|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: I call all homophobes to Hell - especially Russ
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Roman views of gay sex seem to involve notions of dominance and subordination. Being a penetrator was OK for adult men, but being penetrated was restricted to slaves, prostitutes and youths. There are some interesting words for the passive partner, 'pullus' (chick), 'delicatus', 'mollis' (soft), 'debilis' (weak), 'effiminatus', 'discinctus' (loose-belted). (Wiki).
I was thinking about that as I wrote, but a wave of laziness swept my fingers from the keyboard.
It is interesting that the very little classical reference on lesbianism existing seems to put lesbianism in a far worse light.
[ 25. September 2015, 16:16: 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
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
in the case of acts of gay sex, Romans 1 indicates a very different situation. We do not hide in other areas behind an idea that 'God made us so' and that therefore our sins are actually good and approved by God....
If your reason for thinking that gay sex is wrong is "my sacred text says that it is", then fine. Treat it exactly as you would ask anyone else to treat an apparently harmless activity which is prohibited in their sacred text: not do it themselves, but not to impose that ban on you if do not recognise either their scripture or their interpretation of it as binding. The people arguing the pro-gay side on this thread are not (as far as I can see) having a go at people because they have religious taboos, but because they are using those taboos as an excuse for cruelty.
If you've got some additional reason to think gay sex is wrong, then let's hear it. I think you'll struggle with that. Whereas you could give cogent and tenable reasons for every other prohibition that you find in the New Testament. That's why gay sex is the odd one out in the NT list of "sins" - the arguments for being against it are weak, unrealistic, incoherent, and overlap heavily with hateful and prejudicial attitudes. There's no other 'sin' that I'm asked to accept solely on a "God just says" basis. Add to that the observable truth that same sex erotic love, between those so made as to be capable of it, is every bit as good and beautiful as love between people of opposite sex, and it seems to me that there's excellent reason to a few more questions about this 'sin' than we do about things that are plainly wrong and harmful.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Do you think that you would consider the matter so blithely if you had homosexual orientation?
No, he would be repentant for having chosen to be gay.
--------------------
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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Eliab;
quote:
If your reason for thinking that gay sex is wrong is "my sacred text says that it is", then fine. Treat it exactly as you would ask anyone else to treat an apparently harmless activity which is prohibited in their sacred text: not do it themselves, but not to impose that ban on you if do not recognise either their scripture or their interpretation of it as binding.
A quick response for now - I hope to come back on other points later;
I emphatically come at this from the kind of position you suggest here - that is, I regard it as voluntary whether people belong to my religion or not, and I very much reject the ultimately UN-Christian idea that there are meant to be 'Christian states' in which 'Christian morality' is imposed by law on those who are not Christians. I regard it as tragic in all kinds of ways that such attitudes did exist in the name of Jesus who, along with his disciples, taught a very different approach. That such attitudes did exist and still do among far too many has made this whole issue far more fraught and extreme on both sides than should ever have been the case.
For a little further clarification, though far from exhaustive, the Bible has no problem with men loving other men - even that such love may be 'greater than the love of women'. The issue is of how that love may appropriately be expressed; and the Bible does appear to set limits on that....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
and the Bible does appear to set limits on that....
And that's where the matter ends. Eliab's whole point is that your opinion on the limits that the Bible sets applies to one person: you.
--------------------
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
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
"greater than the love of women" may not be much more than an acknowledgement that that was a pretty low level at the time. This was the guy who had umpteen concubines, was it not?
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
There's a lot of evidence that men can have greater love for each other than they can for a woman. This is probably where the fear of the inner homosexual comes from for men.
This could be described as a form of homophobia but is hardly comparable to real and actual persecution of homosexual males which still goes on in too many places. The blurring of these two distinctions is doing more harm than good.
As for the assertion a few posts back that most of the disparaging attitudes towards gay men comes from hetero-men? I'm not so sure about that.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Evidence ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Yes evidence DT, although admittedly not something that falls easily from the lips of most hetero- males.
The trenches of WW1 provided an extreme environment where men were willing to testify to feelings for each other that exceeded what they felt for wives and sweethearts.
Tragically many men came home changed, and beat their wives. A stunning triumph for patriarchy .
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
"greater than the love of women" may not be much more than an acknowledgement that that was a pretty low level at the time.
If you think David, the Psalmist of Israel, lamenting the death of his best friend, would go in for bathos like that, sure.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
The response to that is not to raise or lower anyone's status; it's to support anybody who thinks their whole world is ending and wants to end themselves, and sometimes others, with it.
Indeed.
And such support is likely to include amongst other things helping people to a broader and healthier perspective - that the particular problem they have (i.e. the reason they think their whole world is ending) is not the only important thing in life, not the be-all and end-all.
Which is tied up with self-esteem, helping people to realise that they are at the core of their being a worthwhile person who is more than their problem, and is not to be identified with their problem.
Whether the "problem" is unemployment or debt or exam failure or romantic rejection or peer-group rejection or anything else.
It's saying yes you have a problem but it's not an insuperable earth-shattering problem and it doesn't define you - doesn't go all the way down to the soul - because you are first and foremost a person, with talents and a capability for good.
But some people seem to have a different idea of what "support" means. Their approach is "you don't have a problem at all; society has a problem. You need to join me in campaigning for society to have a more positive attitude towards...".
It's a perspective-inversion. And it can lead to reinforcing the unhelpful identification.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by orfeo;
quote:
Eliab's whole point is that your opinion on the limits that the Bible sets applies to one person: you.
I'd need to hear that from Eliab rather than just your... er... opinion on his ideas....
And your opinion on the limits the Bible sets (if any) is so much better because....???
by Penny S;
quote:
"greater than the love of women" may not be much more than an acknowledgement that that was a pretty low level at the time. This was the guy who had umpteen concubines, was it not?
I'm inclined myself to the view that David's opinion was (a) far from settled at that point in his life, and (b) based on what seems to have been unsatisfactory experience with women up to that point. But the basic point I made still stands; while your comments here don't seem to really help the 'gay case'. The Bible fully recognises love between men, but not that such love be expressed in a way God designed for heterosexual relationships.
And I repeat; I'm not in favour of legal persecution of, or discrimination against, gay people by the state. And I'm not in favour of so-called "Christian states" as a basis for such persecution/discrimination.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Boogie, are you anti-Catholic ?
Given that you're now sticking your favourite label on somebody else, I thought I'd have one last try at showing you what's wrong with it.
Clearly you can answer the question for yourself. But I'm guessing you'd say something like
"if you mean am I opposed to the teachings of the Catholic hierarchy then yes, I think papal infallibility is wishful thinking, the teaching on contraception is positively harmful, and basically anyone who believes all of this stuff uncritically is one bead short of a rosary. The State should absolutely not be promoting or endorsing this belief-system.
But there are or have been times and places where Catholics are bullied, persecuted, denied equal access to employment, and martyred for their faith. If you mean do I support such persecution, then no not at all. Catholics should be free to worship in their own way"
I could be wrong, of course. I don't know what's in your head.
But the point is that if I try to say to you that the word "anti-Catholic" means both, and that therefore if you don't agree that the State should be enforcing Catholic observances and morality then you're one of the Paisleyite bigots, then I'm doing you an injustice. Conflating two different realities by applying the same word to both. (Just because your reasoned disagreement with the doctrine and someone else's physical persecution of the individuals have in common that they're counter to what the Catholic church may see as its interests). It's a misuse of language, a logical error.
That's what you're doing with your "homophobic".
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
He routinely ignores absolutely everything I post - possibly because I am a gay woman.
Nothing personal, Doublethink. Just too many people to reply to all, so I pick a few where I feel I have something to say. Or reply to the general sense of several posts and pick one particular comment to hang it on.
IMHO neither your gender nor your orientation makes your points any more or less worth replying to.
Although it's conceivable that men express themselves in a subtly different way from women so that people find it easier to grasp and frame a reply to those of their own gender ? Don't know. Research topic, maybe.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Tubbs, in my experience it is "gays" who
quote:
discuss “gays” like they’re an abstract problem that can be solved by applying a handy set of rules rather than seeing them as actual, real people.
That is, it is "gays" who talk about "gay" as a rather undifferentiated lump thing and avoid detail discussion.
But we're not talking about your experience, we're talking about Russ's words on this thread.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is interesting that the very little classical reference on lesbianism existing seems to put lesbianism in a far worse light.
It takes cunts out of the fuck pool.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
For a little further clarification, though far from exhaustive, the Bible has no problem with men loving other men - even that such love may be 'greater than the love of women'. The issue is of how that love may appropriately be expressed; and the Bible does appear to set limits on that....
So just to be clear, you're perfectly okay with expressions of love that are not prohibited in the Bible? A gay relationship without anal sex, but that included oral sex and manual sex, would be just fine? After all the prohibition made in the Bible concerning methods of expression refers to a man "lying with another man as if with a woman."
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But some people seem to have a different idea of what "support" means. Their approach is "you don't have a problem at all; society has a problem. You need to join me in campaigning for society to have a more positive attitude towards...".
They have a different idea of what the problem that gay teen suicides have. It's not their gayness. It's the societal hate that drives them to consider taking their own lives. Hate that comes most strongly, clearly, and disgustingly from good Christians such as yourself.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by orfeo;
quote:
Eliab's whole point is that your opinion on the limits that the Bible sets applies to one person: you.
I'd need to hear that from Eliab rather than just your... er... opinion on his ideas....
And your opinion on the limits the Bible sets (if any) is so much better because....???
orfeo is right about what I'm arguing.
I know very well that you aren't in favour of imposing Christianity by force of law. However some Christians (possibly including Russ, but his more recent posts suggest a change of emphasis) have tried to argue that homosexuality is immoral on secular grounds of a sort that does justify intervention by society. This doesn't have to be so crude a step as criminalising gay sex (though, shamefully, that still has its supporters) and includes expressions of disapproval, denial of equal rights, and deliberate attempts to demean and scorn gay people. The people who oppose equal marriage may not (for the most part) want homosexuality to be illegal, but they certainly want to define it as second class. Russ's views (which, I note, may have shifted) that gay people should face a degree of social or legal pressure to keep quiet about their most significant human relationships belong in the same category.
I'm arguing that you can't justly put that sort of shit on people unless what they are doing is immoral according to the best secular ethics - the ethics we all accept, the ones about equality, consent, harm, respect, liberty, compassion. And I'm arguing that homosexuality is not wrong by those ethics. At all.
As far as a just and fair society goes, that's an end of it. There's no reason accessible to the best human discernment that love between people of the same sex is morally different to opposite sex love, and no justification for treating it differently.
God may, of course, disapprove of homosexuality for reasons that he hasn't shared with me or my conscience. He might also disapprove of people having sex on Fridays, as being disrespectful to our Lord's passion. He might disapprove of a man marrying a woman of a higher caste. He might disapprove of someone having sex with the child of their godfather. He might (reports vary) either forbid or command a man to marry his brother's widow. Pick the ones you believe. Obey them as much as you want. You still have no right to make life harder, by even the smallest degree, for those people who didn't get God's memo.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I see it in terms of a bully taking out his/her frustrations on someone, a victim to whom the bully thinks the normal rules of behaviour don't apply because that person has put themselves outside the group by not conforming in some (possibly very minor) way.
Often backed up by a crowd of people who are happy to see conformity enforced in this way.
It's usually more complicated than that.
Was there some particular point you think I'm missing ?
quote:
Russ again
quote:
So the victim is chosen for a particular characteristic that the victim has, but the problem is essentially in the mind of the bully (and with the crowd where that applies).
Not necessarily - some of the nastier mobile phone bullying, the so-called happy slapping, I have encountered was just someone being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The crowd wanted a victim to film, to build kudos on youtube.
I think that's not quite bullying in the conventional sense, but that you're right that it's related. In that instance it's not the victim's characteristic that the bullies think excuses them acting on their darker impulses but the fact that it's for the camera.
quote:
Eighty six per cent of secondary school and 45 per cent of primary school teachers still say that pupils in their school, regardless of sexual orientation, experience homophobic bullying. So, however much you try to minimise it, homophobic bullying in schools is still such a significant issue that there are a number of initiatives trying to tackle it.
I'm making the point that "homophobic bullying" is not different in kind from other bullying, and suggesting that measures that tackle the essence of bullying will benefit all types of victim whereas measures which concentrate on one particular type of victim-perception may only shift the problem onto somebody else. But maybe that's not your experience ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
"if you mean am I opposed to the teachings of the Catholic hierarchy then yes, I think papal infallibility is wishful thinking, the teaching on contraception is positively harmful, and basically anyone who believes all of this stuff uncritically is one bead short of a rosary. The State should absolutely not be promoting or endorsing this belief-system."
Your hypothetical anti-Catholic differs from the homophobe in several important respects. For example, she actually has a reason which she can articulate and all ordinary people of average moral sense can comprehend for thinking Catholic doctrine harmful. She probably also extends her feeling against having Catholicism imposed to all other religions (and lack of religion), including whichever form of belief or non-belief she is personally inclined to.
To be comparable to your stated views on homosexuality, she would have to give up all rational reasons for disapproval and replace them with an inarticulate feeling that Catholicism was somehow against her values and defective, want to keep Catholics from talking about their faith and to stop the (age-appropriate) teaching of children about the existence of Catholicism, and support laws that would prevent Catholics from describing their faith with ordinary English words like "religion", "Christian" and "church" and instead be forced to employ contrived alternatives designed for the express purpose of denying the defective Catholic believers any sense of equality with ordinary people.
If she did that, then I think it would be fair to describe her as "anti-Catholic", yes.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
measures which concentrate on one particular type of victim-perception may only shift the problem onto somebody else.
Is there evidence of this? Or is this a hunch?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
And such support is likely to include amongst other things helping people to a broader and healthier perspective -
"Hey, Hey, just don't be Gay; Then everything will be OK"!
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Boogie, are you anti-Catholic ?
<snip loads of inapt comparison>
That's what you're doing with your "homophobic".
Being Catholic is a set of beliefs.
Being Gay is an innate characteristic.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Oh, look, Russ has progressed from "faulty" to "sub-optimal" to "problem".
Russ, being gay isn't a problem. It really isn't. It really is just people like you that want to tell people they have a problem when they don't that makes it a problem.
--------------------
"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
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... I'm making the point that "homophobic bullying" is not different in kind from other bullying, and suggesting that measures that tackle the essence of bullying will benefit all types of victim whereas measures which concentrate on one particular type of victim-perception may only shift the problem onto somebody else. But maybe that's not your experience ?
Well, you've obviously missed the point that straight kids endure homophobic bullying as well. Homophobia isn't just bullying gay kids; it includes insulting anybody by calling them "gay", which, according to idiots like you, equates with "bad". My favourite example is that wonderful day in middle school when I got called "dyke" AND "faggy" on the same day.
So yes, homophobic bullying is different than picking on kids who wear glasses (me), aren't good at sports (me), get good grades (me), and wear polyester (me). I was all those deliciously bullyable things, but they called me a dyke. AND a faggot.
Homophobic bullying happens because people like you are still going on and on about how terrible it is to be gay.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Russ, bullying is not just picking on other people for differences, often it's about the bully trying to be in charge or curry favour with others. Like the example I gave of happy slapping, which you agreed was a different category of bullying to the bullying you envisaged. There is a lot more of that sort of bullying around, the use of anybody to feature in something that can be filmed and shared, than just the picking on differences
Soror Magna had it right. Young people are bullied for being gay even when heterosexual because homosexuality is seen as such a negative thing. Church schools are having to put things in place in England and Wales to attempt to prevent homophobic bullying.
One of the reasons I am so anti-homophobia is that I have seen the knock on pressure on all young people, gay or straight from this particular discrimination, and continuing to excuse reasons to be homophobic is perpetuating this whole situation.
eta change adverb to adjective
[ 26. September 2015, 04:35: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
It's a misuse of language, a logical error.
That's what you're doing with your "homophobic".
No, the logical error is yours.
I am not anti-heterosexual, I am not anti-homosexual. I can't be anti either of these things. I can only respond to people who have either of these sexualities (or another, bisexual for example).
If I expect people to be treated differently according to their sexuality then I am wrong.
I don't believe gender, race, skin colour or sexuality should every be a reason for lack of equality in every walk of life.
Religion is another matter. I think whatever religion you practice is fine, so long as it does no harm and you don't force it on others. But the religion we follow is a matter of choice (debatable in some countries, but here in the UK it is).
My SIL wouldn't agree - she sees all religion as indoctrination and exposing children to it as a form of abuse. (I keep off the subject with her!)
For the record I'm not anti-Catholic at all, I used to attend a lovely Catholic prayer group back in the day ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Yes evidence DT, although admittedly not something that falls easily from the lips of most hetero- males.
The trenches of WW1 provided an extreme environment where men were willing to testify to feelings for each other that exceeded what they felt for wives and sweethearts.
Tragically many men came home changed, and beat their wives. A stunning triumph for patriarchy .
I think that is better explained by being at risk of death and ptsd. I was hoping for a citation when you mentioned evidence.
[ 26. September 2015, 08:36: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Although it's conceivable that men express themselves in a subtly different way from women so that people find it easier to grasp and frame a reply to those of their own gender ? Don't know. Research topic, maybe.
What a load of bollocks. Do you reach for sex or gender to explain everything that happens in your world ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Tubbs, in my experience it is "gays" who
quote:
discuss “gays” like they’re an abstract problem that can be solved by applying a handy set of rules rather than seeing them as actual, real people.
That is, it is "gays" who talk about "gay" as a rather undifferentiated lump thing and avoid detail discussion.
by Tubbs;
quote:
Because maybe if Christians started seeing Gays as people created in the image of God
We see all sinners (including the sinners we are ourselves) as 'created in the image of God' - but sin is still sin and was not created by God; in the case of acts of gay sex, Romans 1 indicates a very different situation. We do not hide in other areas behind an idea that 'God made us so' and that therefore our sins are actually good and approved by God....
Your experience does not match mine.
Science has moved on a bit since Paul was writing and we now know sexual orientation is one of the things you get given. It's like eye or skin colour, you don't get a say. So it is part of "how you're created by God". You can argue that all sexuality is tainted by The Fall, but many Christians who present male-female sexual relationships and marriage as God's ideal gloss over that. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Tubbs
[ 26. September 2015, 08:46: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Although it's conceivable that men express themselves in a subtly different way from women so that people find it easier to grasp and frame a reply to those of their own gender ? Don't know. Research topic, maybe.
What a load of bollocks. Do you reach for sex or gender to explain everything that happens in your world ?
I think there's some truth to that quote from Russ, actually. (Not specifically in a homosexual context.) It depends on the people and the situation.
Wrestling with that was the theme of the movie "Women In Love". (From Thomas Hardy's book, IIRC, though I didn't read it.) The story is very much about the men, too.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Wrestling with that was the theme of the movie "Women In Love". (From Thomas Hardy's book, IIRC, though I didn't read it.) The story is very much about the men, too.
D. H Lawrence wrote Women in love
Some thought Lawrence to be kinky or possibly AC/Dc. That was his business, as far as I can tell he was streaks ahead of his time.
Some critics might have dismissed him for being obsessional about sex, but I believe that couldn't be further from the truth as to what the bloke was really about.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Where no one is hurt there is no sin. Please educate yourself.
That's not the Christian understanding of sin. In Christian thought there are sins that do not involve hurting other people (such as gluttony) and conversely virtues (such as courage) which are not about how much other people are helped.
Please educate yourself.
And if we were to divide the sins into those that hurt others and those that only damage the sinner(s), we might conclude that the first group are actions that we might seek to protect innocent people from, but the second group are actions that we can and should tolerate in others.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Using that logic, Russ, homophobia is a sin because it is harming lots of people, both straight and gay, as it leads to the bullying that happens to everyone and to the increased suicide rates of those who identify as homosexual or who are seeking to understand their orientation.
Whereas the sin of homosexuality, as identified as a sin in the Bible and so by you, only affects those involved in homosexual acts and is something we should tolerate in your terms.
[ 26. September 2015, 16:28: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
For the record I'm not anti-Catholic at all, I used to attend a lovely Catholic prayer group back in the day
I didn't imagine for a moment that you had any personal animosity or ill-feeling against Catholics, which is the sense that you're using the term in this quote.
I was making the point that it would be unfair to you for someone to also and at the same time use "anti-Catholic" to mean "disagrees with Catholic doctrines". Which I understood from your earlier comment that you do.
How can you defend yourself against a charge of "antiCatholicism" if it means at the same time something that is true and not bad (reasoned disagreement with the doctrine) and something that is bad and false (personal animosity to the people involved) ? What would you say to someone who insists that antiCatholicism is a real thing of which both these things are but aspects or manifestations ?
--------------------
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
Homophobia is homophobia. Of course there are different degrees of harm caused by those who are homophobic. I imagine that some people may possibly cause no harm at all (by keeping it to themselves).
But if they had a child came out as gay they would harm him/her by their attitude - in fact would already have harmed him/her.
Our sexuality does not equate with our religion at all - you are using (another) poor analogy.
Just talk about the subject at hand and drop the pointless analogies Russ.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
I always thought the "greater than the love of women" bit was saying that platonic love was greater than love born of sexual desire. That interpretation applies to everyone, gay, lesbian or straight. If it's read as sexual love then it sounds like love between gay men is greater than lesbian love -- which I find hard to believe it would mean.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I always thought the "greater than the love of women" bit was saying that platonic love was greater than love born of sexual desire. That interpretation applies to everyone, gay, lesbian or straight. If it's read as sexual love then it sounds like love between gay men is greater than lesbian love -- which I find hard to believe it would mean.
Well it certainly wouldn't be true for me, but then again I'm not gay. If David was, or was bi, then maybe that's what it meant. There was that incident between David and Jonathan where one of them (I forget which) took off all his clothes.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
How can you defend yourself against a charge of "antiCatholicism" if it means at the same time something that is true and not bad (reasoned disagreement with the doctrine) and something that is bad and false (personal animosity to the people involved) ?
Dawkins thinks Roman Catholics should be forbidden to teach their beliefs to children. No doubt he thinks that's reasoned disagreement. From the other side of the fence, it looks like prejudice and intolerance.
I don't think Dawkins gets to decide which one it is.
It seems to me that you want us to affirm your viewpoint as not immoral just because you say it is? That you think we should call your view 'reasoned disagreement' regardless of whether it is reasoned, because that makes you feel good about yourself? Regardless of truth?
Do you think every viewpoint that calls itself 'reasoned disagreement' has a right to be validated as such? Do you think that there's some obligation upon us to affirm your views as 'reasoned disagreement' just on your say so? That even as you call our friends defective and immoral, we have a duty not to call your views rationally defective and immoral?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Tubbs;
quote:
Your experience does not match mine.
Science has moved on a bit since Paul was writing and we now know sexual orientation is one of the things you get given. It's like eye or skin colour, you don't get a say. So it is part of "how you're created by God". You can argue that all sexuality is tainted by The Fall, but many Christians who present male-female sexual relationships and marriage as God's ideal gloss over that. [Razz]
Thank you Tubbs for a serious response.
Not only has science moved on since Paul's time, the science of psychology and human development has moved on since the era (between the late-19th and mid-20th centuries) when most of the current pro-gay rhetoric was devised, and the bits of that 'moving on' that I'm aware of don't necessarily support that pro-gay rhetoric.
Some things you indeed don't get a say in; but things you choose to DO, you do get a say in. Performing acts of gay sex, for example....
Not just all sex but all human life is tainted by the fall. As is stated by Paul in Romans 1, to which I referred. In an admittedly over-simplified summary (given the time of night I'm writing this!), God created heterosexual sex - but he ' gave men over to ' their choice to rebel against Him and consequences including sexual DISorientation.
Eliab, thank you for your response - I'll try to get back to it tomorrow; it's too much to try a coherent response tonight after a somewhat exhausting day.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Steve, please just get it through your head that your interpretation of Romans 1 is not everyone's interpretation of Romans 1. Ta.
--------------------
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
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Russ:
[qb] Dawkins thinks Roman Catholics should be forbidden to teach their beliefs to children. No doubt he thinks that's reasoned disagreement. From the other side of the fence, it looks like prejudice and intolerance.
I don't think Dawkins gets to decide which one it is.
So you agree that they are two different things ?
If all that I have said on these 20 pages is not enough to convince you that my position is a reasoned disagreement with Boogie's doctrine of "different not faulty" (applied to sexual desires and not to people, by the way) what would I need to say in order to convince you ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by orfeo;
quote:
Steve, please just get it through your head that your interpretation of Romans 1 is not everyone's interpretation of Romans 1. Ta.
Been through this before, haven't we? As I recall you accept the somewhat strange and incoherent view that Romans 1 doesn't represent Paul's own view but him putting forward a Jewish 'anti-Gentile rant' which he disagrees with and then in effect makes fun of. When I looked into this I could find NOTHING in the original Greek to support that interpretation - all the 'therefores' etc are exactly as needed for the traditional interpretation.
When I pointed that out on thread I was treated to the information that in effect what the text said didn't matter - the epistle would be delivered by a messenger who would be instructed to read the message out in such a way as to bring out the comic interpretation....
Pardon me if I feel that that kind of suggestion is hardly normal interpretation, more a case of anything goes to make the Bible mean what you want rather than what it actually says! I think it fair comment that if I had proposed such a style of interpretation on behalf of my own position, you'd all have laughed it off the ship - it was only 'got away with' because it was offered on behalf of the popular pro-gay wishful thinking.....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Twilight;
quote:
I always thought the "greater than the love of women" bit was saying that platonic love was greater than love born of sexual desire.
IF by 'platonic' you mean what is sometimes described as a 'bloodless' spiritual, non-physical love, I don't think that would apply to David and Jonathan, described at one point as physically embracing till David was overcome by the emotion.
Christianity is the religion which believes the physical creation is good and the body important, as witness the Incarnation of God in Christ and the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. Physical attraction and physical expression of love are fine - just it's not appropriate to express same-sex love in the way (or rather, in a parody of the way) God specifically made for heterosexual love.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Steve, I thought that there were queries as to what Paul means by the Greek wording used in Romans 1: 26-28 which is often translated to proscribe homosexual activities. Doesn't he use words that don't appear anywhere else in the Bible or anywhere else in writings of the time? Which immediately means any translation is an interpretation (through whatever lens used at the time). It could mean any sort of perversion: temple prostitution is one that is suggested regularly.
Romans 1: 26-28 is really subject to interpretation in all senses of that word.
(And shouldn't we be having this conversation in Dead Horses?)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Homophobia is homophobia. .
Homophobia isn't anything. "Homophobia" is a label that you use to mean "anti-gay" (taking in both genders of homosexuality).
You stick that label on morally-wrong acts like bullying and think it makes them worse. And you then stick that label on ideas to imply that holding them is just another aspect of bullying. As a way of trying to peer-pressure people to your point of view instead of providing arguments for its truth.
It's a dishonest use of language.
I can say that. But it's more effective to show you that by drawing an analogy with another label that some people use in a similar way. So that you can see what you're doing from the other side.
Just as I use analogies to try to show you that anything I say about homosexual people follows logically from the (to me self-evident) idea that heterosexuality is Nature's way of continuing the human species and that homosexuality is a corrupted manifestation of that. I find that in general showing is more effective than telling. Just as the analogy of left-handedness showed me clearly your point of view.
People with an impairment or fault are not thereby defective or bad people. (Faulty memory and impaired vision are likely to be my lot in old age. And the process has started.). I reject the idea that gay people like orfeo and doublethink should identify with and be defined by their gayness.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
<snip>
.. anything I say about homosexual people follows logically from the (to me self-evident) idea that heterosexuality is Nature's way of continuing the human species and that homosexuality is a corrupted manifestation of that.
The problem with using language like corrupted manifestation is that it is emotive language. Corrupted carries implicit meanings of wrongness, dishonesty, debasement, depravity, perversion, wickedness and evil (to quote from the two first definitions of corrupt from the online dictionary). So you are automatically adding those inferences to homosexuality in your phraseology. I implicitly understand from that wording that you still see homosexuality as an evil perversion.
Whereas with the analogies comparing homosexuality with left-handedness and red hair, the emphasis is on natural differences which are no longer seen as sinister or signs of witchcraft. Differences that are accepted as some of the many quirks of humankind which arise from natural mutations. Mutations that allow species to adapt and survive their environment.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Homophobia isn't just bullying gay kids; it includes insulting anybody by calling them "gay", which, according to idiots like you, equates with "bad". My favourite example is that wonderful day in middle school when I got called "dyke" AND "faggy" on the same day.
So yes, homophobic bullying is different than picking on kids who wear glasses (me), aren't good at sports (me), get good grades (me), and wear polyester (me). I was all those deliciously bullyable things, but they called me a dyke. AND a faggot.
Sorry, SM, not quite clear what you're saying here. That these are the baddest words that your peer group knew ? Or that there was something about your demeanour that suggested to them that these insults were appropriate ? Or that you responded to the ill-intent even though you knew the content wasn't true ? Or that this was in some way worse than being looked down on for being unsporty ? Can you explain why ?
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Just as I use analogies to try to show you that anything I say about homosexual people follows logically from the (to me self-evident) idea that heterosexuality is Nature's way of continuing the human species and that homosexuality is a corrupted manifestation of that.
You really need to talk face-to-face with some homosexual people and see if you feel comfortable saying that their sexuality is a corrupted manifestation of anything!
Our gender seems to be decided in the womb when the foetus (which has neither gender to start with) changes after a flush of testosterone. It's perfectly possible that our sexuality starts then too, nobody is sure. But, tbh, it just doesn't matter.
The human race is in NO risk of dying out because some people prefer to have sex with same sex partners so I don't see why you major on procreation in your arguments.
1. Homosexual people can have children - two of the people in my family do.
2. It's not a problem if we chose not to have children, whatever our sexuality.
Why do you see this as a corruption of any kind?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Our gender seems to be decided in the womb when the foetus (which has neither gender to start with) changes after a flush of testosterone. It's perfectly possible that our sexuality starts then too, nobody is sure. But, tbh, it just doesn't matter.
Um, no. There's the small matter of the X and Y chromosomes which determine gender. Females have XX chromosomes, males XY. The combinations of XXX, XXY and XYY do occur and are all known syndromes (Trisonomy X, Klinefeller syndrome, XYY syndrome). Gender is genetically determined, except when it isn't, e.g. intersex children.
Sexuality is what possibly starts in the womb, with the testosterone levels in utero, but there are also genetic links.
(Anyone able to guess what I trained to teach?)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Yes - I know about the chromosomes too, but the prenatal flush of testosterone is what causes the penis/clitoris to begin to develop and it has a role in foetal sex development too.
"The hormonal theory of sexuality and gender identity holds that, just as exposure to certain hormones plays a role in fetal sex differentiation, such exposure also influences the sexual orientation and or gender identity that emerges later in the adult."
My point is really that the cause will be multi faceted and actually doesn't matter at all. If someone self-identifies as homosexual then that's enough.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If all that I have said on these 20 pages is not enough to convince you that my position is a reasoned disagreement with Boogie's doctrine of "different not faulty" (applied to sexual desires and not to people, by the way) what would I need to say in order to convince you ?
You'd have to start by acknowledging that someone whose position was reasoned disagreement would not have jumped from a misremembered article about sex education guidelines to the claim that gay people are asking primary school children to imagine what gay people 'get up to'. Nor, on being challenged on this point, would someone whose position was reasoned disagreement have said that they were still concerned that it might happen in future.
You'd have to stop characterising Boogie's position as privileging political ideals over truth.
You'd have to show some signs of acknowledging that homophobic bullying is an actual problem rather than just shrugging and saying that bullies will be bullies.
You'd have to acknowledge that if a lot of people feel revulsion towards gay sex, there's a strong chance that what those people who feel revulsion think is reasoned disagreement is in fact just their subjective expression of that revulsion.
In short, you'd have to start by acknowledging that there's a good deal of evidence that your position isn't reasoned disgreement.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Well stated and reasonable, Dafyd. But Russ has shown a massive immunity to reason, thus far.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
