|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hostility to Traditional Christians on the Ship
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK but a gay person objecting to something that a Conservative Christian has written as being homophobic is not vilification. Or is it?
It depends how it's done. I wouldn't say that accusing someone of homophobia is vilification - it's an accurate term 99% of the time, and if anything it's more generous to imply the accused is frightened rather than driven purely by hatred.
OTOH, I think some of treatment Steve Langton received in hell could be described as vilification. The guy was clearly homophobic, but (IIRC) he also had the trifecta of being elderly[1], autistic[2] and from a sheltered religious background[3].
On the other other hand, as someone with scars from Myrrh's Great Climate War, I totally understand the frustration of dealing with an opponent who makes bad arguments about a subject you care about, and who just won't stop. Stepping away can be extremely difficult.
-------------
[1] Not an excuse for homophobia, but realistically, many people's thinking gets more rigid with age.
[2] Also not an excuse, but it might have contributed to his evident disgust about anal sex.
[3] Again not an excuse but certainly an obstacle. He also had no desire to make homosexual activity illegal, unlike 52% of UK Muslims, and there was considerably less outrage on the Ship about that.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
However, SOF is a place for debate and discussion, not civil rights legislation.
Yes and Amen. quote:
So, if someone comes demonstrating a willing attitude, I will discuss with them reasonably.
Good. (And credit where credit is due, I find that generally, you do, and we've both I think gained greater mutual understanding as a result).
quote:
Otherwise, no. And persistent ignoring of reality for a chosen, non-factual belief also EARNS disdain.
It might deserve disdain. I really try and avoid meting out disdain though, because I find it constructive to stress test my own convictions against even the most fruitcakey of ideas.
(The last time I tried that to any great extent in DH was back in 2011 and is now languishing on p293 of Oblivion. You might be amused, LB, to see the subject...)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
. He also had no desire to make homosexual activity illegal, unlike 52% of UK Muslims, and there was considerably less outrage on the Ship about that.
Because we don't get Muslim posters coming on the Ship and telling us we are evil, because they are 4% of the UK population and 1% the US?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Churches are neither shops nor golf clubs.
I understand the words in your post, Svitlana, but they don't describe anything I understand at any more than a linguistic level.
Churches are distinct from shops and golf clubs. But they also share things in common with them.
People can choose:
to go to church or not
to start a church
to switch from one church or another
to leave a church
to accept, dismiss or modify the teachings of a church they attend
to identify with a church they hardly if ever attend
to resent a church whose cultural or theological identity is changing
to condemn or praise a church they never attend
to treat a church as either a cultural or a theological entity, or both.
etc.
You might disagree with all of this choice, but it exists. It exists for shops and golf clubs, and also for churches. Our theology is also a choice, although it's heavily influenced by a range of things: our background, peer group, education, etc. including our own tastes - as are our choices about shopping, i.e. the products we consume or avoid, and the places we go to get them.
The economics of religion is a discipline that looks into this, as is the sociology of religion.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Like I say, it makes sense to me on a linguistic level. But none of that is what the church is to me or for me, so it has no life as a definition or a mode of exploration.
Further, it's a complete distraction and waste of energy. A church that spends all its time thinking of itself and running itself on those terms will not achieve the sort of life a church is called to have as the body of Christ.
It will be writing itself into a well deserved oblivion. Wrong tense; it is.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Posters equating the vilification of gay people to the vilification of conservative Christians make me ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) . However it doesn't follow that the vilification of conservative Christians is totally OK.
OK but a gay person objecting to something that a Conservative Christian has written as being homophobic is not vilification. Or is it?
No.
Tbh I hesitated over the word 'vilification' but it was one that seemed to be in use and I couldn't think of a better one.
ISTM that if we have fewer conservative posters than previously, and those conservative posters that remain say they feel more reticent about expressing their views, then prima facie there are negative vibes flowing towards conservative posters that aren't flowing towards liberals. And this, I submit, is a bad thing.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
ThunderBunk
Well, what we agree on is that you have to do and perceive church as seems right to you and for you. All I'm saying is that other people should do the same for themselves.
If other people run their churches in a way that creates a 'distraction and a waste of energy' then those churches will presumably stumble and fail. But churches, even quite well-meaning ones, stumble and fail all the time, so nothing new there.
[ 29. July 2017, 20:35: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, go on believing we are mean to the Trads., but reality doesn't line up so easily.
Hm. As a general rule, if I don't perceive myself to be a jerk but others do, then their perception of reality is probably better than mine.
Not saying you're being a jerk. But if conservative posters feel that the ship has become a more hostile environment, then the fact that liberals don't perceive themselves to be disbursing more hostility isn't really evidence that they're not.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, go on believing we are mean to the Trads., but reality doesn't line up so easily.
Hm. As a general rule, if I don't perceive myself to be a jerk but others do, then their perception of reality is probably better than mine.
Not saying you're being a jerk. But if conservative posters feel that the ship has become a more hostile environment, then the fact that liberals don't perceive themselves to be disbursing more hostility isn't really evidence that they're not.
And it isn't evidence that they are correct, either.
There is a phenomenon that occurs when those who were the default lose that status. Perception can perceive loss of privilege as persecution.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Conservatism has never been the default on the Ship, nor has it ever enjoyed a privileged status on the Ship.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Conservatism has never been the default on the Ship, nor has it ever enjoyed a privileged status on the Ship.
No but people can bring a privileged attitude to the ship (import it, so to speak), and when it is thwarted, read that as persecution.
It may also be that the lefties are seeing what's happening in Britain and America, and feeling under attack, and taking it out on righties everywhere. Which wouldn't be okay, but it would be understandable from a cause-effect point of view.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Also I'm wondering if it really can be said that the "tables have turned" once the pro-gay views are in the majority and the anti-gay ones are in a minority.
Definitely not. Being "pro-gay" and actually being gay are two very different things, as regards interacting with homophobes. Just as being anti-racism and being black/brown are quite different things when interacting with racists.
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
He also had no desire to make homosexual activity illegal, unlike 52% of UK Muslims, and there was considerably less outrage on the Ship about that.
Considering that our known population of UK Muslims here is pretty close to zero, I'm not sure what you were expecting. Oh dear, we react to people who are actually here more than we do to people who are not. How odd.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Conservatism has never been the default on the Ship, nor has it ever enjoyed a privileged status on the Ship.
To add to mt's comment; it is only within the current generation that a significant portion of the general population (Europe and anglophone sphere) has been accepting of LGBT+. Older friends never thought laws would change in their lifetime.
So, for some, to go from where their position was default in the general population to not in such a short time is a shock.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK but a gay person objecting to something that a Conservative Christian has written as being homophobic is not vilification. Or is it?
If someone implies that I'm lying, is telling them they're wrong vilification or self-defense?
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Given that there's no marriage in Heaven, that probably goes for the straights, too.
Absolutely.
The point being that the distinction between gay and straight is not fundamental to our identity, in Christian thought. These are temporary desires that we experience here on earth.
You may think Christianity has it wrong, and you're entitled to that belief.
What I'm saying is that traditional Christians do not believe that gay people are essentially or fundamentally bad.
We do not choose our desires. Having bad desires isn't a sin.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Given that there's no marriage in Heaven, that probably goes for the straights, too.
Absolutely.
The point being that the distinction between gay and straight is not fundamental to our identity, in Christian thought. These are temporary desires that we experience here on earth.
You may think Christianity has it wrong, and you're entitled to that belief.
What I'm saying is that traditional Christians do not believe that gay people are essentially or fundamentally bad.
We do not choose our desires. Having bad desires isn't a sin.
May I print this post and plant it in the flowers?
Hmmm, perhaps not. That much fertilizer might damage them.
Interesting that you don't appear to be able to see that your assertions are self-contradictory.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Would you expect all of the people of color on the Ship to allow such things to be said of them and be polite about it?
Firstly, there is always the option of scrolling past; "do not feed the troll".
Secondly, the decision to allow a view to be expressed is the H&A's not anybody else's. If the hosts are doing their job properly, the H&A's will not allow such views to be repeatedly posted.
And what I'm saying is that the anti-women and anti-gay views are on this level. Obviously this is not a widely shared view here, and I'm not taking a position in my role as an admin, but this is really what I think.
quote:
quote:
veneer of politeness
I think this is symptomatic of terrible bad faith.
How polite is it of you to accuse me of bad faith?
quote:
Politeness isn't a reward granted only to those whose views we share. It's a basic mechanism that allows constructive communication, and life in a diverse society, to happen. If opposing views cannot be defeated by reasoned argument, but only be seen off by verbal (or other) aggression, it begs the question as to the validity of one's own arguments - on either side.
Sexism and homophobia are in themselves impolite, to say the least.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
marsupial.
Shipmate
# 12458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
ISTM that if we have fewer conservative posters than previously, and those conservative posters that remain say they feel more reticent about expressing their views, then prima facie there are negative vibes flowing towards conservative posters that aren't flowing towards liberals. And this, I submit, is a bad thing.
Conservativism generally or conservatism about LGB issues in particular?
I think we're probably getting to the point where religious conservatives who hold conservative views specifically on LGB issues will be getting a rough ride in pretty much any forum where they don't dominate the discussion. That's not just a Ship thing; it's a reflection of the development over the past few decades of a consensus, increasingly shared to some extent by pretty much everyone except religious conservatives, that anti-LGB attitudes are pernicious and cause serious harms to a great many real live people. We've seen debates on the Ship lately whether debates about LGB acceptance should now be considered beyond the pale. I think that the Dead Horses approach we have taken on the Ship is probably the least bad option, but the realities of the situation are such that such debates are going to generate a lot more heat, personal conflict, and hard feelings, than light.
It's unfortunate if the dominant Ship attitude toward LGB issues is driving conservatives away from the Ship who might have a lot to contribute to more productive debates, but I don't think it's just a Ship thing.
Posts: 653 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Considering that our known population of UK Muslims here is pretty close to zero, I'm not sure what you were expecting.
Our known population of Trump supporters is even lower but they still provoke plenty of outrage. I'd suggest...
- Many on the left don't want to criticise Islam because this could support anti-immigration arguments and/or racists. (Understandable enough.)
- Some on the left still do, but they are now outcast as racists.
- The ones who don't have a strong view either way (like me) just keep their heads down.
- Anti-gay Christians are an out-group to Shipmates, especially Shipmates who have experienced their prejudice first-hand.
So an Irish baker causes endless rage by not baking a cake, while over a million British Muslims actually want to return to the days of Alan Turing and it barely raises a murmur.
The relevance to this thread is that I believe ten years ago this discrepancy might have been debated openly; now it feels taboo to even mention it.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Considering that our known population of UK Muslims here is pretty close to zero, I'm not sure what you were expecting.
Our known population of Trump supporters is even lower but they still provoke plenty of outrage. I'd suggest...
- Many on the left don't want to criticise Islam because this could support anti-immigration arguments and/or racists. (Understandable enough.)
- Some on the left still do, but they are now outcast as racists.
- The ones who don't have a strong view either way (like me) just keep their heads down.
- Anti-gay Christians are an out-group to Shipmates, especially Shipmates who have experienced their prejudice first-hand.
So an Irish baker causes endless rage by not baking a cake, while over a million British Muslims actually want to return to the days of Alan Turing and it barely raises a murmur.
The relevance to this thread is that I believe ten years ago this discrepancy might have been debated openly; now it feels taboo to even mention it.
I don't see why it couldn't be discussed openly now, though I'm not sure why you think the Muslim angle is particularly critical. I'll bet there are a lot more than a million non-Muslim Britons who share those views, and you could probably find lots of ways of grouping people that would indicate correlations with religion or other social indicators. (I suspect ultra-orthodox Jews, for example, probably aren't too liberal in this area. Probably plenty of Christian churches in the US, too, for that matter.)
In a pluralistic society you'll always have to figure out how to live together with people of differing views, and just what allowances should be made for those holding minority views. I think you could have a useful discussion on this topic.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Okay a bare majority of a tiny minority of Brits versus the President of the United States. And you think this is a reasonable comparison? FFS.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
So an Irish baker causes endless rage by not baking a cake, while over a million British Muslims actually want to return to the days of Alan Turing and it barely raises a murmur.
The relevance to this thread is that I believe ten years ago this discrepancy might have been debated openly; now it feels taboo to even mention it.
How many posts in this hypothetical thread do you think it would take to get to Islam is inherently evil?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Conservatism has never been the default on the Ship, nor has it ever enjoyed a privileged status on the Ship.
R
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Given that there's no marriage in Heaven, that probably goes for the straights, too.
Absolutely.
The point being that the distinction between gay and straight is not fundamental to our identity, in Christian thought. These are temporary desires that we experience here on earth.
Yes, but "temporary desires" about which the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2332 and 2333) says:
quote:
Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.
and
quote:
Everyone, male and female should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity.
So, a pretty significant part of this "temporary" existence.
quote:
What I'm saying is that traditional Christians do not believe that gay people are essentially or fundamentally bad.
We do not choose our desires. Having bad desires isn't a sin.
Well, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2358), "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" and "homosexual inclinations" are "objectively disordered." So, chosen desires or not, technical sin or not, they are Not Good; they are Less Than. So, the message to gays and lesbians, whose sexuality affects all aspects of who they are in the unity of body and soul and who are admonished to accept their sexual identity, is that who they are is disordered.
As for only assigning the label of sin to homosexual acts, which are "intrinsically disordered" and "contrary to natural law" (2357), given Christ's admonition that any man who looks at a woman lustfully commits adultery in his heart and given that homosexual tendencies are said to be "objectively disordered," it can be hard to take seriously the claim that only the acts are sinful.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Conservatism has never been the default on the Ship, nor has it ever enjoyed a privileged status on the Ship.
R
Sorry, i was trying to invite Ricardus (after a few bottles of brandy and whisky) to a discussion of political issues - you seem to have some experience in them and I would like to learn more notwithstanding my personal preferences.
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Conservatism has never been the default on the Ship, nor has it ever enjoyed a privileged status on the Ship.
R
Sorry, i was trying to invite Ricardus (after a few bottles of brandy and whisky) to a discussion of political issues - you seem to have some experience in them and I would like to learn more notwithstanding my personal preferences.
My friends and I tried to play a game. But the Americans got in the way. Nice chaps though, i must say. I told them about the Ship and they might join us.
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
Sorry, i was trying to invite Ricardus (after a few bottles of brandy and whisky) to a discussion of political issues - you seem to have some experience in them and I would like to learn more notwithstanding my personal preferences.
You may wish to try sending an e-mail or personal message by clicking on one of the icons at the top of Ricardus's posts (envelope with one person is e-mail, envelope with two people is personal message - assuming you're not already familiar with them.)
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Egeria:
So don't whine about the word homophobe.
Yes, there is such a thing as genuine homophobia, and it can be found in places as diverse as communist Cuba, predominantly Christian Uganda, and most or all Muslim majority countries, as well as Europe and North America.
However, disagreeing with the beliefs and practices of self-identified homosexuals is no more homophobia, than disagreeing with Hindu beliefs and practices is "Hinduphobia".
So I refuse to acknowledge the smear homophobe because it is offensive and dishonest, and its indiscriminate use is on the same mindless and adolescent level as labelling anyone whom one dislikes, or with whom one disagrees, as "fascist".
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
This illustration comes from a world where men are uncontrollably randy and women are passive, either compliant, or resistant.
No it doesn't.
It has nothing to do with gender stereotypes.
It is simply a recognition that most heterosexual men are by inclination regularly sexually attracted to women - but in all or most cases choose not to follow through on it for a variety of reasons which (it is to be hoped) includes common decency and consideration.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Caplan Corday: quote:
So I refuse to acknowledge the smear homophobe because it is offensive and dishonest, and its indiscriminate use is on the same mindless and adolescent level as labelling anyone whom one dislikes, or with whom one disagrees, as "fascist".
How about the term anti-homosexual bigot? No phobia involved, just prejudice, anything from cold judgmentalism to ick-factor to self-justifiable raging violence. No sweat.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Caplan Corday: quote:
So I refuse to acknowledge the smear homophobe because it is offensive and dishonest, and its indiscriminate use is on the same mindless and adolescent level as labelling anyone whom one dislikes, or with whom one disagrees, as "fascist".
How about the term anti-homosexual bigot? No phobia involved, just prejudice, anything from cold judgmentalism to ick-factor to self-justifiable raging violence. No sweat.
No reading for comprehension either, obviously.
And no capacity for recognising the possibility of the existence of a genuinely held belief without attaching pejorative connotations to it.
It is the fallacy known as the argumentum ad hominem.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Oh, I'm sure one can have a genuinely bigoted belief against homosexuality and its expression.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
So under this understanding what choices does the gay man have? Celibacy or ...?
On the face of it, the Bible teaches that homosexual activity is wrong, and that heterosexual activity outside of marriage is wrong.
It nowhere teaches that every human being is entitled to sexual fulfillment.
So yes, Christianity has always taught that unmarried heterosexuals, and those with homosexual inclinations, are to be celibate.
Most Christians have always believed this, and most Christians today globally still believe it.
The choices are therefore:-
1.To go along with it, even though it seems harsh (and FWIW, it seems harsh to me, too).
2.To argue that in fact the Bible does not disapprove of homosexual behaviour.
3.To argue that it does, but that it can be or must be ignored, in this particular at least.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
[In reply to Kaplan]
If we are going to pretend the bible is being taken at face value, may I remind you that lesbians exist - penetrative anal sex isn't the only form of sexual expression known to gay people and Jesus said fuck all about blow jobs.
Hurdling the dead horse, I would point out that some of the 'hostility' comes from a long term frustration with people holding this view arguing it is some how self- evident or almost culture free. That goes for almost any reading of any teaching in the bible, or subsequently, unless God himself whispered it in your ear - chances are you initially believed what you believed because that how you were raised - and you didn't question it till challenged by your own personal struggles or someone else's questions.
[ 30. July 2017, 06:46: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Would you expect all of the people of color on the Ship to allow such things to be said of them and be polite about it?
Firstly, there is always the option of scrolling past; "do not feed the troll".
Secondly, the decision to allow a view to be expressed is the H&A's not anybody else's. If the hosts are doing their job properly, the H&A's will not allow such views to be repeatedly posted.
And what I'm saying is that the anti-women and anti-gay views are on this level. Obviously this is not a widely shared view here, and I'm not taking a position in my role as an admin, but this is really what I think.
I think we might be talking past each other here.
What I was saying was that it was not up to [oppressed minority] to "allow" things to be said; such decisions are up to the H&As, or as they are known elsewhere, the moderators; they are the ones in the position of allowing/disallowing, and generally enforcing the rules. The H&As are there precisely to prevent people - oppressed minorities or otherwise - being both a judge and a party, and do their best to fulfil their role impartially.
(I personally am confident that the current arsenal of Ship rules is fit for purpose).
Furthermore, I think LilBuddha had an excellent point that this is not a civil rights protest but a discussion forum. There's room for both in the world.
I'm much more of a discussion person than a protest person, and all I can say is that my views on nearly every DH issue have changed in the 15 years or so I've been here and due in no small part to the Ship. Other posters have said things along similar lines.
I really don't like the idea of pre-emptively closing down debate merely because someone expresses an idea I may find reprehensible; "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
quote:
quote:
quote:
veneer of politeness
I think this is symptomatic of terrible bad faith.
How polite is it of you to accuse me of bad faith?
Politeness does not equal agreement or sycophancy, and I didn't accuse you.
Commandment 3 makes a distinction between attacking the issue and attacking the person. It may not be a hard and fast one, and you and I have disagreed before about where the line is to be drawn. In this present case, I think the context makes it clear that this was not a personal attack on you.
As it was, I explained precisely why I thought talking in terms of a "veneer of politeness" was symptomatic of bad faith - an explanation which you have not followed up on at all.
quote:
Sexism and homophobia are in themselves impolite, to say the least.
I think this statement also gets to the nub of the problem here. To my mind "politeness" in this context is not a value judgement on the core beliefs of a person but again, a set of social conventions for communication: here, their ability to discuss their beliefs in a respectful manner with others - even if some of those beliefs are not deemed to be respectful of others.
If one were to take the option of shutting down debate on the basis of a) a banned list of views held to be "impolite" and b) an assumption that anybody polite but inconvenient is merely hiding behind a "veneer of politeness" and thus actually on list a), I don't think there'd be much debating to be done.
[ 30. July 2017, 06:58: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Sure. But that's satire. Are you saying you'd be incapable of knocking over the actual statements made one by one, politely but firmly? Or are you saying that anybody holding anywhere near any of those points of view, in seriousness not in satire, should be summarily banned on principle?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by marsupial.:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
ISTM that if we have fewer conservative posters than previously, and those conservative posters that remain say they feel more reticent about expressing their views, then prima facie there are negative vibes flowing towards conservative posters that aren't flowing towards liberals. And this, I submit, is a bad thing.
Conservativism generally or conservatism about LGB issues in particular?
When I first joined this thread, I assumed it was about DH issues, plus politics.
Enough self-identified conservatives have posted for me to think that it goes deeper than that and that I should probably listen a bit.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
..To argue that in fact the Bible does not disapprove of homosexual behaviour.
..To argue that it does, but that it can be or must be ignored, in this particular at least.
The Bible is ignored by all Christians in 100s of particulars, as has been pointed out 1000 times here on the Ship. I've never seen a reason why this particular is more important than any of the others.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I must admit I find this issue difficult in the real world.
Say that Group A is in obvious distress. There can be solutions to that distress from both left and right, and I can have a proper discussion about that.
But when the right suggest that Group A aren't in distress, or worse, can all go die in a hole, then there's not really very much left to say.
(And, tbf, the right will say I don't care about distressed Christian bakers or unborn children. Neither of which is true, but I concede that my solutions may look like not caring.)
(In answer to Ricardus)
[ 30. July 2017, 07:52: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But when the right
Or the left.
(I know, I know, BSAB, whataboutery, etc. etc., but still).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
FWIW I'd be well up for a discussion on ths tensions inherent in progressive attitudes to gender, sexuality, ethnicity and minority religions;far from it being taboo I think it's vitally important; I think for example that failure to navigate it well has been thd root of many of the criticisms of Jeremy Corbyn
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Authoritarians expect those in authority to protect them and their views as the price for the identification between authoritarian and authority. Whatever else it means, being a place of unrest means that the Ship disrupts this, and therefore intrinsically and necessarily makes authoritarians uncomfortable. To my mind, this must continue: it seems to me to be the entirely reasonable concomitant of the requirement placed on me to paddle and maintain my own canoe as a result of my instinctive dissidence.
I am reminded of one of Mousethief's offerings, now enshrined in the Quotes Files, about effluents.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But when the right
Or the left.
(I know, I know, BSAB, whataboutery, etc. etc., but still).
I had already covered that in my last paragraph... I'm not blind to my own faults, just better at ignoring them.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Scripture suggests that all sexual desires, not just homosexual desires, will not survive into the next life. (I'm Protestant, so I'll bypass the fires of Purgatory for the sake of discussion.)
I put it in those terms only because the Catholic version is more explicit. Happy with your way of putting it; do you agree that it follows that all of us have an essential self that is neither straight nor gay ? That sexual orientation is not identity ?
quote:
At the same time, I think Scripture is clear that sexuality is most definitely part of who we are on this side of the grave, that it is a gift from God.
If by "sexuality" you mean that we are male or female, with all that implies, then yes. If you mean that Scripture says that homo- or hetero- orientation is a gift (or is part of identity) then I'd have to ask which sections you have in mind.
Like all such gifts, I can be used well or abused.
quote:
This approach says that the only appropriate options for dealing with sexual desires are celibacy or marriage—by definition in this understanding, a committed, lifelong relationship between a man and a woman.
That is my understanding of traditional Christianity.
quote:
But for gay and lesbian people, the second option — marriage between a man and a woman—isn't available, at least not if one is to live honestly, because attraction to people of the opposite sex simply isn't there. So to them, the message basically is "tough luck, but it's going to have to be celibacy for you."
Yes, and if you want to say that that doesn't seem fair, then I agree. Some of us do seem to be given heavier burdens than others. I don't know why God would give anyone a desire that it is never right to act on.
But - please forgive me if I'm wrong - I'm not aware that there's anything in your brand of Christianity or mine that guarantees that some people don't have a harder situation than others.
quote:
It's saying "you're prohibited from acting on your sexuality because your sexuality isn't right." And from there, it's just a few steps to "regardless of how you behave, there's something inherently deficient and deviant about you in ways not shared by all of humanity." That's why I don't think the behavior and the orientation can really be separated. The wrongness of the behavior is inextricably connected to the deficiency of the orientation.
There are two sets of "a few steps" here.
One is from an act being wrong or bad to the desire to commit that act being wrong or bad.
It seems uncontroversial to say that to want to do wrong is not a good thing to want. But we don't choose our wants. So in describing a desire or tendency to desire as bad, we have to be clear that the person experiencing the desire is blameless (except to the extent that they have chosen to encourage that desire in themselves or others).
The second few steps are from saying something about the desires that a person experiences to saying something about the person themselves.
That's the "gay souls" argument. Traditional Christianity does not see people as the sum of their desires; desires are something you have, not what you are.
In other words, these are a few steps that traditional Christianity does not take. Regardless of whether anyone else does.
It's really very simple. Traditional Christians believe homosexual acts to be wrong (because their authoritative tradition - with or without capital letter - tells them so). You apparently do not believe those acts to be wrong, and that's fine.
But the idea that considerations of "equal rights" can somehow resolve that disagreement in your favour is false.
The proof of that - and please feel free to skip this para if it offends you in any way - is in the attitude (that I assume we all share) to sexual desires involve an other who is not a consenting adult. You don't believe that those with such desires are being unfairly discriminated against. That the underlying reason is a nasty bigoted desire to treat them as second-class. Because the acts are wrong, end of story.
Not saying "equally wrong" - nonconsenting is obviously worse. I'm suggesting that faced with one's own belief in real wrongness, the sort of "no less than" social equality that you're putting forward just isn't relevant. There is no equality between right and wrong.
So please do our traditionally-minded brethren the courtesy of accepting that they disagree with you about the boundaries of right and wrong. And not join in this attempt to smear them as hatemongers.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Problem is, Russ, that this prohibition seems to have no consequences beyond makong gay people's lives more miserable. As such, it's hard not to concude that it's basically "I'm not homophobic, I don't hate gay people, but God is, and does, so I have to go along with it."
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
This thread is just Exhibit A. You get hostility to 'Traditional Christians' because basically it translates as 'People who want the very first thing you know about them to be that they're anti-gay but who then come over all indignant if you say they're homophobic'
This is so often the case that they own the term and the exceptions to the rule need a different label so as not to be confused with them.
[ 30. July 2017, 10:16: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Despite the length of the thread and the variety of content, I am minded now to move it to Dead Horses. This because the preponderance of more recent posts is definitely Horsey. But I will check out with other Hosts.
Barnabas62
Purgatory (and DH) Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Problem is, Russ, that this prohibition seems to have no consequences beyond makong gay people's lives more miserable.
That's because you don't see any wrongness in homosexual acts.
If you saw such a wrongness, or held as an act of faith in the absence of seeing that there is such a wrongness, then the absence of those acts would be the intended positive consequence. And the "misery" to gay people would be no more than the self-restraint that moral duty requires of all of us when we feel the urge to do wrong.
You know that this is not exactly my own position. But I believe that conservative Christians hold it in good faith.
You disagree with their premise; it doesn't follow that they secretly do too and are only putting it forward as an excuse to have someone to be nasty to.
That's moving beyond believing your view is true, to believing it is so self-evident that anyone who disagrees must surely be doing so in bad faith.
And you have enough appreciation of the history of Christian thought to know that that is not the case.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
That's because you don't see any wrongness in homosexual acts.
If you saw such a wrongness, or held as an act of faith in the absence of seeing that there is such a wrongness, then the absence of those acts would be the intended positive consequence. And the "misery" to gay people would be no more than the self-restraint that moral duty requires of all of us when we feel the urge to do wrong.
You know that this is not exactly my own position. But I believe that conservative Christians hold it in good faith.
I don't understand what good faith has to do with it or why that position should be given some kind of special respect because it is held in good faith.
I assume you are using the term to suggest that those who hold this position are honest and fair about it - in contrast to someone who is just pretending to believe in it for some kind of ulterior motive.
But if that's the case, there are Christians who apparently sincerely believe that black people are inferior. There were clearly Christians who were sincere in their belief in slavery, others who obviously were sincere in their belief in violent struggles.
They were genuine. These people presumably had thought about it and come to these conclusions.
We'd still say they were wrong and possibly think the ideas were stupid, no? Why would we take any account of their good faith?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
On balance, we reckon it is now better in Dead Horses. There is a non-Horsey dimension to the thread, obviously, but it is becoming increasingly artificial to skirt around DH issues while discussing the wider issues. So we feel the move may free up the discussion, give you less to navigate round.
Thread on its way.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
