homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Dead Horses: Am I an extremist now? (Page 5)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Dead Horses: Am I an extremist now?
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
And this is the nub of it, I think.

There are controversial topics on which few people know my view because I don't feel the need to go and tell people with the opposite view How Wrong They Are. We've been told 32% of people in the UK don't support same sex marriage. They're not all extremists, they're people with an opinion, and probably 31% of them don't feel the need to do anything with that opinion beyond express it when asked.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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".

Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Usually ethics are evaluated by harm to others. Real harm, like violence and exclusion, not the imagined harm.

--------------------
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
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807

 - Posted      Profile for Macrina   Email Macrina   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not quite sure why people think that they are being persecuted for an opinion and forbidden to hold it. People telling you they think you are wrong is not persecution.

How about we take racism as an example. (NO I am not equating opposing marriage equality with racism, I'm saying that you can hold an unpopular opinion and not be prosecuted for your opinion).

People can be racist if they want to in a private capacity and they can hold racist opinions if they want to (although most people won't want to associate with openly racist people for obvious reasons). Society doesn't prosecute people for having racist opinions in of themselves, despite having laws to enshrine equal protection under the law regardless of ethnicity. What society does not allow is for you to put your beliefs into action in such a way that you negatively impact someone because of those beliefs and contravene existing legislation.

So you personally can dislike for example Asian people and you personally can choose not to associate with them or believe in negative stereotypes about them. That's distasteful but it's legal.

What you can't do is decide not to employ someone because you don't like Asian people, you can't decide not to serve an Asian person because you don't like Asian people, you can't try to make laws based on your dislike of Asian people to make life difficult for them because you don't like Asian people.

That's it basically.

So you can believe that Marriage is between one man and one woman, you can even work on that basis within the Churches as religious institutions are given exemptions. No one will prosecute you for your opinion or your belief IN OF ITSELF. But you can't go around telling people unbidden what awful sinners they are or refusing them employment or civil rights based on your opinion. Once you do that you are engaging in what could be termed extremist behaviour. Especially if your only grounds for doing so comes under 'But God...'.

As someone with a great fondness for Christianity it makes me very sad that Christians are more bothered about having the right to tell gay people what awful sinners they are than they are about ACTUALLY spreading the gospel.

Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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".

This is not entirely correct. Ethics don't usually occur in a vacuum, but in the context of certain assumed facts. If the facts turn out to be wrong, then the old ethics are rightly thrown into question.

In this context, of course, the assumed fact has been that homosexuality is some kind of choice. Go back in time and you can find people assuming some quite startling facts about women or about black people that were used to justify how women and black people were treated.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Macrina.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
hosting/

The hostly consensus is that this should have been in Hell (because the thread title in fact invited personal attack) or Dead Horses from the off.

Hostly apologies for not sending it to one of those two destinations right away.

Mudfrog having stated his intent of withdrawing means you are all free to start another thread in Hell to deal with him, if you wish.

In the meantime, Kaplan Corday has finally persuaded me to send this one to Dead Horses forthwith.

/hosting

--------------------
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
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Not if we are talking about equality we can't.

You can't believe in equality then say "X group of people should never have sex under any circumstances. They can't even get married and have sex like we can in our ethical bubble"

I call bullshit on all that kind of thinking.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

I agree it can be subject to ethical discourse. 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. And it's important to recognise that in that respect the basis of much of the traditional approach to "homosexual practice" as you call it (I would have just said "sex") is fundamentally questionable.

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.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 unmarried or polygamous heterosexual sex.

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.

Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

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.

Equating the choice to a glass of red shows how fundamentally flawed your argument is. Our sexuality is such a fundamental part of who we are. Denying it completely is unbelievably heartless.

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

(Yes - I know you have the right to say it, but the OP was objecting to strong reactions for saying it. I understand the strong reactions)

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Of course it's relevant. How can it not be?

What you're currently trying to tell me is that discovering that the world is round rather than flat would make no difference to a decision whether to cross the Pacific Ocean.

The fact that a range of options exist does nothing to say which option might be the best option.

The proposition that the rules for heterosexual sex are different from the rules for homosexual sex rest on the underlying assumption that there is something different between heterosexuals and homosexuals, ethically speaking. Which makes sense while you see homosexuals as basically disordered heterosexuals. It makes a hell of a lot less sense once that assumption is overturned.

[ 08. August 2015, 07:59: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

That's because it is a choice.

Choosing to abstain from homosexual sex is just as difficult but just as doable as choosing to abstain from heterosexual sex - millions have done both.

quote:
I am incredulous that it's Christians who are peddling this line, it's so deeply unchristlike.
I can understand your disagreement with a belief that homosexual sex is wrong, but not your incredulity.

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, 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.

It's not as if a few of us got together a few days ago and invented the doctrine in order to spite homosexuals.

And it's not as if I am in any position to prevent homosexuals having sex, and I wouldn't if I could.

I am simply stating quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est.

[ 08. August 2015, 10:03: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

It doesn't matter how long something has gone on or how many people believe it - it doesn't stop it being wrong.

They choose to believe the Bible forbids it. You can do that with most things to support your prejudices.

The fact that homosexual orientation is not a choice should cause all of them to think again. Especially their leaders and spokes people.

Like I said - heterosexual people are abstaining from certain kinds of sex all the time - quite rightly, we are not bonobos. But saying people of any orientation have to also abstain from monogamous married sex is totally beyond the pale however many people think it for however long.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
And I am trying to point out to you that part of the basis of that "historic" position was that homosexuals WERE DISORDERED HETEROSEXUALS. It IS dependent on that very thing you're denying it's dependent on.

That was a crucial part of believing that the Bible banned homosexual sex. I can read the Bible. I know what it says, but I have a completely different understanding of what it means precisely because I don't think homosexuals are disordered heterosexuals. It's why I don't think Romans 1 is talking about homosexuality at all, I think it's parodying Gentile stereotypes.

[ 08. August 2015, 10:45: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

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

Romans 1 wasn't seen as being about homosexuality for 400 years see here


[fixed code -- K.A.]

[ 08. August 2015, 16:23: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
'The Bible' - all of it? Which translation?

What of Leviticus in Hebrew seems to mean “thou shalt not lie with a man on a woman’s [or wife’s] bed.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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". And when it happens, I predict Mudfrog will inform us that those were Scotsmen, not real Christians. But if you get on a plane in the UK, you can travel to many places where Christians are killing homosexuals, and in some of them it's actually legal.

If the "Christian" attitude towards queer folks and equal marriage in the UK is "Well, we haven't killed anyone", one can't help but notice that's still a bit shy of loving one's neighbour, let alone loving one's enemies.

--------------------
"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
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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. ...

And then we started asking "why?" Why does the Bible forbid it? It has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with gender roles. The consensus on homosexuality came from the consensus on the role of women which has held sway for a hell of a lot longer than two thousand years. Wherever two or three homophobes are gathered, misogyny was there first.

--------------------
"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
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Shpatari
Apprentice
# 18448

 - Posted      Profile for Shpatari   Email Shpatari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 that, I submit, is the nub of the matter: "gay" isn't something you "are", it's something you do.

Geneva Bible

The link author also refers to several irrelevant OT texts as a diversion from understanding the meaning of the word, but that's another matter.

Posts: 3 | Registered: Jul 2015  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
hosting
Can I remind people that Ship convention is for languages other than English to be translated, please? No Latin tags without translation, thanks.
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting off

--------------------
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
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807

 - Posted      Profile for Macrina   Email Macrina   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

I appreciate you may just be framing a point rather than asserting a position and I am somewhat apologetic for the force of my tone below but really I have had ENOUGH of this argument from people in any form for any reason. Anyway...something you do???

No. No it isn't. That's ontological bollocks. Seriously.

How ridiculous. Imagine we said that heterosexuality was something you DID rather than WERE and then you'll see why such an argument is so flawed. We don't go around assuming people are sexless beings until they happen to bump uglies with a certain other person and tag a label onto them based on that, we assume (wrongly) that everyone is heterosexual until proven otherwise. Sexuality isn't a tag on to personhood, it's an innate, intrinsic and fundamental part of a person's humanity however it is expressed. It really doesn't come down to just where you stick it.

Person after person on this thread have pointed out far better than I can that the failure to see gay people as actually gay and not gay people as distorted heterosexuals is the problem that lies at the heart of Christianity's utterly wrongheaded approach to the issue.

Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Actually, the nub of the matter is that surveys have shown how conservative Christians persist in this view despite homosexuals telling them the exact opposite.

Hello, and welcome to the Ship. As you're new, you haven't heard my story about how there was a gap of at least 17 years between realising conclusively I was attracted to the same sex and having any kind of sexual encounter. I've never had any kind of sexual encounter with the opposite sex, ever.

What do you exactly do you think I was until the age of 33? Asexual? A kind of Schrodinger's cat with my gayness yet to be determined? Such propositions are ridiculous.

[ 09. August 2015, 02:52: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

Not including when people use toys of course, which dates back many centuries.

[ 09. August 2015, 02:57: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
That was a crucial part of believing that the Bible banned homosexual sex.

It wasn't and it isn't.

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.

Yes, you can assert that in fact the Bible does not forbid homosexual sexual activity, but I find the arguments for this position hermeneutically and exegetically unconvincing, and I am not the only one.

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".

Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"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
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Indeed it is. What pisses me off, though, is when people present it as an obvious belief rather than one built on a whole series of unexamined assumptions. That's what "not holding any particular theory" often means. It means people simply don't think about whether what they believe has any rationality behind it beyond "the Bible says". Interestingly, no-one seems to go around saying that "the Bible says" women need to wear hats in Church or that shellfish are evil or anything that they transgress, but it works just fine for homosexuality.

This line of conversation started because of the claim that science could have no bearing on an ethical position. Regardless of the topic we're talking about, I find that every bit as disturbing a proposition as the opposite proposition - that the ancients were a bunch of idiots who knew nothing - which I've also criticised many times.

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.

If you're satisifed with a bunch of sexual ethics that was developed in a culture that basically believed males held the essence of life and women's wombs were just carriers, then knock yourself out, but I'll stick with an approach that's interested in the reasoning process used to arrive at a conclusion, not just the conclusion itself.

[ 09. August 2015, 04:25: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Shpatari:
"gay" isn't something you "are", it's something you do.

So a man who fucks his wife in the arse is gay?
Or a man who only has sex with men is straight between boyfriends?

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

How much practice do you think he needs before he becomes an actual homosexual?

--------------------
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
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

[ 09. August 2015, 09:46: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[QUOTE]]How much practice do you think he needs before he becomes an actual homosexual?

As originally written by J P Donleavy IIRC

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
(Missed edit window). But as for the statistics: I think I saw a recent figure (alas, can't remember where, but from the sources I use it was probably either the Times Higher or the Church Times) suggesting that about 4% of British men have had sex with another man. (Resists temptation to add music hall punchline 'I don't know who he is, but he must be exhausted!'). Not all of those occasions, by any means, will have involved anal sex- which Stephen Fry has said is no more or less connected with being gay than owning a Volvo estate car (this was in the 90s) is with mddle class family life. I don't know what percentage of British men have had sex with a woman but I think that we can safely assume that it is several times more than 4%: and some of those occasions will have involved anal sex.
So i for one would not be at all surprised to learn that most anal sex, in absolute terms, is heterosexual, simply because most sex, of any kind, is heterosexual,

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

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 ?

Or are you saying that the prevailing cultural view has shifted in favour of a genetic origin of homosexuality, in the absence of firm knowledge ? (with the implication that new research findings could cause a reversal of recent changes in legislation) ?

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

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.


[Mad]

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29

 - Posted      Profile for Siegfried   Author's homepage   Email Siegfried   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!

Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

Yeesh. "If everyone jumped off a cliff, would you jump too?" orfeo just wrote:

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. ...



--------------------
"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
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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".

Diarmaid may be a good historian but he would be the first to admit that he is not a biblical scholar - he has neither Hebrew of Greek.

Not only did he 'train'- he is a deacon

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?.
And many gay men do NOT do anal sex - does that mean they aren't gay?

Or that they are not 'condemned'by 'the bible' provided they stick to oral or mutual wanking?

Is kissing allowed? Hugging?

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

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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. [Eek!]

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 ]

--------------------
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
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

And presumably for much the same reasons.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The science says homosexuality is innate.

Thank you for the link, lilBuddha. But from my quick scan, it seems to say that
a) there is no consensus among scientists
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:
Hammer on about paraphilia all you wish, but research doesn't back your claim.
I'm not claiming anything. Boogie seemed to be suggesting that modern society's non-traditional attitude to homosexuality constitutes progress because it is based on a better understanding of the causes. Orfeo seemed to be saying that homosexuality being innate, there is no proper heterosexual self to deviate from, and therefore homosexual acts are not now seen as deviant in the way they were previously thought to be.

I'm querying whether these are valid arguments leading to valid conclusions. Seems like in both cases the logic is valid but the premise is false.

Best wishes,

Russ

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Sexual deviance causes harm.

What's the harm in a bit of necrophilia ?

As for objecting to comparisons, experience suggests that if you can't generalise from the particular activity or situation to other activities or situations that share some of the same features, then it's a pretty good bet that your argument is no more than special pleading.

Tell me, do you think homosexual acts are moral if committed by someone who is certain that they are attracted to members of the same sex and only members of the same sex, and immoral if this is not the case ?

Because I haven't heard many people arguing that. And if "it's not a matter of choice" were really the big issue, then you might expect people to make a moral distinction along those lines...

Best wishes,

Russ

--------------------
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      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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,
As politely as I can, I would suggest a more thorough read before offering statements. Saves time in the long run.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

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

ISTM, there are missing words here and those would be complete and total.
But that is true of all scientific research. None the less, the bulk of the research indicates that sexuality is not something the vast majority of humans have any control over.
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.

An interesting mis-read.
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
The bit I put in bold is very key.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

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

This phrasing does make it appear that your argument is very much suggesting something. Why is "traditional" a factor? "Traditionally", we bled people to relieve evil humours, we enslaved others and children were property to be disposed of at will. Do you support those things because they were "traditional"?

--------------------
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
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Wherever two or three homophobes are gathered, misogyny was there first.

Quotes file.

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.
They stop practicing when they think they have it right. Hence all the hetero women who say that chocolate is better than sex.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools