shit.

This is a recurring theme in recent years.

---

Erm, the fundamental difference is that the 'nasty Muslims' (as you put it) are prone to blowing up buses and slicing the heads off people, whereas the Christians we are talking about are simply saying, 'actually we are of the opinion that marriage should only be one man and one woman.'

Spot the difference.
I don't see any Christians from the local Methodist church turning up to a registar's office on a wet Thursday afternoon wielding a meat cleaver with which to behead the groom and his husband, shouting 'Jesus is Lord!'

---

Yes because Christians have never committed acts of terrorism and all Muslims are terrorists.

What the actual fuck.

Probably doesn't help to counter accusations of homophobia with some fairly hugely Islamophobic comments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
You know what just struck me?

This entire debate is basically centred around an incident where politicians suggested something to stop nasty Muslims, and people tended to nod their heads and say "yes, let's stop the nasty Muslims", and then someone suggested that actually it could apply to Christians as well and everyone started losing their shit.

This is a recurring theme in recent years.

---

Erm, the fundamental difference is that the 'nasty Muslims' (as you put it) are prone to blowing up buses and slicing the heads off people, whereas the Christians we are talking about are simply saying, 'actually we are of the opinion that marriage should only be one man and one woman.'

Spot the difference.
I don't see any Christians from the local Methodist church turning up to a registar's office on a wet Thursday afternoon wielding a meat cleaver with which to behead the groom and his husband, shouting 'Jesus is Lord!'

---

quote:

---

Erm, the fundamental difference is that the 'nasty Muslims' (as you put it) are prone to blowing up buses and slicing the heads off people, whereas the Christians we are talking about are simply saying, 'actually we are of the opinion that marriage should only be one man and one woman.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Can I ask why we think that a Western government from 2015 onwards would NOT begin to introduce laws that severely restrict freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom to express beliefs, freedom to dissent from Government philosophies?

Why do we think that an oppressive regime will only exist in North Korea, Afghanistan or Europe in the 1930s?

Might it not happen again? ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
You know what just struck me?

This entire debate is basically centred around an incident where politicians suggested something to stop nasty Muslims, and people tended to nod their heads and say "yes, let's stop the nasty Muslims", and then someone suggested that actually it could apply to Christians as well and everyone started losing their shit.

This is a recurring theme in recent years.

---

Erm, the fundamental difference is that the 'nasty Muslims' (as you put it) are prone to blowing up buses and slicing the heads off people, whereas the Christians we are talking about are simply saying, 'actually we are of the opinion that marriage should only be one man and one woman.'

Spot the difference.
I don't see any Christians from the local Methodist church turning up to a registar's office on a wet Thursday afternoon wielding a meat cleaver with which to behead the groom and his husband, shouting 'Jesus is Lord!'

---

Yes because Christians have never committed acts of terrorism and all Muslims are terrorists.

What the actual fuck.

Probably doesn't help to counter accusations of homophobia with some fairly hugely Islamophobic comments.

---

Excuse me, but I am simply referring to Orfeo's point. I have not made any 'hugely Islamophobic comments'.

No one has said 'all Muslims are terrorists' at all!

How would you justify saying that a terrorist with a machete is in any way in the same group as a Christian simply saying they don't agree with the change of law regarding marriage.

Have you EVER seen Christian in the UK doing acts of extreme violence against anyone in order to protest against same sex marriage? Specifically?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

---

quote:

---

This entire debate is basically centred around an incident where politicians suggested something to stop nasty Muslims, and people tended to nod their heads and say "yes, let's stop the nasty Muslims"

---

quote:

---

the 'nasty Muslims' (as you put it)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Nobody else *on this thread* is comparing terrorism and people disagreeing on marriage equality.

It is a very convenient fantasy to imagine Christians (the 'right kind of Christian' of course because it's inconvenient that other Christians might support marriage equality or other progressive ideas) being persecuted under equality legislation. But it is just that, a fantasy, because equality legislation protects Christians too - and far more than we need eg regarding disability rights.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The term the Home Secretary used was "Those who spread 'poisonous hatred'". Mark Spencer wrote a rabble-rousing letter to a constituent reflecting his opinion of how legislation could be used, subject to judicial interpretation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Nobody else *on this thread* is comparing terrorism and people disagreeing on marriage equality.

It is a very convenient fantasy to imagine Christians (the 'right kind of Christian' of course because it's inconvenient that other Christians might support marriage equality or other progressive ideas) being persecuted under equality legislation. But it is just that, a fantasy, because equality legislation protects Christians too - and far more than we need eg regarding disability rights.

---

I haven't said they did!
It's the Home Secretary and that MP that are.

My only complaint on this thread is that some people are defining the word 'extremist' as someone simply holding extreme, unfashionable or objectionable views.

Holding such views - even if they are objectionable - does not make one a radical extremist with terrorist sympathies, which is what the legislation will do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Also regarding 'anti-terrorism' legislation which consists of harassing university Islamic Societies etc, there should of course be equal, fair scrutiny given to other religious societies eg Christian Unions. CUs are as capable of just as much extremism as ISocs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The term the Home Secretary used was "Those who spread 'poisonous hatred'". Mark Spencer wrote a rabble-rousing letter to a constituent reflecting his opinion of how legislation could be used, subject to judicial interpretation.

---

And my point is that the Home Secretary could use the term 'poisonous hatred' and apply it to any opinion that the Government suddenly doesn't like.

It was not 'poisonous hatred' to say 'one man, one woman' two years ago. Suddenly, because the government deems it to be otherwise, such an opinion held by a significant number of people - a belief according to conscience - is now 'poisonous hatred'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Also regarding 'anti-terrorism' legislation which consists of harassing university Islamic Societies etc, there should of course be equal, fair scrutiny given to other religious societies eg Christian Unions. CUs are as capable of just as much extremism as ISocs.

---

I'm sorry? Are you serious?

Can you give an actual example of a Christian terrorist group, an actual terrorist training camp, that has recruited Christians from a university CU and sent them to train with weapons to fight a crusade???

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Disagreeing that marriage should remain defined as a union between one man and one woman is not homophobic. I'm not aware that I or anyone on this thread has made any judgment about homosexuality.

Along with a lot of gay people I believe civil partnerships are a just and important way of committing to one another legally and publicly. I know there are some men who celebrated their CP as something wonderful and life-changing who are upset that their CPs are now seen as second rate compared to the new 'marriage.'

It is not just a certain type of Christian that rejects the idea of same sex marriage. A lot of others also fail to see the reasoning behind it all. Are they homophobic?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Also regarding 'anti-terrorism' legislation which consists of harassing university Islamic Societies etc, there should of course be equal, fair scrutiny given to other religious societies eg Christian Unions. CUs are as capable of just as much extremism as ISocs.

---

I'm sorry? Are you serious?

Can you give an actual example of a Christian terrorist group, an actual terrorist training camp, that has recruited Christians from a university CU and sent them to train with weapons to fight a crusade???

---

You realise that that ISocs recruiting for terrorist training camps is vanishingly rare, right? And that most ISoc members get together for, erm, prayer. That well-known terrorist activity.

Meanwhile I have heard genuine threats inc bodily harm/wanting to implement the death penalty against gay people, Jews, atheists, sex workers, and various world leaders within CU meetings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Also regarding 'anti-terrorism' legislation which consists of harassing university Islamic Societies etc, there should of course be equal, fair scrutiny given to other religious societies eg Christian Unions. CUs are as capable of just as much extremism as ISocs.

---

I'm sorry? Are you serious?

Can you give an actual example of a Christian terrorist group, an actual terrorist training camp, that has recruited Christians from a university CU and sent them to train with weapons to fight a crusade???

---

You realise that that ISocs recruiting for terrorist training camps is vanishingly rare, right? And that most ISoc members get together for, erm, prayer. That well-known terrorist activity.

Meanwhile I have heard genuine threats inc bodily harm/wanting to implement the death penalty against gay people, Jews, atheists, sex workers, and various world leaders within CU meetings.

---

Erm... YOU brought up the issue of Isocs, not me. And now you're saying it doesn't happen?

Have you actually sat in a CU meeting where they called for gay people, Jews, atheists, sex-workers and world leaders to be killed??

Really sat there and listened to the Christian youth there advocating this? Shouting it, praying for it, singing to Jesus to allow it happen?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Disagreeing that marriage should remain defined as a union between one man and one woman is not homophobic. I'm not aware that I or anyone on this thread has made any judgment about homosexuality.

Along with a lot of gay people I believe civil partnerships are a just and important way of committing to one another legally and publicly. I know there are some men who celebrated their CP as something wonderful and life-changing who are upset that their CPs are now seen as second rate compared to the new 'marriage.'

It is not just a certain type of Christian that rejects the idea of same sex marriage. A lot of others also fail to see the reasoning behind it all. Are they homophobic?

---

The point behind the 'certain type of Christian' comment was that you seem to be totally ignoring the fact that many Christians are both LGBT and/or fine with marriage equality - because it's inconvenient to your argument. There are Christians who want the death penalty against gay people, Christians in this country - that is the type of homophobia I am talking about. Not plain disagreement over marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

And yes, really - I have genuinely listened to Christians at CU meetings praying for these things. Mostly cessationist so not really into big singing about it, but definitely and clearly supporting and asking God for these things.

In certain circles these views are really not unusual. You are lucky enough to not have experienced them, but they exist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Disagreeing that marriage should remain defined as a union between one man and one woman is not homophobic. I'm not aware that I or anyone on this thread has made any judgment about homosexuality.

Along with a lot of gay people I believe civil partnerships are a just and important way of committing to one another legally and publicly. I know there are some men who celebrated their CP as something wonderful and life-changing who are upset that their CPs are now seen as second rate compared to the new 'marriage.'

It is not just a certain type of Christian that rejects the idea of same sex marriage. A lot of others also fail to see the reasoning behind it all. Are they homophobic?

---

The point behind the 'certain type of Christian' comment was that you seem to be totally ignoring the fact that many Christians are both LGBT and/or fine with marriage equality - because it's inconvenient to your argument. There are Christians who want the death penalty against gay people, Christians in this country - that is the type of homophobia I am talking about. Not plain disagreement over marriage.

---

I think you keep raising straw men because you won't address the OP

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

And yes, really - I have genuinely listened to Christians at CU meetings praying for these things. Mostly cessationist so not really into big singing about it, but definitely and clearly supporting and asking God for these things.

In certain circles these views are really not unusual. You are lucky enough to not have experienced them, but they exist.

---

I find it very, very hard to believe.
I also find it hard to believe because had you heard this stuff then surely you would have complained to the authorites.

And what's with 'cessationists' anyway? Why would someone who believed the gifts of the Holy Spirit had ceased with the Apostles suddenly want Jews and atheists killed?

Seriously? They were praying, Lord kill all atheists?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Nobody else *on this thread* is comparing terrorism and people disagreeing on marriage equality.

It is a very convenient fantasy to imagine Christians (the 'right kind of Christian' of course because it's inconvenient that other Christians might support marriage equality or other progressive ideas) being persecuted under equality legislation. But it is just that, a fantasy, because equality legislation protects Christians too - and far more than we need eg regarding disability rights.

---

I haven't said they did!
It's the Home Secretary and that MP that are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
But yes, there were prayers for particular groups to be wiped out/have the death penalty against them/be killed and eaten by worms (like Jehu, is it?). Really. Honestly. I have heard it in particularly conservative churches too.

---

Really? I'm a lifelong evangelical who has often been at odds with the more conservative elements of my faith, and I have certainly encountered views from some fellow evangelicals that I find objectionable. I didn't fit in with my university CU because they were too conservative for me. But I never experienced anything as extreme as that, actually PRAYING for people-groups to be wiped out. Holy cow!

Not denying that was your experience, of course.

I do remember, in my university days, a Campus Crusade for Christ guy (I can't remember if this was in the UK or US) getting into hot water for saying that the Holocaust was God's judgment on the Jews for rejecting Jesus. He got a HUGE bollocking for this, rightly so, both in the secular press and from other Christians - I can't remember the details now but I think CC was forced to apologise for such appalling anti-Semitism. I remember thinking at the time, "good grief, some of my fellow evangelicals have really awful views." In fact, that was a wake-up call for me. It was my first introduction to the reality of anti-Semitism in the church. I started to examine my own tradition more critically, and began to realise that we evangelicals weren't always all that, despite the talk about being born again.

quote:

---

There is certainly an extremist underbelly to Christianity in the UK - it is rare and not seen often, for which I am grateful. But it is real and scary and genuinely harming people. I appreciate that your strand of evangelicalism is very moderate and probably doesn't attract too many fringe types, but the fringes do exist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Erm, the fundamental difference is that the 'nasty Muslims' (as you put it) are prone to blowing up buses and slicing the heads off people, whereas the Christians we are talking about are simply saying, 'actually we are of the opinion that marriage should only be one man and one woman.'

Spot the difference.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The difference declaring that some disaster is the judgement of God on a country that passes equal marriage legislation and actually causing such a disaster because that's "God's judgement" isn't all that great.

---

quote:

---

The difference between intimidatory picketting of funerals and intimidation at the point of a gun is also not that great.

---

quote:

---

Or, the difference between wearing a suicide bomb and wearing a white sheet to lynch people of a different racial group.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm still trying to straighten this out. If you tell an eleven year old student that she's "gonna burn in hell real bad", is it okay to say that if you think she's homosexual but not okay if you're saying it because you think she's a Muslim? Or is it the other way around? Or are both actions okay because they're less "extreme" than decapitating the student?

---

Neither actions are okay. And that bus driver was absolutely awful. But obviously her bullying nastiness IS, actually, far less extreme than actually decapitating a child.

I once had a well-intentioned young Muslim wave a pamphlet in my face and exhort me to give up alcohol and embrace Islam because I'd be so much happier. I smiled sweetly at him, said "not today, mate," and walked on. If he'd told me I was going to hell, I'd have rolled my eyes, and walked on. Would that have been an extremist attitude on his part? - yes, I think it would have been. But it's not even close to someone actually wanting to behead me, is it?

Objectionable ideas do not lead AUTOMATICALLY to extreme acts of violence. Of course they can do. But not necessarily.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The difference declaring that some disaster is the judgement of God on a country that passes equal marriage legislation and actually causing such a disaster because that's "God's judgement" isn't all that great.

---

Do you really believe that? IMO, that's an absurd opinion. One is a nasty and rather sad bunch of no-hopers waving placards, and the other is dead people.

quote:

---

The difference between intimidatory picketting of funerals and intimidation at the point of a gun is also not that great.

---

Again, there's a pretty big difference between threatening someone with a gun and waving an offensive placard at them.

quote:

---

Or, the difference between wearing a suicide bomb and wearing a white sheet to lynch people of a different racial group.

---

Now, this one is pretty similar.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:
Neither actions are okay. And that bus driver was absolutely awful. But obviously her bullying nastiness IS, actually, far less extreme than actually decapitating a child.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:
I once had a well-intentioned young Muslim wave a pamphlet in my face and exhort me to give up alcohol and embrace Islam because I'd be so much happier. I smiled sweetly at him, said "not today, mate," and walked on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The term the Home Secretary used was "Those who spread 'poisonous hatred'". Mark Spencer wrote a rabble-rousing letter to a constituent reflecting his opinion of how legislation could be used, subject to judicial interpretation.

---

And my point is that the Home Secretary could use the term 'poisonous hatred' and apply it to any opinion that the Government suddenly doesn't like.

It was not 'poisonous hatred' to say 'one man, one woman' two years ago. Suddenly, because the government deems it to be otherwise, such an opinion held by a significant number of people - a belief according to conscience - is now 'poisonous hatred'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
You know what just struck me?

This entire debate is basically centred around an incident where politicians suggested something to stop nasty Muslims, and people tended to nod their heads and say "yes, let's stop the nasty Muslims", and then someone suggested that actually it could apply to Christians as well and everyone started losing their shit.

This is a recurring theme in recent years.

---

Erm, the fundamental difference is that the 'nasty Muslims' (as you put it) are prone to blowing up buses and slicing the heads off people, whereas the Christians we are talking about are simply saying, 'actually we are of the opinion that marriage should only be one man and one woman.'

Spot the difference.
I don't see any Christians from the local Methodist church turning up to a registar's office on a wet Thursday afternoon wielding a meat cleaver with which to behead the groom and his husband, shouting 'Jesus is Lord!'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The difference between intimidatory picketting of funerals and intimidation at the point of a gun is also not that great.

---

Again, there's a pretty big difference between threatening someone with a gun and waving an offensive placard at them.

---

quote:

---

More than 200 protesters, some armed, berated Islam and its Prophet Mohammed outside an Arizona mosque on Friday in a provocative protest that was denounced by counterprotesters shouting "Go home, Nazis," weeks after an anti-Muslim event in Texas came under attack by two gunmen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I think once you've resorted to the argument that certain actions aren't extreme when compared with the brutal summary execution of a minor you've implicitly conceded that those actions would be considered extreme by most other standards.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:
Slightly different situation since he was some random person in the street rather than someone who had a good deal of administrative power over you, as was the case with the student.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

"Those who spread 'poisonous hatred'". Which is a long way along the spectrum from those who disagree with the definition of a word.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

[..]having someone waving placards saying your loved ones are burning in hell, or that the nation is under judgement of God is a very vindictive and hurtful act.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Is this an intimidating action, since the demonstrators were armed? Or inoffensive, because all they did in the end was "wave placcards"? And is that something that's easily discernible as soon as the crowd shows up?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
But I think Mudfrog should have asked -

"What about The Salvation Army which, alongside other churches, has in the last year re-confirmed its belief that marriage is the New Testament standard of the voluntary union of one man to one woman for life to the exclusion of all others?

Are we wrong now?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The problem is that people who 30 years ago - sorry, TWO years ago - held a reasonable, allowable and, more pertinently, legally-supported view, i.e. marriage is a heterosexual union, now find themselves labelled as extremists and targetted by exactly the same law that targets the people who use Youtube to show Christians being beheaded - and they haven't even said anything yet!!

These people - and I count myself as one of them - simply believe that marriage should be defined one particular way: the way it's been defined by common acceptance until 2 years ago.

They haven't altered their views, they haven't campaigned to change any laws, they haven't demanded legislation, etc. They've simply just been themselves and now they are being condemned as extremists overnight simply because they believe something that was perfectly OK a couple of years ago.

If these people - most of whom haven't even thought the issues through - are suddenly extremists, it's in no way because they have suddenly moved to that position!

They (we) have stayed exactly where we were all along and it's the government that has suddenly run off into the far extreme corner and is now shouting at us from a distance through a megaphone for being extreme!!!

It's not us that moved, it's you bloody lot!!
What are you going to do, send us for reprogramming? Re-educating? Assimilation??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

It's not us that moved, it's you bloody lot!!
What are you going to do, send us for reprogramming? Re-educating? Assimilation??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

An extremist? Me?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And it's like entropy. The arrow only points one way. Once we know and accept that it is not right to, say, (as in Leviticus) kill our daughters if they sleep around then you can't ever go and take a gun to the little slut. I don't think fashion or the popular culture or the zeitgeist will ever come around again, to where it is OK to enslave people. Tons of stuff in the Bible is simply no longer doable, so many things that there are entire web pages devoted to listing them.

---

(emphasis mine)

Did you really mean that?

 

---

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Um. I am thinking of time's arrow. The second law of thermodynamics. My novel. In which the time traveling theologian does find an out. You want to rape your slaves? Go back in time, to the Roman Empire, where it is entirely legal and everybody does it. Shop, up and down the time line, for a morality that you like. (Because it is a novel, it does not work out well.)
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

An extremist? Me?

---

You are not an extremist if you are not messing with other people or their stuff. You would just be someone with an opinion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Because they are wrong on this point, and need to update their thinking.

I think it's always a good idea to re-evaluate our beliefs in the light of more recent data. That is, there's nothing wrong or harmful in homosexual sex.

Catch up SA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
In fields such science and technology, it is reasonable to assume that the latest is the best.

There is no basis for such an assumption in a field such as ethics, except that of fashion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Because they are wrong on this point, and need to update their thinking.

I think it's always a good idea to re-evaluate our beliefs in the light of more recent data. That is, there's nothing wrong or harmful in homosexual sex.

Catch up SA.

---

In fields such science and technology, it is reasonable to assume that the latest is the best.

There is no basis for such an assumption in a field such as ethics, except that of fashion.

C.S. Lewis called it "chronological snobbery".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
In this context, of course, the assumed fact has been that homosexuality is some kind of choice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
In this context, of course, the assumed fact has been that homosexuality is some kind of choice.

---

Same sex attraction is not a choice.

Homosexual practice is, and can therefore legitimately be subject to ethical discourse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
In this context, of course, the assumed fact has been that homosexuality is some kind of choice.

---

Same sex attraction is not a choice.

Homosexual practice is, and can therefore legitimately be subject to ethical discourse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Not if we are talking about equality we can't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
The point I'm making is that the ethical discourse of previous generations has not been on the basis that same attraction is not a choice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Not if we are talking about equality we can't.

---

Equality is relevant at the legal and political level, but is has nothing to do with personal ethics.

It is perfectly possible to believe (as I do)that in a liberal, pluralist society no-one should be punished for their sexual choices, but that it is not irrational or unethical to believe and teach that people should choose to act in certain ways, including abstaining from homosexual sex or from .

It would be unfair for Muslims to prevent me from enjoying a glass of red, but there is nothing unjust or irrational about their saying publicly that I shouldn't - that is their prerogative in an open society - and if that makes me feel badly about myself for having a drink, then too bad, because that is the price of freedom.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
The point I'm making is that the ethical discourse of previous generations has not been on the basis that same attraction is not a choice.

---

Whether or not the givenness of same sex attraction was recognised in the past is not relevant.

The pertinent point is that a choice of action has always been recognised, and therefore a range of ethical opinions regarding that choice is permissible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
You are still speaking the language of choice here.

Abstaining from unmarried or polygamous heterosexual sex is perfectly doable.

Asking homosexual people to abstain from all sex (even married monogamous sex) is removing all choice from them and is totally cruel and unethical.

---

quote:

---

I am incredulous that it's Christians who are peddling this line, it's so deeply unchristlike.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Which makes sense while you see homosexuals as basically disordered heterosexuals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

For two thousand years, up until a few decades ago, there was a Christian consensus on the issue, and even today the overwhelming majority of Christians in the two-thirds world, as well as a considerable proportion of those in the West, continue to believe that the Bible forbids it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Which makes sense while you see homosexuals as basically disordered heterosexuals.

---

I am arguing from the historic Christian position, which is not dependent on seeing homosexuals as disordered heterosexuals, or any other theory of homosexuality, but on an understanding that the Bible forbids homosexual sex.

---

quote:

---

Do you know any theology, scripture or church history at all?

For two thousand years, up until a few decades ago, there was a Christian consensus on the issue

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Which makes sense while you see homosexuals as basically disordered heterosexuals.

---

I am arguing from the historic Christian position, which is not dependent on seeing homosexuals as disordered heterosexuals, or any other theory of homosexuality, but on an understanding that the Bible forbids homosexual sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... Have you EVER seen Christian in the UK doing acts of extreme violence against anyone in order to protest against same sex marriage? Specifically?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... For two thousand years, up until a few decades ago, there was a Christian consensus on the issue, and even today the overwhelming majority of Christians in the two-thirds world, as well as a considerable proportion of those in the West, continue to believe that the Bible forbids it. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... Have you EVER seen Christian in the UK doing acts of extreme violence against anyone in order to protest against same sex marriage? Specifically?

---

I'm afraid the most positive answer I have for that question is "not yet".

---

quote:

---

Not quite - 1 Cor wasn't interpreted as being about homosexuals for 1900 see here

---

quote:

---

For 1,900 years, malakos and arsenokoites were not translated as “homosexuals.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shpatari:
And that, I submit, is the nub of the matter: "gay" isn't something you "are", it's something you do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shpatari:
And that, I submit, is the nub of the matter: "gay" isn't something you "are", it's something you do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shpatari:
In 1560 the Geneva Bible rendered arsenokoitai as "buggerers" in both 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
That was a crucial part of believing that the Bible banned homosexual sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... one of Britain's foremeost church historians, who trained for the Anglican ministry and is a practising homosexual ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It is perfectly possible to believe simply that the Bible forbids the practice of homosexual sex without holding any particular theory about same sex attraction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shpatari:
"gay" isn't something you "are", it's something you do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Diarmaid MacCulloch, one of Britain's foremeost church historians, who trained for the Anglican ministry and is a practising homosexual

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
You do realise that most anal sex going on in the world is man-on-woman?

Not including when people use toys of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[QUOTE]]How much practice do you think he needs before he becomes an actual homosexual?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
For a very long time, people based their view on same sex attraction on the view that homosexuals were basically heterosexuals gone wrong, and they would read Romans 1 as support for this. Once you accept that homosexuals are not "heterosexuals gone wrong", they're homosexuals who have always been homosexual, that's a major game-changer.

For starters, most of the notions of the "ex-gay" movement fall away because they were based on trying to "fix" people - it wasn't just about turning them into heterosexuals, it was about turning them back into heterosexuals, taking the view that being heterosexual was their proper state.

---

quote:

---

If some other form of sexual deviance (?necrophilia?) [/QB]

---

I object strongly to you equating the two.

Sexual deviance causes harm. There is no deviance and no harm in LGBT people.

I don't think any proof is needed. Homosexuals tell us they didn't choose to be so. I believe them. So should you, so should the Church.



 

---

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
When you try to enforce your personal views or your church's views on non-members through force of law, or in a way that encourages violence or discrimination by the general public, you become an extremist. Full stop.
 

---

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Hi orfeo. ... Just to be clear, are you saying that we now know that homosexuality is inbuilt ? That science has proven that it's genetic ? ...
If some other form of sexual deviance (?necrophilia?) could be shown to be genetic, natural, the way that the person was properly intended to be, would that make it morally OK ?

Best wishes,

Russ

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
... Neither extreme is true. It is not true that new scientific understanding invalidates all previous morals. Neither is it true that moral positions ought to be impervious to new scientific understanding. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I have quoted before Diarmaid MacCulloch, one of Britain's foremeost church historians, who trained for the Anglican ministry and is a practising homosexual: "Despite much well-intentioned theological fancy footwork to the contrary, it is difficult to see the Bible as expressing anything else but disapproval of homosexual activity".

His words don't prove anything, but they serve as areminder that a belief in the Bible's ban on homosexual sex cannot be dismissed as the mere prejudice of the ignorant and the "homophobic".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shpatari:
In 1560 the Geneva Bible rendered arsenokoitai as "buggerers" in both 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy.

---

You do realise that most anal sex going on in the world is man-on-woman?.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shpatari:

quote:

---

Not quite - 1 Cor wasn't interpreted as being about homosexuals for 1900 see here

---

To quote word for word from the link:

quote:

---

For 1,900 years, malakos and arsenokoites were not translated as “homosexuals.”

---

Which is pedantically true only as an empty debating point, since the term "homosexual" wasn't coined until at least 1890.

But in any other sense, including Leo's paraphrase, the link author is wrong. In 1560 the Geneva Bible rendered arsenokoitai as "buggerers" in both 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy.

---

And what is 'buggery'? Historically, it referred to any sex that was non-procreative.

In whuich case the Roman Catholics are oin to something when they forbid contraceptiopn.

I don't hear fundamentalists using 1 Corinthians to condemn straight people having sex while on the pill.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Russ,

The science says homosexuality is innate. I know, accepting science is a scary thing. Next thing you know, people are believing that the earth is more than a few thousand years old, Jesus didn't ride dinosaurs and the moon landings are real.

Hammer on about paraphilia all you wish, but research doesn't back your claim.

This preoccupation some Christians have with homosexuality is at least inconsistent, but truly more dishonest.

[ 09. August 2015, 15:23: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 

---

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
I believe that a recent and very reputable academic survey of British sexual behaviour described anal sex as 'like swimming in the sea at Blackpool'- something that many people try for the experience without necessarily going on to make a habit of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The science says homosexuality is innate.

---

quote:

---

Hammer on about paraphilia all you wish, but research doesn't back your claim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Sexual deviance causes harm.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The science says homosexuality is innate.

---

Thank you for the link, lilBuddha. But from my quick scan,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

it seems to say that
a) there is no consensus among scientists

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

b) the leading theory is that some people are genetically susceptible, but that post-natal experience plays a role.
Which is not the same thing.

---

quote:

---

The Royal College of Psychiatrists considers that sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors. There is no evidence to go beyond this and impute any kind of choice into the origins of sexual orientation

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

I'm not claiming anything. Boogie seemed to be suggesting that modern society's non-traditional

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Wherever two or three homophobes are gathered, misogyny was there first.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... one of Britain's foremeost church historians, who trained for the Anglican ministry and is a practising homosexual ...

---

Funny, you never hear people described as practising heterosexuals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Neither is it true that moral positions ought to be impervious to new scientific understanding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Just to be clear, are you saying that we now know that homosexuality is inbuilt ? That science has proven that it's genetic ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Orfeo is objecting to the idea that homosexuals are heterosexuals who have gone wrong.

---

quote:

---

Believing that homosexuality and heterosexuality have genetic determinants is not necessary for that belief...
...liken homosexuality to genetically hereditable diseases. And we do our best to treat sickle cell anaemia and haemophilia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Sexual deviance causes harm.

---

What's the harm in a bit of necrophilia ?...

---

No consent.

There's no consent in pedophilia or bestiality either. Comparing them is insulting and just plain wrong. It's saying that a queer person's partner is equivalent to a corpse or a dog, and that the love they share is equivalent to raping a child. Cut it out.



 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
You know, given the problems inherent in heterosexual relationships, sure seems that they are suffering. Should we work on a cure for them?
Your language is ignorant and insulting.
Why can't Christians simply admit that this particular belief has no basis in reality? Religion isn't science. And morality is subjective.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

... if homosexuality could be shown to be the result of a flawed copy of a particular gene, then scientists would try to cure it (although it would be for individual sufferers of the condition and their families to decide whether the pain of the cure was preferable to living with the condition).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
What's the harm in a bit of necrophilia ?...

---

No consent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
In order for Orfeo's belief to follow from the evidence it would have to be demonstrated that the genetic cause of his homosexuality was so bound up with all the other genetic information that makes him who he is that the very concept of a "cured" heterosexual Orfeo - the person he would be if this hadn't happened to him - is meaningless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
You do realise that most anal sex going on in the world is man-on-woman?

Not including when people use toys of course.

---

I'm intrigued. Are there stats available on this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Neither is it true that moral positions ought to be impervious to new scientific understanding.

---

Science can tell us nothing about morality or ethics, and to pretend that it can is scientism, not science.

It can provide information which is relevant to moral decision-making, eg telling us that animals feel pain, which in the past was sometimes denied, by philosophers if not scientists.

The scientific fact that same sex attraction is innate tells us nothing one way or the other about whether homosexual sex is right or wrong.

Likewise a scientific demonstration that evolution has hardwired males to be polygamous would tell us nothing about whether or not adultery is wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Neither is it true that moral positions ought to be impervious to new scientific understanding.

---

Science can tell us nothing about morality or ethics, and to pretend that it can is scientism, not science.

It can provide information which is relevant to moral decision-making, eg telling us that animals feel pain, which in the past was sometimes denied, by philosophers if not scientists.

The scientific fact that same sex attraction is innate tells us nothing one way or the other about whether homosexual sex is right or wrong.

Likewise a scientific demonstration that evolution has hardwired males to be polygamous would tell us nothing about whether or not adultery is wrong.

---

All this tells me is that you are wrong.

If you can't see how it's possible for science to undercut a premise that is involved in arriving at a moral/ethical conclusion, then this conversation is utterly hopeless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Similarly, to the extent that homosexuality is caused by early-years experiences, it is meaningful to try to restore the person to who they would have been had those particular experiences not happened.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Believing that homosexuality and heterosexuality have genetic determinants is not necessary for that belief...
...liken homosexuality to genetically hereditable diseases. And we do our best to treat sickle cell anaemia and haemophilia.

---

your example here shows that for homosexuality to be genetic is not sufficient to support that belief.

---

quote:

---

You're right that if homosexuality could be shown to be the result of a flawed copy of a particular gene, then scientists would try to cure it (although it would be for individual sufferers of the condition and their families to decide whether the pain of the cure was preferable to living with the condition).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Either science is capable of providing relevant information or it isn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... It is not the job of Christians to take an attitude of moralistic superiority to Hindus, because we are all guilty of sins as bad or worse than worshipping false deities, but likewise they cannot pretend that such worship is not wrong, and not in need of God’s forgiving grace.

I don’t think I need to spell out the analogy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
So where do the initial ethical premises come from?

For Christians they come, as far as possible, from the Bible, which all traditions believe to be prescriptive in some way, or at some level - it is not the only source of revelation, but it is far and away the most basic and the most detailed.

For example, the Bible teaches that it is wrong to worship idols, or any other gods except for the one revealed in the Bible.

I worked in India for years, and I have known countless observant Hindus who worshipped one or more of the gods in the Hindu pantheon, most of whom were fine people, leading harmless, useful and fulfilling lives, and many of whom were much nicer people than many Christians I know.

I want Hindus in Australia, and elsewhere outside India, to enjoy the same freedom of belief and practice as Christians, and members of all other religions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... It is not the job of Christians to take an attitude of moralistic superiority to Hindus, because we are all guilty of sins as bad or worse than worshipping false deities, but likewise they cannot pretend that such worship is not wrong, and not in need of God’s forgiving grace.

I don’t think I need to spell out the analogy.

---

They're. Not. Pretending. They really are Hindus. It's not like every Hindu is thinking, "I know the Christian God is the real one, but I'm going to be a Hindu anyway and just pretend Ganesha is a real god and it'll all be fine."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I think KC is suffering from pronoun failure, intending "they" to refer back to "Christians"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
You know freedom of worship is also condemned by the Bible as unethical, right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Either science is capable of providing relevant information or it isn't.

---

I think your confusion arises from your failure to grasp the distinction between science’s ability to shed light on the implications and conclusions which flow from any given ethical premise, and science’s inability to provide any ethical premises in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
You know freedom of worship is also condemned by the Bible as unethical, right?

---

Wrong.

True under the OT theocratic covenant, but superseded by the NT, which does not contain one single verse enjoining Christians to use political, legal or any other coercive means to propagate or defend their faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... Have you EVER seen Christian in the UK doing acts of extreme violence against anyone in order to protest against same sex marriage? Specifically?

---

I'm afraid the most positive answer I have for that question is "not yet".

---

What are they waiting for? SSM is already legal here. What would be gained by unleashing pent-up Christian violence several years from now when everyone's bored by the issue?

---

They're waiting for hard times so they can blame the gays and it will be a lot easier to spot them if they're married with kids. The mild tolerance for homosexuals in the twenties and thirties was replaced with persecution in the fifties.


I think part of the fear that people like Mudfrog have is that others will treat a Christian minority the way historic Christians treated homosexuals, Jews and other Christian denominations. I can see it's a scary thought.

Is the alternative to being an extremist is to be mediocre?

[ 11. August 2015, 03:44: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
You know freedom of worship is also condemned by the Bible as unethical, right?

---

Wrong.

True under the OT theocratic covenant, but superseded by the NT, which does not contain one single verse enjoining Christians to use political, legal or any other coercive means to propagate or defend their faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
You know freedom of worship is also condemned by the Bible as unethical, right?

---

Wrong.

True under the OT theocratic covenant, but superseded by the NT, which does not contain one single verse enjoining Christians to use political, legal or any other coercive means to propagate or defend their faith.

---

So God is incompetent?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Seems inconsistent to claim that the part about idols is still valid but the part about not worshiping other gods is optional.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

There is in fact an argument that the New Testament represents a final covenant with us. However, it does raise some significant questions about all the covenants in the OT, what they were for and what their status is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
What I suggested was that science could throw the basis for an ethical premise into doubt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Putting aside for a minute any theory of whether or not the Bible was inspired by an omniscient God who knows a little about such things, the idea that the writers of the Bible would not have condemned homosexual sex if they had known about innate same sex attraction rather defies credulity.

---

Why? Because they were all homophobes? Because they were all impervious to facts and data?

I find it fascinating when people run this kind of argument, because when it comes to issues like slavery the response is very different. When Kevin Rudd suggested that the Bible was okay with slavery, conservative Christians all over Australia positively fell over themselves in their efforts to deny that this was what the Bible actually said, and to excuse the attitudes of the writers of the Bible a couple of thousand years earlier.

How they managed to do this when, for example, one of Paul's letters is all about getting a slave to return to his master is a truly enlightening exercise in double standards.

[ 11. August 2015, 07:48: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
On a practical level, if we accept that whilst a homosexual orientation isn't the 'fault' of anyone with that orientation, how do we then insist that the onus is on them not to express that orientation physically?

It's all very well and good saying, 'Well, the Bible insists on faithfulness and monogamy within heterosexual marriage - therefore the partners in such a marriage should restrain any polyamorous urges they may experience ...'

Fine. But we're not comparing like-with-like ... what we are asking married couples to do isn't to refrain from sex at all, but to restrain from sex with anyone they aren't married to ...

What we seem to be asking people with a homosexual orientation - which we seem to agree they have through no 'fault' of their own - is to refrain from any sexual activity whatsoever.

Are we prepared to apply that same rule to ourselves? Those of us who aren't monks or nuns but married?



Sure, 'some have made themselves as eunuchs for the kingdom of God ...' but we have to remember too that this is 'a hard saying' ... who can accept it? Can any of us do so without great dollops of grace to enable us to do so?

It's hard to make out, if one takes a conservative view of scripture that the Bible takes a neutral or positive view of homosexual activity -- we can't 'make' it say otherwise - but we have to try and work out what to do and how to live in the light of that.

How many of us who are heterosexual would willingly embrace celibacy? A monk or a nun has a choice in the matter. Are we saying to someone with a same-sex orientation that they have no choice in the matter? There is no possible way for them to express their sexuality in any way, shape or form. Celibacy is the only option. Even though they didn't 'choose' their orientation?

Are we prepared to be as harsh with ourselves?

How does this fit with 'judge not lest ye also be judged?'

I'm still pretty conservative theologically but this whole area really bothers me.

What some of us seem to be saying is that there's one rule for us as heterosexuals and quite another for those who have a same-sex orientation - even if that orientation is innate and as much part and parcel of who they are as our heterosexual orientation is of who we are ...

I'm finding it very difficult to see how we can adopt such a stance without:

- Becoming judgemental and appearing 'holier than thou'.

- Causing upset, distress and even pyschological damage to those who, for whatever reason, are unable to accept this 'hard saying'.

I really can't see any way around this ...
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Seems inconsistent to claim that the part about idols is still valid but the part about not worshiping other gods is optional.

---

The worshipping of idols and other gods has always been wrong, and still is, but since the advent of Christianity there have been no scriptural grounds for forcing this principle on non-Christians against their will.

There is no justification in the NT for some sort of church/state theocracy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The problem is that in the opinion of most Christians, past and present, on the face of it the Bible condemns the activity itself

---

You seem to be pursuing two mutually contradictory lines of argument here. First there's your "the First Testament doesn't count, except when it does", which seems rather dubious given the decision to retain it in the canon. Second, if "the opinion of most Christians, past and present" is dispositive in these sorts of questions then Christianity does, in fact, permit using the apparatus of the state to force non-Christians to adhere to Christian moral teachings.

I'll note you haven't answered my previous question: Is there any verse in either Testament that expressly forbids the establishment of a theocracy?

To bring this back to our Dead Horse question, you assert correctly that "the opinion of most Christians, past and present" is that homosexual sex is a sin against God and furthermore that it is legitimate to use criminal sanctions to enforce this belief. I'm not sure how you argue that a long-standing tradition of condemning homosexual sex demonstrates orthodoxy but a long-standing tradition demanding criminal penalties for homosexual sex can be ignored as somehow heretical.
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Fun fact: the Second Testament has no references to the wheel and only one reference to any kind of wheeled transport; the chariot owned by the (at the time) non-Christian Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8.

What are we to make of this interesting omission? Are we to conclude that since there are "no scriptural grounds" for Christians being permitted to use wheeled transport that such conveyances are forbidden? This would seem follow from KC's argument that anything not explicitly permitted by a passage in the New Testament is therefore forbidden. Or are we to take the fact that Philip didn't point out to our nameless Ethiopian after his conversion that Christians don't use chariots to be an implicit approval of the use of wheeled transport? And does this only apply to two-wheeled transport? Are bicycles and motorcycles okay but cars and buses forbidden? How far are we to take the Second Testament's silence on a subject as meaning that subject is forbidden to Christians?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Thing is, whatever our view is on whether we need 'chapter and verse' to support or repudiate a practice, the bottom-line is that sooner or later we are all going to come across people who are gay -- the issue then is, what do we say to them about the issue of whether it's possible/licit for them to have sex or not?

Because it's dead easy to take a party-line - or whatever line - what we see as a 'biblical line' of some kind - in the abstract - but when it comes to the concrete - to actual flesh and blood individuals ... it becomes harder to legislate in such clear cut terms.

That's how things work. Life is like that.

I began to develop a far more tolerant and understanding attitude towards people who are transgender or felt the need for 'gender realignment' even though I didn't - and don't - fully understand it - when a friend of mine - from my former full-on evangelical church - went through all of that.

I didn't 'get' it but he was still my friend - she is now still my friend.

I have no idea whether she expresses this sexually in any way - nor is it any of my business.

FWIW they are no longer a practising Christian but quite strongly and avowedly atheist - and I can understand why to a certain extent given the way some Christians dealt with the issue.

The point I'm making is that it's all very well and good waving texts around and telling people who have a particular orientation that they shouldn't have sex ...

What does that achieve?

How does that help them?

Are they better off not expressing themselves sexually or are they better off expressing that within a loving and hopefully faithful, monogamous relationship with a same-sex partner - if they are fortunate enough to find one?

What's the best thing in those circumstances? Remain celibate and live like a monk or nun even though they might not feel 'called' to a celibate life?

Or live with a partner?

Does 'it is better to marry than to burn' only apply to heterosexuals?

Might not the same principle apply to gay people?



The same thing happens with divorce and remarriage and with a whole load of other issues - we all make accommodations - however conservative we are in our theology.

Real life is messier than our theology.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Gamaliel
 

---

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I have no idea whether she expresses this sexually in any way - nor is it any of my business...

...Are they better off not expressing themselves sexually or are they better off expressing that within a loving and hopefully faithful, monogamous relationship with a same-sex partner - if they are fortunate enough to find one?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
... Publicly asserting you-must-accept-this-as-the-same-thing-as-your-sacrament is something else.
...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Individual Christians have always had the right to tell people, "You know you're not really married, right?" We know this because Christians regularly picket non-Christian wedding locations such as courthouses, synagogues, all-inclusive resorts, etc. and tell all those couples they're not properly sacramentally married and refuse to bake cakes and arrange flowers for them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
But someone who bakes wedding cakes for a living should be allowed to decline to bake a gay marriage cake.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


Real life is messier than our theology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
I don't want to condemn anyone for the personal choices they make in circumstances I don't have to deal with. Condemning spurious arguments is much more in my line...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'll note you haven't answered my previous question

---

quote:

---

To bring this back to our Dead Horse question, you assert correctly that "the opinion of most Christians, past and present" is that homosexual sex is a sin against God and furthermore that it is legitimate to use criminal sanctions to enforce this belief. I'm not sure how you argue that a long-standing tradition of condemning homosexual sex demonstrates orthodoxy but a long-standing tradition demanding criminal penalties for homosexual sex can be ignored as somehow heretical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Real life is messier than our theology.

---

This is certainly true Gamaliel but given your public evolution away from believing anything substantial at all where does that leave your theology if you still have any?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Because they were all impervious to facts and data?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
I don't want to condemn anyone for the personal choices they make in circumstances I don't have to deal with. Condemning spurious arguments is much more in my line...

---

Me too.

I think that homosexual sex is sinful and, to revisit my analogy from upthread, so is Hindu worship, but I don't go around thinking of men bonking or Hindus venerating idols, and how to stop them, first because I have better things to do, secondly because I am not convinced that they are the most serious problems in the world, thirdly because I am all too aware of my own shortcomings, which include more serious issues than homosexual sex or presenting offerings to Shiva; and finally because I value a pluralist culture in which everyone is as free as possible to do their own thing and to openly disagree with other people's choices.

However, I do get very pissed off with dodgy logic and dodgy theology, particularly when they carry the possibility of human rights abuses, which is why I do participate in discussions such as these.

To continue the analogy, I am content to follow a policy of live and let live with Hindus, with respectful dialogue and evangelism where possible, but if they formed a militant organisation to insist that Hinduism is compatible with Christianity; to harass and intimidate and label as Hinduphobic anyone who disagreed with them: and to push for "hate crime" legislation to back their agenda, then I would take them on too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

As I have said before, in the same way a knowledge of a near universal inbuilt polygamous, or at least polyamorous, inclination in heterosexual men is not incompatible with believing in monogamy and condemning adultery.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Because they were all impervious to facts and data?

---

Because a knowledge of innate same sex attraction is not logically incompatible with disapproving of homosexual sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The long standing condemnation of homosexual sex is in line with the Bible.

The long standing Christian support for criminalisation of homosexual sex was not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
I do not think there is any Biblical justification for any form of sin

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
you are treating the situation as if both 'sides' are on a level playing field.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The long standing condemnation of homosexual sex is in line with the Bible.

The long standing Christian support for criminalisation of homosexual sex was not.

---

Leviticus 20:13...you think putting people to death had nothing to do with criminal punishment???

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
a situation where the writers of the Bible were human beings rather than receivers of divine revelation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
...The NT does not rescind the OT condemnation of homosexuality, but it does rescind the OT concept of the people of God as some sort of church/state arrangement in which Christian morality is forced on society at large.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Real life is messier than our theology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
a situation where the writers of the Bible were human beings rather than receivers of divine revelation.

---

OK, suppose the OT writers, or any other group you might like to think of, believed that homosexual behaviour was self-evidently wrong on the basis of some sort of transcendent, but not theistic, natural law conviction.

If they then discovered that same sex attraction was innate for some people, they could conclude either a. that the existence of those people showed that there was something wrong with their convictions, or b. that their convictions showed there was something wrong with those people.

Logically, each conclusion is equally valid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Given that gays make up only about 1-2% of the population, from a purely statistical point of view the most suffering from celibacy by those who take the Bible's sexual ethics seriously is probably endured by heterosexuals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
No Christian institution is obliged to recognize a civil marriage, or a couple married by a rabbi, or a couple married by an Elvis impersonator in Las Vegas. This isn't the Act of Succession, where people will be executed if they don't take a public oath.

Individual Christians have always had the right to tell people, "You know you're not really married, right?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
But the process of logic requires that when new information comes to light, you re-check your premises, not just your conclusions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
But the process of logic requires that when new information comes to light, you re-check your premises, not just your conclusions.

---

Pedantically, that's not logic. It's good reasoning, but reasoning does not solely consist of logic. Logic just accepts premises as givens. This is why logic is both extremely powerful and extremely limited.

---

quote:

---

A soul will not stand before the Lord in the end as a gender defined soul

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Our church-warden came out as gay recently, just as he was stepping down for the role. The vicar called a special leadership team meeting to discuss the issue ... can you imagine what it must have felt like for him? A bunch of people sitting down to discuss his sexuality and what their response to it should be?

I'm amazed he didn't clear off to a different parish.

As it happens, he's been told he can still play the organ, come to communion, do everything else ... but as soon as he gets a boyfriend ... ah ah ... that's it, he's going to have to stand down ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Our church-warden came out as gay recently, just as he was stepping down for the role. The vicar called a special leadership team meeting to discuss the issue ... can you imagine what it must have felt like for him? A bunch of people sitting down to discuss his sexuality and what their response to it should be?

I'm amazed he didn't clear off to a different parish.

As it happens, he's been told he can still play the organ, come to communion, do everything else ... but as soon as he gets a boyfriend ... ah ah ... that's it, he's going to have to stand down ...

---

From the sound of that, there's no problem if he's out having casual sex with men he picks up/is picked up by at bars or wherever???????

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
you are treating the situation as if both 'sides' are on a level playing field.

---

On the contrary, I recognise that here in the West those who believe that homosexual sex is wrong are in a minority and on the defensive, even when they believe in pluralist toleration.

You might think this is poetic justice, but it is a fact nontheless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

To continue the analogy, I am content to follow a policy of live and let live with Hindus, with respectful dialogue and evangelism where possible, but if they formed a militant organisation to insist that Hinduism is compatible with Christianity; to harass and intimidate and label as Hinduphobic anyone who disagreed with them: and to push for "hate crime" legislation to back their agenda, then I would take them on too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
To continue the analogy, I am content to follow a policy of live and let live with Hindus, with respectful dialogue and evangelism where possible, but if they formed a militant organisation to insist that Hinduism is compatible with Christianity; to harass and intimidate and label as Hinduphobic anyone who disagreed with them: and to push for "hate crime" legislation to back their agenda, then I would take them on too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
No, there isn't a verse in the NT which says "Thou shalt not commit theocracy", but there doesn't need to be, because it is a perfectly reasonable inference that the absence of any direction for Christians to practice any coercion in their relations to others (ponderously laboured comparisons with wheels notwithstanding), along with directions which are incompatible with theocratic coercion, are sufficient to establish the principle.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The NT does not rescind the OT condemnation of homosexuality, but it does rescind the OT concept of the people of God as some sort of church/state arrangement in which Christian morality is forced on society at large.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It’s important to honestly face up to what the Bible teaches, and not try to fudge the issue by pretending it says what it doesn’t, but the actual application and practice is far more complex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Individual Christians have always had the right to tell people, "You know you're not really married, right?" We know this because Christians regularly picket non-Christian wedding locations such as courthouses, synagogues, all-inclusive resorts, etc. and tell all those couples they're not properly sacramentally married and refuse to bake cakes and arrange flowers for them.

---

They may have that right in your state; they don't have it here. Or, I gather, in every state in the US.

---

quote:

---

Picketing other people's wedding or civil partnership ceremony is wrong. It's trespassing in other people's lives.

---

quote:

---

But someone who bakes wedding cakes for a living should be allowed to decline to bake a gay marriage cake. They shouldn't be sued for deciding not to move into this new market. That's wrong, a breach of their freedom, an intrusion on their life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
... I think framing this as a question of people enjoying equal rights and not infringing each other's rights is a prime example of liberals justifying things on grounds nobody really cares about. ...

---

srsly?

So things like the right to vote or go to school or join a union or own property or get married are things "nobody really cares about". Gosh, it must be exhausting to have to drag that backpack of privilege everywhere.


 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
... I think framing this as a question of people enjoying equal rights and not infringing each other's rights is a prime example of liberals justifying things on grounds nobody really cares about. ...

---

srsly?

So things like the right to vote or go to school or join a union or own property or get married are things "nobody really cares about". Gosh, it must be exhausting to have to drag that backpack of privilege everywhere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Is this actually pertinent? That is, as I understand it, every mainstream Christian denomination thinks it is irrelevant where and how a couple got married. The Roman Catholic does claim that some marriages are not actual marriages because they were not entered into in the correct frame of mind, but as I understand it, being a Christian believer and married in a Christian ceremony is neither necessary nor sufficient as a correct frame of mind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Nobody cares about the right to vote because it allows them to not infringe other people's rights. They care about the right to vote because voting affirms them as citizens whose voice in their society is as valuable as any other.
But liberalism does not say that being a citizen whose voice is valuable is intrinsically valuable, and something to be affirmed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Nobody cares about the right to vote because it allows them to not infringe other people's rights. They care about the right to vote because voting affirms them as citizens whose voice in their society is as valuable as any other.
But liberalism does not say that being a citizen whose voice is valuable is intrinsically valuable, and something to be affirmed.

---

Pure bullshit. The concept of human liberty, particularly political liberty, is the basis for liberalism. That's where the term comes from. So yes, liberalism holds that the right to a voice in the affairs of state is intrinsically valued and to be affirmed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
But people do not campaign passionately for bureaucratic conveniences, except where those bureaucratic conveniences are proxy for something else (often intangible). I'd bet most of us who celebrated the legalisation of marriage for non-heterosexual couples in this country couldn't explain the precise legal differences between marriage and civil partnership. We celebrated because it declared that people of the same sex who built a life together were not engaged in some second-class activity, but were equally esteemed.

People care about equality of recognition. Equality of rights matters to people largely because it's impossible to have genuine equality of recognition without it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

Black Americans living in the Jim Crow South didn't want voting rights because they were uppity and wanted social recognition as equals. They wanted the vote because its lack was a key factor in maintaining an oppressively racist governing system.

---

quote:

---

There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights: "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating "For Whites Only". We cannot be satisfied and we will not be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote.

---

quote:

---

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave-owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.

---

quote:

---

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.

---

quote:

---

People don't battle for the right to maintain custody of their children, something you dismiss as a "bureaucratic convenience", simply because they want some kind of social approbation. They do it because they love their kids and don't want to lose them.

---

quote:

---

And if your spouse, same- or opposite-sex, is unconscious in the hospital and near death and your first thought is "I certainly hope I can get some social recognition out of this!", then you are a sociopath.

---

quote:

---

Stop projecting your own obsession with social approbation on everyone else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
You go along with the bits about police brutality, you go along with the bits about hotels and motels, maybe you go along with the bit about mobility from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. But you must think the next sentence falls into bathos.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
King complains that signs rob black people of their selfhood and dignity.
Are you saying King is obsessed with social approbation?
Are you saying King is 'uppity'?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
There are a lot of things that people battle for and don't want to lose. But not all emotions are of equal weight with the state. Certainly not when children's well-being is at stake. When the state awards particular weight to whether people love their kids and don't want to lose them it is granting that emotion recognition and esteem. That does not mean social approbation, by which I presume you mean something like patting on the back and awarding subjective warm fuzzies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

And if your spouse, same- or opposite-sex, is unconscious in the hospital and near death and your first thought is "I certainly hope I can get some social recognition out of this!", then you are a sociopath.

---

Why isn't your first thought 'I'm going to stay well out of the way of the nursing staff so I don't risk interfering with them doing their jobs'?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Suppose your old school friend of fifty years standing is unconscious in hospital and near-death. Ought you have the right to sit with your friend outside visiting hours?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Why then, if you do not, ought your friend's spouse of only a few years standing have the right?
Our society makes the value judgement that friendship is not a matter for the state's esteem to anything like the same extent as spousal relations are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Don't lecture me about my theology, Jamat.

Otherwise I'll call you to Hell.

As it stands, I hold to classic Nicene-Chalcedonian Christianity and all that this entails.

Because I can square or juggle that with the world also being a messy place you mistake it for a lack of conviction. You are wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.

Just because some of us can handle nuance and don't reduce everything to a set of black-and-white fundamentalist propositions it doesn't mean that we lack conviction.

Withdraw your remark please.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Essentially you're arguing that you should be allowed to assault Hindus free of criminal penalty because assaulting them (or vandalizing their property, or robbing them, or whatever) is part of your religious practice and deserves more leeway than their "agenda" of not being deliberately targeted for criminal acts because of their religion.

---

quote:

---

This seems incompatible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
you are treating the situation as if both 'sides' are on a level playing field.

---

On the contrary, I recognise that here in the West those who believe that homosexual sex is wrong are in a minority and on the defensive, even when they believe in pluralist toleration.

You might think this is poetic justice, but it is a fact nontheless.

---

Very much not the minority in Western churches, and actively targeting LGBT Christians.

See Gamaliel's post about his church's churchwarden - even in moderate church circles, there's so much harm being done.

Exorcism of LGBT Christians in charismatic churches, by the way, is common even in the UK.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Kaplan

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
To put it as simply as possible, a correct conclusion rests on two things:

1. The conclusion logically follows from the premises.

2. The premises are correct.


You can harp on all you like about how the first point is satisfied, but it does precisely nothing to address the second point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

What to do, for example, with a fellow Christian who would desperately like to be married but isn’t,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
To put it as simply as possible, a correct conclusion rests on two things:

1. The conclusion logically follows from the premises.

2. The premises are correct.


You can harp on all you like about how the first point is satisfied, but it does precisely nothing to address the second point.

---

That's because a premise is a given.

You can't show that a premise such as "it is wrong to impose deliberate cruelty on animals" is correct or incorrect.

To you and me it is self-evident, but to countless people it is not, and there is no way we can demonstrate its "correctness" rationally, empirically or whatever.

I repeat: if you start with the premise that homosexual activity is wrong per se, a premise which on the face of it the Bible teaches, then whether or not that activity proceeds from innate same sex attraction or not is irrelevant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Personally, I liked the reference to the Terry Pratchett notion that all sin is caused by treating people as things. Human sexual desires are very strong and when in their grip it is easy to forget that. That produces much pain, suffering and regret.

There is a good deal of tacit approval in Western culture for the notion that there is nothing wrong in treating sex as a recreational activity. I think that is just rationalisation of desire and in itself it encourages this treatment of people as things.

I do think traditional Christian sexual ethics are in serious need of a Spring clean but I do support these embedded notions that relationships cannot be based on treating others as things, that faithfulness and promise keeping are virtuous, that the strength of our sexual desires can lead us into selfishness which is dangerous to both ourselves and others. That last warning applies just as much within marriage as outside it.

---

Amen
 

---

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :
 
by Croesos;

quote:

---

I'll note you haven't answered my previous question: Is there any verse in either Testament that expressly forbids the establishment of a theocracy?

---

quote:

---

Show me one verse in the NT which justifies a religiously coercive theocracy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Was Paul anti-sex? I read him as being influenced by the following.

1. His expectation of Christ's imminent return.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
You go along with the bits about police brutality, you go along with the bits about hotels and motels, maybe you go along with the bit about mobility from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. But you must think the next sentence falls into bathos.

---

Actually my objection was to your classifying police brutality, fair housing, and the economic plunder inherent in Segregation as "bureaucratic [in]conveniences". Dismissing voting rights as being solely about "social esteem and recognition" is a deliberate attempt to erase all the other abuses of Jim Crow.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
There are a lot of things that people battle for and don't want to lose. But not all emotions are of equal weight with the state. Certainly not when children's well-being is at stake. When the state awards particular weight to whether people love their kids and don't want to lose them it is granting that emotion recognition and esteem. That does not mean social approbation, by which I presume you mean something like patting on the back and awarding subjective warm fuzzies.

---

You can consider "social approbation" to be roughly equivalent to "social esteem and recognition", which you seem to believe is the only reason people have kids. You certainly imply that if someone tried to take away their children the only reason a parent would resort to the "bureaucratic convenience" of asserting their custody rights was to garner "social esteem and recognition", not because of any emotional connection they might feel towards their offspring. I disagree.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

And if your spouse, same- or opposite-sex, is unconscious in the hospital and near death and your first thought is "I certainly hope I can get some social recognition out of this!", then you are a sociopath.

---

Why isn't your first thought 'I'm going to stay well out of the way of the nursing staff so I don't risk interfering with them doing their jobs'?

---

Probably because simply assuming the nursing staff is doing their job is often inadequate. Simply assuming that they know about your husband's penicillin allergy is a sucker bet.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Suppose your old school friend of fifty years standing is unconscious in hospital and near-death. Ought you have the right to sit with your friend outside visiting hours?

---

Or, even further, why can't you make treatment decisions on behalf of your incapacitated old school friend? Sure, you haven't really talked that much recently, but you're pretty sure she wouldn't mind you authorizing that amputation.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Why then, if you do not, ought your friend's spouse of only a few years standing have the right?
Our society makes the value judgement that friendship is not a matter for the state's esteem to anything like the same extent as spousal relations are.

---

If you're really that close a friend, you should be listed in the Advance Medical Directive. If not, why are you the one who gets to decide on their organ donor status and what type of funeral service to have? I'm not sure "esteem" is the right word for these kinds of very practical questions. One of the basic assumptions of family law is spouses know these kinds of contingencies are possible and discuss them in advance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Hate crimes laws (as distinct from hate speech laws) are laws that increase sentencing for already-criminal acts that specifically target people based on certain characteristics, usually race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or a few other characteristics. Essentially you're arguing that you should be allowed to assault Hindus free of criminal penalty because assaulting them (or vandalizing their property, or robbing them, or whatever) is part of your religious practice and deserves more leeway than their "agenda" of not being deliberately targeted for criminal acts because of their religion.

---

Given all I have written about the imperative of tolerance between groups who disagree, with its total absence of any suggestion of violence, the only reason I can come up with for such a bizarre misrepresentation of what I wrote about the need to "take them on" as anything other than argument, is some sort of ideologically driven spite and paranoia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
What I am doing is what all Christians have always done, ie recognise that there are things in the OT which still apply to Christians, and other things which don't, using the NT as the arbiter.

Show me one verse in the NT which justifies a religiously coercive theocracy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There is a good deal of tacit approval in Western culture for the notion that there is nothing wrong in treating sex as a recreational activity. I think that is just rationalisation of desire and in itself it encourages this treatment of people as things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
In NT terms, the Church itself is of course a theocracy; but the emphatically international Church is portrayed as a somewhat different animal to any earthly state and cannot meaningfully be identified with any such state.

It is not coercive in the state's way of police and armies and the like; . . .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Similarly, if we accept the arguments against economic inequality in something like The Spirit Level, it's hard to argue that social recognition is secondary to economic concerns.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
For what it's worth I used the phrase 'bureaucratic conveniences' in reference to the liberal defence of marriage as a social institution. I did not use it to characterise anything in relation to the black struggle for civil rights.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
You can consider "social approbation" to be roughly equivalent to "social esteem and recognition", which you seem to believe is the only reason people have kids. You certainly imply that if someone tried to take away their children the only reason a parent would resort to the "bureaucratic convenience" of asserting their custody rights was to garner "social esteem and recognition", not because of any emotional connection they might feel towards their offspring. I disagree.

---

Now maybe you disagree. Your defence of marriage here is as a way of short cutting those questions - if one person shows up with the piece of paper that says they were married then the state can assume that resolves some of the questions. It's a bureaucratic convenience for the state.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think people who aren't married might still love their children, and it might still be in the interests of the child to grant custody to an unmarried partner. You disagree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
You started off by making normative judgements about what ought to matter to people whose spouses were near death. Which is certainly pertinent, and would have been a strong point if I meant by 'recognition' what you seem to think I mean.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There is a good deal of tacit approval in Western culture for the notion that there is nothing wrong in treating sex as a recreational activity. I think that is just rationalisation of desire and in itself it encourages this treatment of people as things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

but why spouses are granted those rights without the hospital first checking that they've been talking recently.

---

quote:

---

I'm not so sure. A group willing to practice capital punishment to keep its members in line seems to have a lot in common with the Weberian conception of the state.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Croesos;

quote:

---

I'm not so sure. A group willing to practice capital punishment to keep its members in line seems to have a lot in common with the Weberian conception of the state.

---

You've used that suggestion before. It is not, in the passage you link to, the church which practices capital punishment, but God himself, and in an essentially exceptional and exemplary case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

There is a good deal of tacit approval in Western culture for the notion that there is nothing wrong in treating sex as a recreational activity. I think that is just rationalisation of desire and in itself it encourages this treatment of people as things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The implication is that Ananias has been "struck down" by God, although again the passage doesn't say so; he and his wife could indeed have died through stress and natural causes. I suspect that Peter and co. were absolutely horrified (and presumably terrified) by what happened: I don't think they saw it coming!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Langton:
In broad terms, ceremonial and ritual laws have been 'fulfilled' in Jesus and need no longer be observed. More basic moral laws remain valid, fairly obviously of course in cases like theft or murder; and especially when they have been re-affirmed in the NT.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

One can have recreational sex, sex purely for enjoyment, and still be quite respectful of one's partner(s).

---

quote:

---

Sex within marriage and sex with procreation as a main goal can also treat people as things. Kind of more so, IMO.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

One can have recreational sex, sex purely for enjoyment, and still be quite respectful of one's partner(s).

---

I've never come across a relationship where that worked. I've known a couple of marriages within which one partner thought that was OK but the other didn't. The marriages went south in both cases. I've known a lot more where the recreational sex (casual relationships) was clandestine and the pain of discovery of deception damaged the relationship long term - or irreparably. In both these categories, the major issue is the nature of the promises of commitment made. If you've promised an exclusive relationship (the standard of Christian marriage as the liturgies make clear) you can't expect to have your cake and eat it. On the other hand I can see that if both partners agree to an "open relationship" in advance that they might be able to make it work.

---

I'm not at all sure that everyone in this conversation is actually working with the same definition of "recreational sex".

What exactly did you intend to mean by that term? Because it seems to me that you're reading it as "sex outside a committed relationship", and it seems that at least some other people are reading it as "sex for enjoyment". Those are actually quite different meanings, as to my mind it's perfectly possible for two people in a committed relationship to have sex for enjoyment.

[ 14. August 2015, 02:34: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I am confused now. When lilBuddha spoke of having recreational sex and still being respectful of ones partner, I thought (s)he was talking about the partner one is having sex with, not the partner one is potentially cheating on
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
I am confused now. When lilBuddha spoke of having recreational sex and still being respectful of ones partner, I thought (s)he was talking about the partner one is having sex with, not the partner one is potentially cheating on

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Net Spinster:
What about Acts 15:29 and the council of Jerusalem which happens after Peter's vision? It states

You are to abstain
from food sacrificed to idols,
from blood,
from the meat of strangled animals and
from sexual immorality.
You will do well to avoid these things

How many consider that binding on Christians (especially the blood bit)? This is assuming that it is historically accurate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
it's perfectly possible for two people in a committed relationship to have sex for enjoyment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I thought I was fairly clear in citing your earlier assertion that you find laws penalizing religiously motivated assault, vandalism, and other crimes to be an unwelcome impediment to your interactions with Hindus

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
"It is wrong to impose deliberate cruelty on animals" is not a sensible premise in an ethical debate. It's a conclusion.

---