|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: I call all homophobes to Hell - especially Russ
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... Having freckles and green eyes doesn't impair you in any way that I can see. But I could be wrong. ...
Of course you're wrong. The vast majority of human beings have brown eyes, black hair, and darker skin, so green eyes and freckles are obviously abnormal, deviant, and defective. Being unable to produce the proper amount of melanin increases the risk of skin cancer, which is most definitely an impairment. It's cruel and immoral for gingers to have children who will also be crippled by gingerality, so gingers should not be allowed to marry each other. They should only be allowed to marry someone with the proper dominant genes, so that the defect of gingerality can be reduced and eventually eliminated.
And meanwhile they should wear wigs and dark glasses so as not to offend the sensibilities of people with normal colouration.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... Having freckles and green eyes doesn't impair you in any way that I can see. But I could be wrong. ...
Of course you're wrong. The vast majority of human beings have brown eyes, black hair, and darker skin, so green eyes and freckles are obviously abnormal, deviant, and defective. Being unable to produce the proper amount of melanin increases the risk of skin cancer, which is most definitely an impairment. It's cruel and immoral for gingers to have children who will also be crippled by gingerality, so gingers should not be allowed to marry each other. They should only be allowed to marry someone with the proper dominant genes, so that the defect of gingerality can be reduced and eventually eliminated.
No no no! If Gingers are allowed to reproduce at all, it means that their nasty genes will be recessively lurking in our collective DNA - possibly producing confused blondes who aren't quite sure whether to produce sufficient melanin or not - and sooner or later two such hidden defectives will breed, releasing another sub-standard human being (and I use the term loosely, of course) into the world.
The only safe way is to sterilise all Gingers, present and future before they can reproduce. Don't give in to the soft liberal idea that allowing Gingers to reproduce with normal people is at all acceptable!
--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave
Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Why won't anyone think of the (pasty) children?!?!
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Oooooooo! How exciting! I am now doubly perverted and hell-bound. This comes as something of a relief, having mostly thought of myself as unconscionably dull.
Signed - a homosexual appreciator of the russet-headed
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Oooooooo! How exciting! I am now doubly perverted and hell-bound. This comes as something of a relief, having mostly thought of myself as unconscionably dull.
Signed - a homosexual appreciator of the russet-headed
Look, I don't mind if you appreciate homosexual russet-heads, but could you please not say it where my mom might read it? Don't you even CARE about her feelings?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
Each generation seems to think they are the first to discover scandalous sex. With no disrespect intended, it remains quite possible Russ's mother could tell tales that would make his hair stand on end.
With the voice of experience, I will just say it is best to be prepared for anything when your parents pass on and you have to go through their papers.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
Because he's stayed with this thread as long as he has, my hope is that Russ will eventually change his theology/thinking. Some of us started out with his warped theology and God mercifully showed us the error of our ways and His great love for all.
This.
--------------------
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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Signed - a homosexual appreciator of the russet-headed
No no no - if you go around turning gingers gay, they won't reproduce. That takes the defective ginger gene out of the gene pool, which makes you useful.
Men who turn gingers gay and stop them from breeding are clearly the sickle-cell disease of the gene pool. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
Gingers are pretty hot, I have to say...
Er, what was this discussion about again? I believe I have the vapors now! *fans self*
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... the needs of the "not-born-gay-but-tempted" who need to be told that this is not a good path to choose.
These would be bi-sexual people who happen to be attracted to a same sex person?
I think by "bi-sexual" you're talking about a fixed, permanent and certain sexual orientation or preference.
The argument here is more about those whose orientation or preference is temporary, uncertain or malleable.
If you see everyone in that grey area as a repressed gay person who needs help to "come out" or as a bisexual person who is being equally true to their own nature whatever they do, then you're not going to see any problem with saying "sure, go ahead, try homosexuality and see if you like it".
Do you believe that there is no-one who is "straight but confused" or "going through a phase" ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Do you believe that there is no-one who is "straight but confused" or "going through a phase" ?
"going through a phase" is most often used by someone who is bi- (or pan-) sexual who finds themself unwilling or unable to admit that they are on occasions sexually attracted to someone of the same sex.
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Do you believe that there is no-one who is "straight but confused" or "going through a phase" ?
Why do you believe you should give a fuck if they are?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You should read up on modern thinking about disability, and then you'd grasp that something isn't an "impairment" unless you describe what it is you're trying to do. Being unable to use stairs is not an "impairment" in a location with no stairs...
...EVERYONE'S got SOMETHING that constitutes an "impairment". My mother can't roll her tongue. Is she out because that part of her body isn't fully functioning? Or is she okay because you figure that being able to roll your tongue isn't important? If the latter, then why did tongues develop the ability to roll?
Yes, I believe that everyone falls short of perfection in some way. Isn't that part of Christianity ?
And that doesn't mean that everyone is a not-OK person. I make a distinction between:
a) the "impairment" being a bad thing, and
b) the person who has it being in some way a second-rate or inferior person
but everyone else here seems to think that a) implies b). (And verbally abusing me for thinking b) is of course far more fun than thinking out the logic of the connection...)
With all due respect to your mother, I'm open to argument as to whether or not being able to roll one's tongue is any advantage. But I believe that that sort of question has a meaningful objective answer that doesn't depend on what one feels like doing at any particular moment in time.
The existence in some people of the ability to roll their tongue doesn't necessarily imply that it is of value - that would be the naturalistic fallacy that we discussed earlier.
But I reject the philosophy of subjectivity that puts "what it is you're trying to do" at any given moment as the only meaningful consideration. Whether or not it is a "modern" philosophy does not determine its truth.
Not being able to use stairs is to be less than fully-capable. Even if that only becomes a relevant practical disadvantage when contemplating a journey that may possibly involve stairs.
I don't want to disparage or belittle in any way the people who for various reasons are unable to use stairs. But that doesn't mean pretending that such a disability isn't a bad thing. Or adopting some half-baked philosophy that says that it's only a bad thing if they feel that it is.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Not being able to use stairs is to be less than fully-capable. Even if that only becomes a relevant practical disadvantage when contemplating a journey that may possibly involve stairs.
Stop using stupid analogies. Being gay does not stop you from using stairs.
In any event, not being able to use stairs becomes less of a problem when we - the able-bodied - stop putting important stuff at the top of a flight of stairs. That we put it there is not the fault of those who find stairs difficult. It's our fault. You may want to consider that.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I don't care what Russ thinks or why. The only value in this thread is the catharsis of insulting unrepentant, self-righteous homophobes and that there might be people with the same viewpoint but without their head so far up their arse that their brain has been completely replaced by shit.
For those who would engage in reason: The preponderance of evidence is that homosexuality is natural and beneficial to a species continuation.
For those "concerned" about "confusion": WTF? If what I do makes me happy and hurts no one, why does anything else matter?
--------------------
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
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Signed - a homosexual appreciator of the russet-headed
No no no - if you go around turning gingers gay, they won't reproduce. That takes the defective ginger gene out of the gene pool, which makes you useful.
Men who turn gingers gay and stop them from breeding are clearly the sickle-cell disease of the gene pool.
One of the things gays and gingers have in common is that, much of the time, it takes two "normals" to make one of us.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Maybe you're seeing homosexuals as a different sort of people ? Rather than as the normal sort of people but with a particular condition ?
It actually took me a long time to work out what you mean here. It seemed at first to be about the clumsiest and least effective ad hominem imaginable. But then I sussed it. You think that because I'm not thinking of gay people as a broken version of "the normal sort of people" (that is, as people who were meant to be straight) then I must therefore be seeing them as radically different in nature to me? That if they aren't perverts then they must be aliens?
Thank you for taking the trouble to try to understand.
I'm suggesting that if you thought of gay people as "a broken version of the normal sort of people" then - like the deaf, the colour-blind, those who can't manage stairs etc etc - you could and would esteem or value them as people without feeling any need to esteem or value their condition.
Whereas if you think of them as human "aliens" then your honourable and decent desire to treat those souls as you would want to be treated leads you to try to esteem their strangeness equally with your normality.
It's the difference between what people have and what people are.
Homosexuals as a class are defined by their homosexuality. Homosexual people are, I'm arguing, not defined by their homosexuality. Orfeo - if he will pardon me using his name once more in a probably vain search for clarity of expression - is not a thing called "a gay". He is a person who happens to have a condition (apparently caused by an imbalance of hormones in the womb) called homosexuality.
That condition may have a profound effect on his life - it's for him to say. But that doesn't make him something alien. And his humanity doesn't make that condition a good thing.
I regret that he is upset with me for not going along with his view of the world. To the extent that there is misunderstanding, I can keep talking so as to try to reduce it. But I'm getting to the point where there's little more to say.
--------------------
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:
Do you believe that there is no-one who is "straight but confused" or "going through a phase" ?
Well, if we had a truly equal and open society where people were accepting of people - whatever their sexuality I don't think there would be anyone 'confused' or accused of being in a 'phase'. It would be unremarkable and un-newsworthy to tell people you are gay.
UK society is heading that way pretty quickly. Thanks be to God.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
You've used many words to say very little.
And quit the pretense of understand a process of which you obviously have no grasp.
It is a hormonal response, not an "imbalance".
ETA: I almost did not add an ETA as it would be obvious to people of even minimal comprehension that this is an X-post.
But then I remembered Russ.
[ 15. November 2015, 17:17: 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
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The only way in which it is inferior is that if you are gay, in a gay relationship, you won't have children with your partner who are the biological offspring of both of you.
You make that sound as if it's a small and unimportant point. Whereas I see having offspring (and establishing the pair-bond to provide them with a stable family in which to grow up) as being the essential purpose of sex.
People may engage in sexual acts thousands of times in their lives. And only need an average of two children to continue the species and continue the family. So there's room for plenty of whatever turns you on in addition to fulfilling that essential purpose. But raising two fingers to that purpose and turning your back on it isn't something I can see as good.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Once again, for the more reasonable:
It is a species continuation that defines a behaviour to be beneficial or harmful, not an individual's direct line. Our species is very obviously not having any issues in creating more of us despite homosexuality being a thing. Probably help our continued healthy existance if we had a higher percentage of homosexuals. In a way, so many fucking heteros is far more harmful.
[ 15. November 2015, 17:25: 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
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
You make that sound as if it's a small and unimportant point. Whereas I see having offspring (and establishing the pair-bond to provide them with a stable family in which to grow up) as being the essential purpose of sex.
People may engage in sexual acts thousands of times in their lives. And only need an average of two children to continue the species and continue the family. So there's room for plenty of whatever turns you on in addition to fulfilling that essential purpose. But raising two fingers to that purpose and turning your back on it isn't something I can see as good.
You must hate Catholic priests and people who marry when they're over the age they can conceive
then.
You seem to now be saying that so long as Orfeo has a couple of kids first, he can then screw whoever he likes - and presumably, marry them - without it being an issue for you. I have to say this seems inconsistent with what you've written previously. Or is it that your self-justifications are flailing around worse than before?
--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave
Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Not being able to use stairs is to be less than fully-capable. Even if that only becomes a relevant practical disadvantage when contemplating a journey that may possibly involve stairs.
I don't want to disparage or belittle in any way the people who for various reasons are unable to use stairs. But that doesn't mean pretending that such a disability isn't a bad thing. Or adopting some half-baked philosophy that says that it's only a bad thing if they feel that it is.
Russ, you obviously didn't get what orfeo was saying in the response you quoted here.
Disability studies sees the difficulties encountered by someone in a wheelchair struggling to access stairs as societal barriers putting obstacles in the way of that person. The defect is now seen as being society's disablism, not the difficulties encountered by the person with the disability. This social construct model is the one that's now favoured in the field and has been for 10 or 15 years.
Which is probably why the views on homosexuality have changed too. Those views have been driven by the social construct view for disabilities and have spread to any discriminatory practices.
Your analogies are pointing up wider changes than just those of society's views on homosexuality. And showing quite how far out of step you are with legislation and the views of those suggesting changes in the law.
(I get to do this stuff as part of my work. Have even done some courses on it.)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If you see everyone in that grey area as a repressed gay person who needs help to "come out" or as a bisexual person who is being equally true to their own nature whatever they do, then you're not going to see any problem with saying "sure, go ahead, try homosexuality and see if you like it".
Do you believe that there is no-one who is "straight but confused" or "going through a phase" ?
What's the problem with saying, "Sure go ahead, try it and see if you like it?"
If they like it then presumably they're not straight but confused at all, but really gay.
If they don't like it, then they will discover that they are really straight, and revert back to type.
Do YOU think there are people who aren't really gay but pretend to be for some reason? Or who mistakenly think they are gay, when in reality they are somehow not really gay, but they just really like members of the same sex, but for reasons other than the fact that they're gay, and don't you see how circular this is?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
You must hate Catholic priests and people who marry when they're over the age they can conceive
then.
He doesn't hate them. He just thinks they're holding two fingers up to God, who created us to be productive fuckers. If you don't squeeze out (or sire) at least two kids, you're defective. End of.
quote:
You make that sound as if it's a small and unimportant point. Whereas I see having offspring (and establishing the pair-bond to provide them with a stable family in which to grow up) as being the essential purpose of sex.
With all due respect, why should anybody else on the planet care what YOU believe to be the essential purpose of sex?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... You make that sound as if it's a small and unimportant point. Whereas I see having offspring (and establishing the pair-bond to provide them with a stable family in which to grow up) as being the essential purpose of sex.....
But we're not talking about sex, you idiot, we're talking about marriage. If two people of the same sex have children, regardless of how it happened, allowing them to marry is better for the children. You have had 33 fucking pages to explain what goal is accomplished if the state denies this. Do you really think the state should be punishing the children of people you think are icky?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What's the problem with saying, "Sure go ahead, try it and see if you like it?"
Or, even better IMO, saying "It's none of my business"?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What's the problem with saying, "Sure go ahead, try it and see if you like it?"
Or, even better IMO, saying "It's none of my business"?
Baby steps, Alan. Baby steps.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Not being able to use stairs is to be less than fully-capable. Even if that only becomes a relevant practical disadvantage when contemplating a journey that may possibly involve stairs.
I don't want to disparage or belittle in any way the people who for various reasons are unable to use stairs. But that doesn't mean pretending that such a disability isn't a bad thing. Or adopting some half-baked philosophy that says that it's only a bad thing if they feel that it is.
You fucking idiot, just because I can't use the stairs DOES NOT mean there is something wrong with me. It does mean someone has put an obstacle in my path. In younger years I found ways around them. Fortunately, society has gotten the message that obstacles are the bad things, not people and removed the vast majority of those obstacles. Good for me as I'm getting too old to use some of my old methods of getting around them. Thank God not everyone thinks like you do.
[ 16. November 2015, 05:14: Message edited by: Niteowl ]
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Soror Magna;
quote:
You have had 33 fucking pages to explain what goal is accomplished if the state denies this.
Just for clarification, having got a bit lost after those 33 pages - Russ, are you saying the state should deny 'marriage' to gay people?
(FWIW, my own position is that ideally various western states should not have been 'Christian' and so should not have had 'Christian marriage' as part of their laws. A religiously neutral state should have a wide-ranging 'civil partnership' system which people of all kinds of different beliefs/philosophies can use as a 'secular/legal' basis for various relationships according to their beliefs. 'Marriage' would probably not be the appropriate name in law for such a provision; but the various users could call it whatever suited their beliefs)
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
(FWIW, my own position is that ideally various western states should not have been 'Christian' and so should not have had 'Christian marriage' as part of their laws.
Really? You know, I'd have never guessed that.
Actually, on this I agree with you. A civil contract is not inherently religious. The problem is that the word "marriage" is now imbedded in our language, and as such any alternative word (no matter how technically accurate and with the result functionally identical under civil law) would always be seen as something inferior to the "real thing". Language is annoying like that.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Thanks Alan;
I agree that it is probably now too late to avoid the word 'marriage' being used of gay relationships. Historical development is rarely logical; on the other hand, standing back and trying to see the logic I attempted to state might help to take some heat out of the situation?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Thanks Alan;
I agree that it is probably now too late to avoid the word 'marriage' being used of gay relationships. Historical development is rarely logical; on the other hand, standing back and trying to see the logic I attempted to state might help to take some heat out of the situation?
I see no reason whatever why it should be avoided.
Our Church is due to discuss this subject. Our minister thinks gay relationships are fine but they should stick to civil partnerships, not get married.
She hasn't given me a good reason - just 'marriage is between a man and a woman'. No reason why.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Thanks Alan;
I agree that it is probably now too late to avoid the word 'marriage' being used of gay relationships. Historical development is rarely logical; on the other hand, standing back and trying to see the logic I attempted to state might help to take some heat out of the situation?
"Historical development?" I was not aware that marriage was a Christian innovation. I suppose non-Christians should be grateful that you're willing to allow them to use the word.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
From what is said by some preachers I do wonder why marriages conducted by registrars should be called marriages. After all, they are entirely secular proceedings.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
She hasn't given me a good reason - just 'marriage is between a man and a woman'. No reason why.
I think she would say that the specific semantic definition of "marriage" isn't "a contract between two people who love each other" but "a contract between a man and a woman ...". Therefore it just cannot be redefined, just as one cannot redefine a "dog" or a "cardboard box" or an "apple" - that is just what they "are". (I don't agree, personally).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Marriage has been "redefined" many, many times over the centuries. Even saying it's "between a man and a woman" is a redefinition, given that in the OT, a man could be married to more than one woman. Or indeed in the NT -- Paul tells Timothy that a bishop should only have one wife. Indicating quite plainly for anyone but the most jaundiced to see that it was possible to have more than one.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
In recent years I have found it difficult to brachiate along branches or other handholds. This might have been a problem for many of my ancestors, and I suppose that this might be considered a disability by Russ.
Stairs, on the other hand, are an arbitrary human device, nominally meant for convenience. Although they are far from convenient for most creatures, such as dogs or young humans or older humans. Which is why we now employ them in public places with care. What people do with stairs in the privacy of their own homes is up to them.
The whole underlying consideration for "disability" Russ is using is deeply flawed. Social constructs are meant to assist people in their endeavours, not filter them into arbitrary distinctions for discrimination.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Marriage has been "redefined" many, many times over the centuries. Even saying it's "between a man and a woman" is a redefinition, given that in the OT, a man could be married to more than one woman. Or indeed in the NT -- Paul tells Timothy that a bishop should only have one wife. Indicating quite plainly for anyone but the most jaundiced to see that it was possible to have more than one.
I don't deny that, although I think that historic definitions have always been heterosexual. This is what might make it difficult for said Minister to redefine it in terms of same-sex.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The only way in which it is inferior is that if you are gay, in a gay relationship, you won't have children with your partner who are the biological offspring of both of you.
You make that sound as if it's a small and unimportant point. Whereas I see having offspring (and establishing the pair-bond to provide them with a stable family in which to grow up) as being the essential purpose of sex.
He makes it sound small and unimportant because it IS--and you, your church, and society admit as much every time you congratulate a woman beyond child-bearing on her marriage. You admit it when you DON’T suggest here that infertile couples aren’t really married.
If it is a major, important point to you and your wife I hope you have had or will have lots of children. No one in your church is likely to think your marriage or even your sex life is superior BECAUSE of that. No one here does either-but no one is suggesting that even if you were both to die childless, you weren’t really married.
What this shows to everyone who doesn’t put their head in the sand is that you are only willing to use childlessness as a bar to homosexual marriages. If you won’t use it as a bar to heterosexual marriages, you have no credibility on that point.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Dave W;
quote:
"Historical development?" I was not aware that marriage was a Christian innovation. I suppose non-Christians should be grateful that you're willing to allow them to use the word.
Wasn't actually thinking that way; of course to me Christianity is the fulfilment of Judaism and so the Christian concept of marriage does go back to Adam and Eve and a text in Genesis emphatically saying that 'marriage' is about God making them 'male and female', not in that context 'male and male' or 'female and female'.
In my comment earlier I was just thinking as far back as 'Christendom' and the way it - wrongfully as I see it - made specifically 'Christian' marriage part of the law in most of Europe/the West.
Please note that I am not opposing same-sex marriage as an option in a pluralist state; just that like various other things that I accept in a pluralist state, I don't necessarily agree that it is ultimately right. That I get allowed to thus disagree is part of what pluralist society is about - or has the gay part of society decided it doesn't after all believe in pluralism, and prefers a tyranny of their own view only???
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Dave W;
quote:
"Historical development?" I was not aware that marriage was a Christian innovation. I suppose non-Christians should be grateful that you're willing to allow them to use the word.
Wasn't actually thinking that way; of course to me Christianity is the fulfilment of Judaism and so the Christian concept of marriage does go back to Adam and Eve and a text in Genesis emphatically saying that 'marriage' is about God making them 'male and female', not in that context 'male and male' or 'female and female'.
Well, we're really flushing out the nutbars with this thread.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Please note that I am not opposing same-sex marriage as an option in a pluralist state; just that like various other things that I accept in a pluralist state, I don't necessarily agree that it is ultimately right. That I get allowed to thus disagree is part of what pluralist society is about - or has the gay part of society decided it doesn't after all believe in pluralism, and prefers a tyranny of their own view only???
Neat sidestep into Persecution Mode there, Steve.
Have you met Russ, at all? You both seem to be saying - through simultaneously gritted teeth and pursed lips - that gays can (just) be allowed relationships - but they're not to get damn uppity about it, do you hear!
[ 16. November 2015, 18:02: Message edited by: Firenze ]
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Please note that I am not opposing same-sex marriage as an option in a pluralist state; just that like various other things that I accept in a pluralist state, I don't necessarily agree that it is ultimately right. That I get allowed to thus disagree is part of what pluralist society is about - or has the gay part of society decided it doesn't after all believe in pluralism, and prefers a tyranny of their own view only???
There is another element of this which to me is thoroughly objectionable. You seem to be dismissing the chance that a marriage that is not between a man and a woman could be regarded as authentic in Christian terms. Please refrain from doing so on my behalf: I see nothing about the bond of love that marriage is held to be that would be inapplicable. Only those who have the "reproductive imperative" at the top of their criteria for marriage would have grounds for dismissing it, and that seems to me to be a cultural imperative, rather than a Christian one.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
That I get allowed to thus disagree is part of what pluralist society is about - or has the gay part of society decided it doesn't after all believe in pluralism, and prefers a tyranny of their own view only???
Homosexuality is not a 'view' any more than heterosexuality is a 'view' ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
(FWIW, my own position is that ideally various western states should not have been 'Christian' and so should not have had 'Christian marriage' as part of their laws. A religiously neutral state should have a wide-ranging 'civil partnership' system which people of all kinds of different beliefs/philosophies can use as a 'secular/legal' basis for various relationships according to their beliefs.
You're in luck then, because most Western nations have recognized non-Christian marriages as valid for centuries. Heck, marriage pre-dates Christianity in most of them.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
'Marriage' would probably not be the appropriate name in law for such a provision; but the various users could call it whatever suited their beliefs
Why not? "Marriage" as a legal institution pre-dates Christianity so if you want a separate term for what Christians do maybe they're the ones who should invent some kind of awkward neologism? "Theistic union"? Possible, though it sounds like a labor organization for clergy. "God fucking"? A bit crude for polite company, though it does highlight the sex, which Christians seem to regard as the most important part of marriage. "Jesus bonding"? Anyway, I'm sure you'll come up with something.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Wasn't actually thinking that way; of course to me Christianity is the fulfilment of Judaism and so the Christian concept of marriage does go back to Adam and Eve and a text in Genesis emphatically saying that 'marriage' is about God making them 'male and female', not in that context 'male and male' or 'female and female'.
Actually that text isn't about marriage, at least not as it applies to anyone living today. The text specifies "[t]hat is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh". Clearly this doesn't apply to Adam's situation, since he had no father and mother to leave.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Organ Builder
Shipmate
# 12478
|
Posted
Actually, as Russ has proved, anyone can believe whatever they want regardless of any arguments to the contrary.
When you believe something that a critical mass of society and increasingly large portions of the Church have come to recognize as an opinion responsible for actual harm to people, you can't expect others to give that opinion the same respect it may have had two centuries ago.
If I knew Russ to be 90 years old, with failing faculties, I'd give him more understanding--there comes a point where senescence robs us of the elasticity needed to consider new concepts.
If, as I have assumed, Russ is in a reasonably prime part of his life he deserves no such special treatment.
--------------------
How desperately difficult it is to be honest with oneself. It is much easier to be honest with other people.--E.F. Benson
Posts: 3337 | From: ...somewhere in between 40 and death... | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, one can say that Russ's views are not eccentric and quixotic, but harmful and helping to produce a context in which gays are bullied, beaten up, killed, and prone to suicide.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
People may engage in sexual acts thousands of times in their lives. And only need an average of two children to continue the species and continue the family. So there's room for plenty of whatever turns you on in addition to fulfilling that essential purpose. But raising two fingers to that purpose and turning your back on it isn't something I can see as good.
If someone performs an activity thousands of times in their life for one purpose and they perform it a couple of times for another purpose, I think it's difficult on the face of it to argue that the primary purpose is objectively the one they only perform it for two or three times.
- Posted 15 November, 2015 16:21 Profile for Russ Author's homepage Send new private message Edit/delete post Reply with quote
quote:Originally posted by orfeo:
You should read up on modern thinking about disability, and then you'd grasp that something isn't an "impairment" unless you describe what it is you're trying to do. Being unable to use stairs is not an "impairment" in a location with no stairs...
...EVERYONE'S got SOMETHING that constitutes an "impairment". My mother can't roll her tongue. Is she out because that part of her body isn't fully functioning? Or is she okay because you figure that being able to roll your tongue isn't important? If the latter, then why did tongues develop the ability to roll?
Yes, I believe that everyone falls short of perfection in some way. Isn't that part of Christianity ?
quote:
I make a distinction between:
a) the "impairment" being a bad thing, and
b) the person who has it being in some way a second-rate or inferior person
but everyone else here seems to think that a) implies b).
Well, you do think that people who are in permanent relationships with people of the same sex shouldn't mention that to new acquaintances, in order to spare their feelings. So you're quacking like someone who thinks gay people are inferior people.
quote:
I'm suggesting that if you thought of gay people as "a broken version of the normal sort of people" then - like the deaf, the colour-blind, those who can't manage stairs etc etc - you could and would esteem or value them as people without feeling any need to esteem or value their condition.
Twaddle. If I have a broken version of a chair, and I don't have the means or opportunity to mend it, I don't esteem or value it as a chair; I throw it away. People are not objects like chairs, but then, people are not literally broken.
We do not endorse your subjectivist philosophy whereby we are supposed to value your subjective esteem. We are interested in how you objectively treat people. And it is quite clear that you think of people with 'conditions' as objects that can be broken and must be kept out of sight.
quote:
But that doesn't mean pretending that such a disability isn't a bad thing. Or adopting some half-baked philosophy that says that it's only a bad thing if they feel that it is.
Just because you call it a half-baked philosophy doesn't mean it is a half-baked philosophy. Nor indeed does calling philosophies that you disagree with half-baked mean that your philosophy is fully baked.
--------------------
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 Croesos;
quote:
Actually that text isn't about marriage, at least not as it applies to anyone living today. The text specifies "[t]hat is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh". Clearly this doesn't apply to Adam's situation, since he had no father and mother to leave.
Yes, clearly Adam had no father and mother to leave - but every person since has, and the text is emphatically about them because it specifies that 'that is why a man (living today clearly implied) leaves his father and mother' - to marry his wife and become one flesh with her. This is clearly how Jesus interpreted the text when he quoted it in Mark 10, connecting the clear statement of creation as 'male and female' from Gen 1 to the 'leaving father and mother...' in Gen 2.
As regards your earlier comments in this lengthy post I would point out that someone else already picked me up on that, and the third of my comments which you quote is from a context of clarifying my position - a clarification which you conveniently ignore. It would be nice if you bothered to read what I post....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
