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 | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Hell   » Dear Steve Langton, (Page 8)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Dear Steve Langton,
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What about the sexual intimacy of walking hand in hand along the beach late on a summer afternoon? Why can't 2 men engage in that?

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

Posts: 6494 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Uncle Pete:
Langton, you are a complete troll who loves the sound of his own voice so much that you dredge up a quiescent thread to reiterate your same old arguments.

[Snore]

Actually I didn't 'dredge up the quiescent thread' on my own initiative. This is, as you can see from my post, a response to Eutychus. I also thought initially that since the thread had effectively died, it would be more appropriate to answer him via PM - he rejected that and insisted I should answer in the thread where he asked the question. I've done as he asked and my apologies for annoyance that has caused other Shipmates....
Posts: 2095 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Anal sex - look, whatever language you use about it, polite, 'playground', or fudge/obscure, excrement is simply not nice stuff and sexuality - in God's world anyway - deserves more respect and honour than that. I also note that it is an aspect where a lot of gay people - even activists like Stephen Fry - seem to have reservations, to put it mildly....

Folks this is SHOW-STOPPING here. Steve Langton has admitted here, for the first time ever in his entire life, that anal sex and male homosexuality are not coterminous! And that there are gay males who don't engage in anal sex!

THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING. A lot of what he has said over the past several years about homosexuality will have to be reinterpreted in the light of this striking revelation.

Watch this space for further developments!

MT, it's not a 'striking revelation'; you just haven't been reading my posts closely enough but I suppose assuming I'm the standard so-called 'homophobe'. I will of course be delighted if you reinterpret my previous posts in the light of your realisation that I wasn't doing what you assumed I was doing - though I hope this time you actually get it right.....

It is a key part of my actual position to want to give the fullest possible weight - consistent with other biblical teaching - to texts like David's words in his lament on his friend Jonathan, that "Your love for me was greater than the love of women". And I haven't kept quiet about that side of my views....

Posts: 2095 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
What about the sexual intimacy of walking hand in hand along the beach late on a summer afternoon? Why can't 2 men engage in that?

Or indeed arm in arm embracing? AIUI that would have been considered quite normal in the UK till the late Victorian era and particularly the disruption of attitudes caused by the Wilde scandal after which public physical expressions of male affection seem to have been massively restrained. I might regard your use of the word 'sexual' as redundant....
Posts: 2095 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Eutychus, I will get back on your points - for now I've got other things to do for quite a while....
Posts: 2095 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  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 Steve Langton:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
What about the sexual intimacy of walking hand in hand along the beach late on a summer afternoon? Why can't 2 men engage in that?

Or indeed arm in arm embracing? AIUI that would have been considered quite normal in the UK till the late Victorian era and particularly the disruption of attitudes caused by the Wilde scandal after which public physical expressions of male affection seem to have been massively restrained. I might regard your use of the word 'sexual' as redundant....
Perhaps the intimacy flows from the love that they have one for the other, just as Madame and I walk like that.

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

Posts: 6494 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Anal sex - look, whatever language you use about it, polite, 'playground', or fudge/obscure, excrement is simply not nice stuff and sexuality - in God's world anyway - deserves more respect and honour than that. I also note that it is an aspect where a lot of gay people - even activists like Stephen Fry - seem to have reservations, to put it mildly....

I do hope someone has already pointed out that far more straight people practise anal intercourse than gay. Many gay men don't find it a turn on (including Fry, which is different from having "reservations"), and I don't imagine many lesbians indulge. If I were diligent I'd read back through this thread to check, but life is too short.

--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin

Posts: 8878 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
MT, it's not a 'striking revelation'; you just haven't been reading my posts closely enough but I suppose assuming I'm the standard so-called 'homophobe'. I will of course be delighted if you reinterpret my previous posts in the light of your realisation that I wasn't doing what you assumed I was doing - though I hope this time you actually get it right.....

Bullshit. You have been equating male homosexuality with anal sex all throughout this argument, and people have been calling you on it all throughout this argument. At least own your own actions.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62682 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Eutychus, I will get back on your points - for now I've got other things to do for quite a while....

Again? This is basically the excuse you offered two months ago.

Your strategy seems to be:

1) claim you can't find the link 2) prevaricate 3) hide until you think everyone's forgotten 4) make lengthy posts that don't answer the question 5) go to 1.

I think you can't get back to me, not because you're overwhelmingly busy, but because you don't have an answer.

You can't demonstrate from the Bible that only penis-in-vagina sex is acceptable, you won't defend your outrageous claim that marriage "in God's terms" is only for "those who can naturally do sexual intercourse", and you utterly fail to distinguish between your own personal revulsions and what the Bible actually says.

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16877 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pigwidgeon

Ship's Owl
# 10192

 - Posted      Profile for Pigwidgeon   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Your strategy seems to be:

1) claim you can't find the link 2) prevaricate 3) hide until you think everyone's forgotten 4) make lengthy posts that don't answer the question 5) go to 1.

I know we're not supposed to "out" Shipmates, but I suspect that Steve Langton might be... Donald Trump.

--------------------
Don't keep calm. Go change the world.

Posts: 9172 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I know we're not supposed to "out" Shipmates, but I suspect that Steve Langton might be... Donald Trump.

That's a little bit unfair. I don't think SL really shows many of the most unpleasant features of the POTUS.

He (SL) just can't appreciate nuance and can't accept complexity. He needs things to be orderly and placed into simple categories of "right behaviour" and "wrong behaviour" because anything else is disruptive.

Bless.

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 9360 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I will say this in defence of SL.
The basic underlayment of his arguments is not unique to him, but used by many Christians. Including, not infrequently, on this site.
Argument from Silence
  • It isn't listed as OK in the bible, you cannot do it.
  • It isn't listed as bad in the bible, you can do it.
Interpretive v. Literal
  • The bible says it is a no, no; you cannot do it because there is no argument/interpretation with what the bible says.
  • The bible says it is a no, no; but you can do it, because interpretation/equivocation.

He is a prime example of why those time-honoured methods are rubbish.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16330 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772

 - Posted      Profile for Palimpsest   Email Palimpsest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Note that Steve characterizes Anal Sex as disgusting. Apparently penis in vagina sex is a delightful expression of God's will. and yet, I rarely see an image of it in a church or scripture to exalt it in the way Steve does.

As for his conceit that he's a very special kind of homophobe if only you read his endless nonsensical spew; his homophobia isn't particularly different then the garden variety, only more verbose. It's amusing to note he doesn't want to be associated with the ordinary kind any more.

[ 23. May 2017, 04:37: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]

Posts: 2963 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Mostly busy on another thread at the moment. But I do note that there is a Shipmate who has repeatedly chosen to insult me with the phrase that I am 'full of shite'. That and other common English usages, and those in other languages too, suggest that I'm not at all alone in finding 'shit' disgusting....
Posts: 2095 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Wrong. I don't think shit is disgusting. Given a choice between pearls and pigshit, I'd take the shit every time.

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 9360 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Wrong. I don't think shit is disgusting. Given a choice between pearls and pigshit, I'd take the shit every time.

Oh dear, I've obviously misunderstood. And there I was thinking you were insulting me, and you were actually saying I'm more valuable to you than pearls....

[Smile] [Smile]

Posts: 2095 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think piss is disgusting too but I still stick my dick in my wife.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62682 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
RooK

Rocky Mountain SLAYER
# 1852

 - Posted      Profile for RooK   Author's homepage   Email RooK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm not at all alone in finding 'shit' disgusting....

What most humans do is an amazing thing called "washing".

And, frankly, if you think shit is gross, that's nothing compared to watching a larval human emerge. Such horrors can be avoided by using a pleasantly cleansed and lubed alternate orifice.

The stereotypic completeness of your homophobia is extremely boring. Please stop trying to lie to yourself about it.

Posts: 15055 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Wrong. I don't think shit is disgusting. Given a choice between pearls and pigshit, I'd take the shit every time.

Oh dear, I've obviously misunderstood. And there I was thinking you were insulting me, and you were actually saying I'm more valuable to you than pearls....

[Smile] [Smile]

You've yet to demonstrate you posses any value.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16330 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Oh dear, I've obviously misunderstood. And there I was thinking you were insulting me, and you were actually saying I'm more valuable to you than pearls....

[Smile] [Smile]

No, it is a figure of speech. If I call you a moron, it isn't because I think you are a carrot*, it is largely because the image is so evocative.

Like saying you think your ideas are diamonds when they're actually glass, or gems when they're paste.

I could just as easily have said that that you're full of sawdust, baked beans, maggots.

Actually, if I'd said maggots, that'd be pretty disgusting - I find rotting things more disgusting than shit.

And you are right, you have as much value to me as pearls: absolutely nothing.

*welsh/cymraeg

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 9360 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
On the general point, one person finding something gross is hardly a great measure as to the wrongness of the action.

I find those ear extenders gross, I am pretty squeamish about tattoos, I'm not very good around blood or vomit.

And of course one has to take certain precautions with all of those things - but they're hardly radioactive, so there is no reason to suppose that people who have ear extenders or tattoos are somehow morally inferior or that those who work in hospitals are somehow contaminated.

Moreover, I don't think there is any reason to think that these things are so terrible that they can't be done safely.

I can understand that you don't like anal sex. But I don't think there is any evidence that there is something so physically dangerous about it that it can't be done safely. The fact that it is somehow associated with shit doesn't seem to be particularly relevant to that.

So basically you're just linking your physical reaction to something with a moral hazard, to something so sinful that it can't ever be good.

Which I suppose you're entitled to do, but don't come here thinking that this is some kind of logical argument.

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 9360 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Can I ask you to do a bit of thinking on one point?

Physician, heal thyself.

I've been asking you to do a bit of thinking on one point for months now.

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16877 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Can I ask you to do a bit of thinking on one point?

Physician, heal thyself.

I've been asking you to do a bit of thinking on one point for months now.

Steve, Eutychus has thought about it an he's come to a different conclusion based on the same evidence. That is all. Happens every day.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 23838 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I find those ear extenders gross...

Ear extenders?
Posts: 1984 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
by Eutychus
quote:
I've been asking you to do a bit of thinking on one point for months now.
Done the thinking, already answered it - weren't you paying attention?

I assume you're still talking about your word-games over the use of 'naturally'.

Look, Jesus in Mark 10, God made them male and female designed to become one flesh both by the physical union with the complementary body parts naturally designed for the purpose and also one flesh in another way by creating a new mingled life in their child(ren). Great BIG 'NATURALLY', and also clearly designed whather or not the word is in the text. Only male-with-female can EVER do that NATURALLY.

Male-with-male and female-with-female can absolutely NEVER do that NATURALLY. Effectively, yes, you can get sexual stimulation all kinds of ways, but the nearest you can get to the NATURAL sex as God designed is pretty much a parody.

Playing wordgames about how male-with-female can occasionally have 'natural' difficulties due to age/infirmity/illness/injury/etc is just that - playing wordgames.

Let's be clear - men loving men, women loving women, NO PROBLEM. see David and Jonathan. Physical attraction and physical display of afffection to a very great extent, no problem. In our world some kind of civil partnership no problem. Sex as if male with female - or rather the parody which is as near as can be achieved, problem. Not a problem in non-Christian worldviews, but for Christians definitely.

Jesus, Mark 10, "MALE AND FEMALE", what God incarnate tells us marriage is about. You Christian, you trust Jesus; you not trust Jesus, you not Christian.

I've now come across at least two (and possibly more) cases when pro-gay people have been challenged by this. Initially lots of bluster about how there must be 'other interpretations' - but those other interpretations are never offered. Instead the answer eventually comes back "Jesus was mistaken". And to explain how God Incarnate can be so mistaken, a decidedly alternative version of the Incarnation in which apparently the God of the whole Universe can't manage his own incarnation so that he can teach reliably about something so important.

Which of course effectively destroys Christianity as a religion worth believing. Who in their right mind believes in a God so incompetent, a teacher so mistaken? Clearly those offering this have realised they've no credible alternative interpretation of Jesus' words there; but their attempt to get round that is totally destructive.

Also bizarrely, in one of these cases I was initially sneered at for 'claiming to know more than Jesus' just for offering a very 'ordinary language' kind of interpretation which the person concerned clearly in the end had to accept (otherwise why would there be a need to say Jesus was mistaken?). But surely "Jesus was mistaken" is very much a claim by that person that THEY know better than Jesus. And one must ask both what kind of 'faith' in Jesus is shown by that approach, and well, if they believe Jesus to be that mistaken why do they want to be Christian? The whole thing is a mess and I'm definitely NOT going down that route.

I get that 'gays' have been persecuted about this; and from my standpoint that should never have happened. In a plural society, if you have a worldview in which 'gay sex' is permitted, you are and should be legally free to do it. And in a plural society all the potential different varieties of 'marriage' are not the state's business to judge - just provide a civil partnership framework which can be used for marriage and for other purposes.

But "I have an urge to do sex up the shithole" is NOT something people 'ARE' in the way that they 'ARE' of another race or disabled, and cannot be entitled to the same kind of legal protection as race or disability. Such CONDUCT cannot in a plural society be beyond criticism and even able to basically persecute those who do question it.

Posts: 2095 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:


I get that 'gays' have been persecuted about this; and from my standpoint that should never have happened. In a plural society, if you have a worldview in which 'gay sex' is permitted, you are and should be legally free to do it. And in a plural society all the potential different varieties of 'marriage' are not the state's business to judge - just provide a civil partnership framework which can be used for marriage and for other purposes.

Actually, that's a pretty impressive step you've made there, I'm glad you felt able to say that. You've allowed that people should be able to do something you find offensive and that they should be free and have the same rights as everyone else.

quote:
But "I have an urge to do sex up the shithole" is NOT something people 'ARE' in the way that they 'ARE' of another race or disabled, and cannot be entitled to the same kind of legal protection as race or disability. Such CONDUCT cannot in a plural society be beyond criticism and even able to basically persecute those who do question it.
But who is actually saying that you can't question acts? If what you've said above is what you feel, I can't see that anyone can possibly have a problem with it.

"I believe gay people should be treated equally under the law in terms of marriage, I just don't think that anal sex is a good thing."

That's fine, it seems to me. Just like someone saying that they don't like singing, don't think people should work in a zoo, don't believe that sociology should be a subject available in a university.

The rest of us can just shrug our shoulders, say "meh, there goes Steve talking about his weird views about zoos again", but you're not actively stopping gay people from having full freedom - so no biggie.

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 9360 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
by mr cheesy
quote:
Actually, that's a pretty impressive step you've made there, I'm glad you felt able to say that. You've allowed that people should be able to do something you find offensive and that they should be free and have the same rights as everyone else.
As part of my Anabaptist views I made that step back in the 1960s and saying it is no great effort and never has been. And actually in a politically liberal family was basically in support of the decriminalisation of 'gays' from when I was old enough to know what it meant. I've mentioned the point in the past on the Ship too - it's just not easy to get it noticed while being massively scatologically dumped on by incoherent pro-gay posters who aren't bothering to read what I actually write.

Ideally this should be in the same category of things where people don't wilfully go into a Jewish restaurant and order bacon. That is, people disagree about this and when the two disagreeing parties come into contact there's a bit of a rub. And also the competing worldviews involved should ideally have free speech to persuade about the rights and wrongs. Right now I do feel that the gay party are actually expecting a bit more than just equality....

Posts: 2095 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
OK, that's fine.

So in the same way you'll have absolutely no problem with parts of the Christian church who say different things to you about gay marriage for Christians.

You'll find some friends, huddle into a group where you agree and avoid making any statement that sounds like, or provokes, any kind of discrimination of gays. Right?

You're entitled to your theological views, but you also understand that nobody cares what you think and so you'll keep them to yourself.

[ 25. May 2017, 21:42: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 9360 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
by mr cheesy
quote:
So in the same way you'll have absolutely no problem with parts of the Christian church who say different things to you about gay marriage for Christians.
I think I'd have more than a bit of a problem with the kind of view I outlined above which says "Jesus was mistaken" in a way which pretty much destroys the credibility of Christianity and puts the person doing the interpretation in a position of "I know better than Jesus"!

I'd have a further problem which is that much of the stock 'pro-gay' position is based on rather mechanistic and ultimately amoral ideas of how humans work, which would not be acceptable in Christian terms.

I'll try for tomorrow to come up with some more detailed ideas on how this works....

Posts: 2095 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Look, Jesus in Mark 10, God made them male and female designed to become one flesh both by the physical union with the complementary body parts naturally designed for the purpose and also one flesh in another way by creating a new mingled life in their child(ren). Great BIG 'NATURALLY', and also clearly designed whather or not the word is in the text. Only male-with-female can EVER do that NATURALLY.

I've been there and thought that and as far as I can see, pursuing that line of argument means that the only valid reason for sex and marriage for all time is procreation.

If you want to argue that, fine, but if you are going to do so with intellectual honesty you should be decrying any marriage, or sexual relationship, whether gay or straight, that is incapable of producing children.

That is about far more than playing wordgames. You're going to have to explain how nobody makes straight couples pass a fertility test, quizzes them about their intentions of having children, or asks on a regular basis whether they are indulging in anything other than p-i-v sex.
quote:
Jesus, Mark 10, "MALE AND FEMALE", what God incarnate tells us marriage is about. You Christian, you trust Jesus; you not trust Jesus, you not Christian.
No, he says that's how it was in the beginning, and the point he is addressing is divorce, not same-sex relationships (hat tip to orfeo).

quote:
I've now come across at least two (and possibly more) cases when pro-gay people have been challenged by this.
Wow. What about all the others who get enjoined by church leaders to essentially deny their own identity and what they deeply feel to be "natural", failing which they are told (in brotherly love of course) that they can't really be proper Christians?

quote:
one must ask both what kind of 'faith' in Jesus is shown by that approach, and well, if they believe Jesus to be that mistaken why do they want to be Christian? The whole thing is a mess and I'm definitely NOT going down that route.

I've never claimed "Jesus was mistaken". However, it seems to me that simply banishing as "mistaken" (or indeed, damned) whole swathes of people who have apparently in all good faith wrestled with this issue for themselves is just as bad. Life, including people's sexuality, is a mess. Our calling as a Church is precisely to "got down that route". Not to go around trying to sort out other people's mess (we each have enough of our own) but to open the doors of the Kingdom of Heaven to all.

quote:
But "I have an urge to do sex up the shithole" is NOT something people 'ARE' in the way that they 'ARE' of another race or disabled, and cannot be entitled to the same kind of legal protection as race or disability.
Your reduction of same-sex sexual relationships to a single practice that you deem repulsive is both inaccurate and tiresome. But then I suppose you reduce heterosexual attraction to penis-in-vagina sex for the sole purpose of making babies.

[ 25. May 2017, 22:08: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16877 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
by Eutychus;
quote:
Your reduction of same-sex sexual relationships to a single practice that you deem repulsive is both inaccurate and tiresome. But then I suppose you reduce heterosexual attraction to penis-in-vagina sex for the sole purpose of making babies.
Just using what is basically the 'best-known' case to make the point that it really isn't the same kind of issue as race or disability discrimination. And also that the definition of 'gay' in a Christian worldview might not be the same as the stock 'gay' self-understanding. Basically I pushed on the 'anal sex' button, so to speak, to try to get a more detailed dioscussion of what 'gay' is and what about it is 'sinful' rather than trying to discuss the whole thing under a vague umbrella term.
Posts: 2095 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  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 
Oh FFS you've been told a million times that your idea of what 'gay' means is completely stupid. It doesn't need to be discussed any further.

There are two other things that go up arses with great frequency that serve to demonstrate homosexual anal sex is utterly irrelevant to any sane discussion of homosexuality:

1. In relation to women's arses: men's penises.

2. In relation to your arse: your head.

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

Posts: 17999 | 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 
Sex is action. Sexuality is attraction.


It's regrettable that you can't comprehend bigger words.

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

Posts: 17999 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Basically I pushed on the 'anal sex' button, so to speak, to try to get a more detailed dioscussion of what 'gay' is and what about it is 'sinful' rather than trying to discuss the whole thing under a vague umbrella term.

It's not a vague umbrella term. "Gay" means "boys who are attracted primarily to other boys and girls who are attracted primarily to other girls."

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62682 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A couple of points:

1. SL is trying his not-enough-time trick on both this and the Purg thread on episcopi vagrantes.

2. Madame had great difficulty carrying a child to full term. She eventually was successful after a very difficult pregnancy, but her obstetrician and others advised against trying for a second. It could well have killed her. This is serious. So we both took steps to minimise the possibility, and those have been successful. As there was virtually no possibility of her becoming pregnant these last 25 years, does that mean that our sexual activity during that period has been sinful?

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

Posts: 6494 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A couple of points:

1. SL is trying his not-enough-time trick on both this and the Purg thread on episcopi vagrantes.

2. Madame had great difficulty carrying a child to full term. She eventually was successful after a very difficult pregnancy, but her obstetrician and others advised against trying for a second. It could well have killed her. This is serious. So we both took steps to minimise the possibility, and those have been successful. As there was virtually no possibility of her becoming pregnant these last 25 years, does that mean that our sexual activity during that period has been sinful?

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

Posts: 6494 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Basically I pushed on the 'anal sex' button, so to speak, to try to get a more detailed dioscussion of what 'gay' is and what about it is 'sinful' rather than trying to discuss the whole thing under a vague umbrella term.

No you didn't.

You explicitly said, and have so far failed to retract, that
quote:
Marriage - in God's terms, whatever the secular world may say - is for those who can naturally do sexual intercourse, and not for those who can't

That is not provocation, it's a key plank of your argument.

Either retract that or concede that if marriage is "naturally" about p-i-v sex for the purposes of procreation and nothing else ("the complementary body parts naturally designed for the purpose... creating a new mingled life in their child(ren"), you have no choice but to conclude that anything else going on in a straight marriage is "unnatural".

Furthermore, your entire anti-gay argument at this point revolves around the supposed ick factor involved in anal sex. I challenged you to point to anywhere in the Bible outlawing any particular sexual position for either gay couples or straight, and you can't do it simply becuase there is no such prohibition.

You also repeatedly avoid the twin realities that anal sex can be practiced by a heterosexual couple and that sex acts excluding anal sex can be performed by a gay couple.

All of which makes using anal sex as a discussion-starter on what is meant by "gay" ridiculous, and you know it.

You're simply trampling over other people's struggles and grossly misrepresenting them without a thought for any pain you might cause.

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16877 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Eutychus: Either retract that or concede that if marriage is "naturally" about p-i-v sex for the purposes of procreation and nothing else ("the complementary body parts naturally designed for the purpose... creating a new mingled life in their child(ren"), you have no choice but to conclude that anything else going on in a straight marriage is "unnatural
Did Steve suggest that procreation is part of the essence of marriage and must extend to its entirety?

Take the idea that X has been been part of a marriage for 40 years but the childbearing aspect is long over. Does this fact imply that such a marriage is effectively null and void in Steve's view, given that child bearing and rearing is finished?

This is what you seem to say he stated or implied and it is hard to believe anyone would say this.

This is obviously not a necessary conclusion if that aspect of a marriage was seen as only a necessary part for a certain time rather than necessary over the entirety of the marriage.

Posts: 2922 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Did Steve suggest that procreation is part of the essence of marriage and must extend to its entirety?

Take the idea that X has been been part of a marriage for 40 years but the childbearing aspect is long over. Does this fact imply that such a marriage is effectively null and void in Steve's view, given that child bearing and rearing is finished?

This is what you seem to say he stated or implied and it is hard to believe anyone would say this.

Read the quotes above and make up your own mind. Especially the first one, which is the one I have been trying to get him to retract for months.

Don't think I haven't thought about this.

Essentially, a lot of anti-gay marriage arguments boil down to "they can't produce children" and "they indulge in anal sex" (um, lesbians?). The fact is that both those statements apply to at least some straight couples, and nobody bats an eyelid. If you want to outlaw gay marriage on either of those grounds, you are going to disqualify a lot of straight marriages too.

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16877 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
RooK

Rocky Mountain SLAYER
# 1852

 - Posted      Profile for RooK   Author's homepage   Email RooK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Steve, Steve, Steve...
Just fuck off already, OK? Why you persist in thinking that any other human gives the slightest hovering fuck to your myopic opinions about homosexuality? The only reason you get any responses whatsoever is because people are so appalled with your notions that they feel compelled to refute them.

quote:
I'll try for tomorrow to come up with some more detailed ideas on how this works....

Please don't. Don't bother. Because:
A) Nobody wants to hear any of it, and,
B) Fucking get a boyfriend already and stop punishing all of us with your flailing repressions.

Pages of this banal idiocy because you can't stop thinking about it. Become an adult and get a motherfucking blog already. Or just download Grindr and stop teasing yourself.

Posts: 15055 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think the answer is not to get annoyed and to treat Steve as the kind of idiot who thinks that the moon is made of cheese or that Moses surfed with the dinosaurs.

Just imagine David Attenborough appearing from the undergrowth..

And here we see the Lesser-spotted Anabaptistish Christian Weirdo-bird in his natural habitat, a pulpit which appears to be built on sand. Mostly seen at night, he comes out from his nest with a characteristic "Anal Sex is Ikky" squawk, when he unfurls his beautiful plumage. As he walks around his tiny territory, he leaves massive heaps of steaming excrement in order to attract the right kind of fellow weirdo-birds to join his brood, apparently unaware that he is almost entirely alone.

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 9360 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772

 - Posted      Profile for Palimpsest   Email Palimpsest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Eutychus;
quote:
Your reduction of same-sex sexual relationships to a single practice that you deem repulsive is both inaccurate and tiresome. But then I suppose you reduce heterosexual attraction to penis-in-vagina sex for the sole purpose of making babies.
Just using what is basically the 'best-known' case to make the point that it really isn't the same kind of issue as race or disability discrimination. And also that the definition of 'gay' in a Christian worldview might not be the same as the stock 'gay' self-understanding. Basically I pushed on the 'anal sex' button, so to speak, to try to get a more detailed dioscussion of what 'gay' is and what about it is 'sinful' rather than trying to discuss the whole thing under a vague umbrella term.
So to be provocative, the Bible presents autistic people as being possessed with demons. It provides several remedies. If you don't have a messiah handy, get the stones out. Naturally modern society doesn't treat autism that way, but of course no one can be a good Christian while being possessed with demons. Isn't it fun to be provocative to people who aren't treated badly enough in society,

In case you ever bother to look up from your endless spewing, you might notice that most people on this thread find your posts more disgusting than anal sex.

[ 26. May 2017, 07:13: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]

Posts: 2963 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772

 - Posted      Profile for Palimpsest   Email Palimpsest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

This is obviously not a necessary conclusion if that aspect of a marriage was seen as only a necessary part for a certain time rather than necessary over the entirety of the marriage. [/QB]

How about people who marry with known infertility who can never have offspring. Does Steve's conclusions apply to such couples? I must have missed the part of the marriage ceremony where the medical tests are presented.

[ 26. May 2017, 07:39: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]

Posts: 2963 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Jamat--

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

Take the idea that X has been been part of a marriage for 40 years but the childbearing aspect is long over. Does this fact imply that such a marriage is effectively null and void in Steve's view, given that child bearing and rearing is finished?

This is what you seem to say he stated or implied and it is hard to believe anyone would say this.

This is obviously not a necessary conclusion if that aspect of a marriage was seen as only a necessary part for a certain time rather than necessary over the entirety of the marriage.

In previous, rather heated discussions on other threads, this was stated as the RCC's (traditional) position. (Particularly by a certain absent Shipmate, who felt it his duty to fight the RCC's corner, tooth and nail.)

IIRC, one of the points was that a married couple must be open to having kids. (Whether or not God provides them is another matter.) If an older, straight couple wants to marry, they have to either be willing to have a baby, or not get married. Etc. Under those rules: if the RCC ever permitted same-sex marriage, I presume the spouses would have to be amenable to having an anomalous child.

{Ingo, if you're reading this, I hope your sabbatical is helping you find what you need. Please come back, some day, if/when you're ready.}

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?"--Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon"
--"I'm not giving up--and neither should you." --SNL

Posts: 17371 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
In previous, rather heated discussions on other threads, this was stated as the RCC's (traditional) position. (Particularly by a certain absent Shipmate, who felt it his duty to fight the RCC's corner, tooth and nail.)

OK, well I'm sure Steve is glowing in the knowledge that he agrees with the apparent practice of the RCC - an institution that he clearly despises.

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 9360 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
by Gee D
quote:
1. SL is trying his not-enough-time trick on both this and the Purg thread on episcopi vagrantes.
Not a 'trick' - right now I don't have a lot of free time. Especially if you want the best answers I can give....
Posts: 2095 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The difference with the rest of us is not that we have more time at our disposal, but that we don't unwaveringly invoke a lack of it to avoid answering.

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16877 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601

 - Posted      Profile for Steve Langton   Email Steve Langton   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
by Eutychus;
quote:
You explicitly said, and have so far failed to retract, that
quote:

Marriage - in God's terms, whatever the secular world may say - is for those who can naturally do sexual intercourse, and not for those who can't

That is not provocation, it's a key plank of your argument.

Nothing to retract. Male with female sex is 'naturally' in a big sense, because 'as designed by God'; male with male and female with female cannot ever do that act naturally. As already said, male with female can have practical difficulties but that doesn't affect the big basic point there.

I don't think that sex "must be" procreative or possibly so. I think of it rather in terms that because procreation - the coming into life of extremely important new human beings - is a major part of sexuality, then sex and sexuality needs to be treated with some respect (though not always with po-faced seriousness!). The indications in the Bible are that God doesn't see it as respect when people do actions like anal sex and disregard His male with female design.

Posts: 2095 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Male with female sex is 'naturally' in a big sense

You may not realise it, but you are are playing fast and loose with the word "naturally" here.

The only claim you can support with the adjective "natural" is that reproductive sex is the only way of producing children naturally.

Your dilemma is the following:

- either all sexual activity other than reproductive sex is "unnatural", including heterosexual sex acts

- or at least some other forms and aims of sex are "natural" - and none of them are exclusive to heterosexual partners.

Your refusal to admit this dilemma is epitomised by this colossal fudge of non-sequiturs:
quote:

I don't think that sex "must be" procreative or possibly so. I think of it rather in terms that because procreation - the coming into life of extremely important new human beings - is a major part of sexuality, then sex and sexuality needs to be treated with some respect

Besides, who are you to talk about respect given the violent and childish language you've used?

quote:
The indications in the Bible are that God doesn't see it as respect when people do actions like anal sex and disregard His male with female design.
As I have said before, not only is the Bible deafeningly silent on sexual positions, your idea of "design" - if you really are attempting to decouple it from reproductive sex as you are flailingly claiming - is stunningly lacking in imagination. There's a lot more to our bodies and sex than Tab A and Slot B.

quote:
As already said, male with female can have practical difficulties but that doesn't affect the big basic point there.
So you are finally admitting exceptions to your "natural law" rule above?

The protestant Church as a whole has long admitted such "exceptions", e.g. divorce and remarriage, a) because it has a non-sacramental view of marriage b) because it has accepted that while things may have been a certain way "in the beginning", our "hearts are hard" - and accommodations need to be made.

I'm pretty much a natural law nut in that I believe fertile heterosexual monogamy to be God's original archetype.

However, I don't think I'm misrepresenting Jesus (as you claim) in also believing, today (we are no longer "in the beginning"), that other configurations should be envisaged in order to accommodate the many and various ways people's human condition - including what they may perceive to be "natural" for them - may prevent them from matching that archetype exactly.

I really don't think that amounts to supporting people in their certain damnation and that you should grant a shedload more respect to people for whom such issues are not about shoving anything anywhere, scatalogical or otherwise, but about a life-and-death struggle - sometimes literally.

[ 26. May 2017, 11:41: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60
Jerusalem is a city without walls

Posts: 16877 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  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 Palimpsest:
How about people who marry with known infertility who can never have offspring. Does Steve's conclusions apply to such couples? I must have missed the part of the marriage ceremony where the medical tests are presented.

Exactly. No-one ever BOTHERS with this tiresome argument when heterosexual couples are involved, even though there are assuredly such couples that fall on the "gay" side of the dividing line that is being constructed with the argument.

I'd have some sympathy for the logical consistency of such an argument if it was actually applied consistently, but it never is. It's nothing more than a reach for a justification after the fact, an attempt to provide a rational foundation for an argument that is nothing more than "homosexuals are icky" dressed in nicer words.

I'll believe that procreation is essential to marriage when people demonstrate their dislike of ALL non-procreative marriages, not just the ones that involve 2 males or 2 females. Until that day, people arguing that procreation is the key thing are nothing more than bigoted liars.

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

Posts: 17999 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14 
 
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

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools