|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: And there's another gay bakery case
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
And I still have no idea what the difference is between the things that Russ accepts as areas for law and "social engineering". They're ALL social engineering. Enforcing contracts is social engineering.
--------------------
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
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
So you believe the law should be impartial, but you don't want the law to require individuals to be impartial.
Of course not. I want individuals to be free to cheer for one side at a football match, commit themselves to a religion that believes all the other religions have got it wrong, or sell what they believe to be good books but not bad books. ...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) It should be abundantly clear from the topic of this thread that I clearly meant "impartial towards other individuals". And, of course, on this thread we're talking about situations where individuals have set themselves up as purveyors of goods and services to the general public but want to be jerks towards certain customers. And the question is not which books are for sale, but which customers get service. And football is just another big nose. And anti-discrimination laws do not interfere with religious organizations organizing themselves according to their religion.
You're still arguing for a privileged status for certain bigots, where the state may pass laws against discrimination, but bigots who happen to run businesses can ignore them. And the <cough>serfs<cough> individuals who work for those bigots also have to ignore the law (and possibly their own beliefs) or lose their jobs. And you haven't come up with any good reason to allow this meshuggah, except that it's not nice to "impose" one's beliefs on other people. Unless those beliefs belong to one of those special individuals who gets to ... to .... wait for it ... impose their beliefs on the public and their employees.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No-one, but no-one, is suggesting that it should be wrong to refuse service to someone.
I've pointed this out numerous times (mostly without reply - it's truly fascinating to see how rarely you can bring yourself to reply to my posts). The most obvious one is that it's okay to refuse service to someone because they don't have money.
But I think we could find some others to do with unacceptable behaviour where it would be legitimate to ask someone to leave.
"Refuse service" is of course shorthand. We're talking about a business that makes an implicit or explicit offer of a transaction, such as "widgets $1". And then refuses to make the offered trade when someone accepts that offer.
In many places, it would be illegal to advertise widgets for $1 and then demand $2 per widget when the customer has made up his mind to buy. If you can do that without reference to protected characteristics, I'm sure you can prohibit the retailer from deciding that they're not going to sell their widgets at any price to a certain sort of customer. Under ordinary legislation concerning sale of goods and services.
I've agreed that a legitimate exception could be made for sanctions against anti-social behaviour on the premises. And that restaurants and bars can have dress codes (but these should be displayed so that they're not advertising what they're not prepared to deliver).
I'm sorry if you feel I'm ignoring your posts. It's not intentional. I'm outnumbered on this issue, and don't have time to respond to everything. I try to pick issues to respond to where there's something interesting and/or constructive to say, rather than just "oh no it isn't". Some days there are just too many...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... I'm sure you can prohibit the retailer from deciding that they're not going to sell their widgets at any price to a certain sort of customer. Under ordinary legislation concerning sale of goods and services. ...
If ordinary legislation had been enough, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Seems like the words "equality" and "morality" are both used with differing but related meanings. No wonder it's hard to get any sort of agreement.
Which is why we return once again to the word harm. When your two solitudes of progressive and conservative interact in a way in which somebody experiences harm, we can discuss productively what was the harm and possibly what harm outweighs another.
I agree that we can and should seek agreement as to what set of impartial rules minimises harm.
But if it's only a harm to progressive notions of equality or a harm to conservative notions of tradition then there's not going to be any more agreement on the weight of different consequences than there was on moral conduct.
Utilitarianism doesn't avoid the difficulties.
We are not talking about harm to notions, but harm to individuals.
In order to facilitate discussion and hopefully come to agreement, in this case between factions named progressive and conservative, we have a category called "reasonable." As in: "Would a reasonable person conclude that x constitutes harm?"
In a pluralistic society, we depend on people having the capacity to be reasonable, even if being reasonable conflicts with certain aspects of their worldview.
"Reasonable" is hardly objective. Societies differ on what constitutes reasonable expressions of certain freedoms. But since you brought in the idea of agreement between progressives and conservatives, it seems to me that being reasonable is the best hope of finding such agreement.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But if it's only a harm to progressive notions of equality or a harm to conservative notions of tradition then there's not going to be any more agreement on the weight of different consequences than there was on moral conduct.
Utilitarianism doesn't avoid the difficulties.
I think in this context we talk about harm to actual people, rather than harm to ideas. So not being able to sit at the lunch counter is harm. Having to research stores in advance to check that they will serve you is harm. Having all the local wedding venues decline your business is harm.
And if I am a gay couple looking for some celebratory confectionery, the fact that the only cake shop in the village is "Cakes for Straights" doesn't take away the harm.
Set against that, the actual harm done to the traditional conservative baker is that he has been forced to ice "Congratulations Adam and Steve" on a cake.
He is free to exclude gay people from his church and from his group of friends, if he thinks gay people are all unrepentant sinners. Just not from his cake shop.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I want individuals to be free to cheer for one side at a football match, commit themselves to a religion that believes all the other religions have got it wrong, or sell what they believe to be good books but not bad books.
I clearly meant "impartial towards other individuals". And, of course, on this thread we're talking about situations where individuals have set themselves up as purveyors of goods and services to the general public
You're saying that people - insofar as they deal with the public - should be impartial to other individuals but are not required to be impartial to causes ?
OK, you win. You're quite right. Put like that, it makes sense.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
In many places, it would be illegal to advertise widgets for $1 and then demand $2 per widget when the customer has made up his mind to buy. If you can do that without reference to protected characteristics, I'm sure you can prohibit the retailer from deciding that they're not going to sell their widgets at any price to a certain sort of customer. Under ordinary legislation concerning sale of goods and services.
I've no idea why you're sure of this. You're quite wrong to be sure.
There is no general, wide-ranging obligation to sell things to people.
Furthermore, it seems you still can't see the problem with going from "without reference to protected characteristics" to "a certain sort of customer". WHAT KIND of customer? A customer without money is "a certain sort of customer". A drunk customer is "a certain sort of customer". A naked customer is "a certain sort of customer".
[ 05. February 2017, 20:23: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I agree that we can and should seek agreement as to what set of impartial rules minimises harm.
But if it's only a harm to progressive notions of equality or a harm to conservative notions of tradition then there's not going to be any more agreement on the weight of different consequences than there was on moral conduct.
As has been mentioned multiple times on this thread, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Marriage Equality was based on demonstrable harm to those who were not permitted to marry (even in States with some version of Civil Partnership), compared to no demonstrable harm to anyone if those people were permitted to marry. The "harm" comes in many forms, including tax and inheritance law, next-of-kin designation, hospital visiting rights, even the ability to stay home with your partner's sick child under the Family Medical Leave act. Those who are interested in understanding the range of harm found by the court can read the decision, which has been linked to previously.
So it isn't "only harm to progressive notions" - it is real harm to real people (especially children of couples who were prohibited from marrying.) And, note again, the court found no harm to others from permitting same-sex couples to marry, despite a large number of briefs from conservative organizations who were arguing against it.
So getting one's nose twisted out of joint because someone you don't like will be treated as an equal human being was not found to constitute harm. Especially since it is generally self-inflicted.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
it seems you still can't see the problem with going from "without reference to protected characteristics" to "a certain sort of customer". WHAT KIND of customer? A customer without money is "a certain sort of customer is "a certain sort of customer"... A naked customer is "a certain sort of customer".
I can do no better than refer you to Soror Magna's words - that those dealing with the public should be "impartial to individuals".
Not causes, not behaviour, but individuals.
Going into a shop naked or drunk or having left one's wallet at home (or indeed all three at once) are behaviours, not characteristics of individuals.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
it seems you still can't see the problem with going from "without reference to protected characteristics" to "a certain sort of customer". WHAT KIND of customer? A customer without money is "a certain sort of customer is "a certain sort of customer"... A naked customer is "a certain sort of customer".
I can do no better than refer you to Soror Magna's words - that those dealing with the public should be "impartial to individuals".
Not causes, not behaviour, but individuals.
Going into a shop naked or drunk or having left one's wallet at home (or indeed all three at once) are behaviours, not characteristics of individuals.
While that distinction has some appeal, I can tell you without hesitation the first place it is going to run into practical trouble if the law is written so abstractly.
Homosexuality.
Being vs doing. We see it here every time Steve Langton brings it up. There are people who insist that homosexuality is a behaviour, not a characteristic.
And so, they will feel justified in saying that holding hands with a partner of the same gender is a "behaviour". They will infer all sorts of "behaviours' that must be going on in the privacy of people's homes.
And they will treat all of those "homosexual behaviours" as somehow fundamentally different from the equivalent heterosexual behaviours.
All the way down to saying that two homosexuals publicly committing to each other by saying "I do" is somehow an intrinsically different behaviour to a man and a woman publicly committing to each other by saying "I do".
[ 06. February 2017, 20:57: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
You haven't convinced me that it's any less just to refuse service to someone because of their big nose,
I have argued that it is less just. Nothing in my argument requires that to be true.
mdijon has argued a while back that discrimination against a group that is already disadvantaged is more blameworthy than arbitrary discrimination as such, and he was clearly right about that, but it's not an argument or conclusion I've relied on.
quote:
or any less practical to make the act illegal without reference to the particular characteristic that triggers the refusal.
That can only be because you haven't been paying attention. orfeo sets out the reasons perfectly.
quote:
And if your answer is "it's about that but not only about that" then I can only conclude that you're resistant to thinking about the nature of this ethic that you advocate.
Or possibly, that I have thought about it, and think that the justification for addressing discrimination as a social problem does not reduce to a one straw-man criterion of rightness? Which do you think is more likely?
Let me explain why discrimination is a more complicated problem than we can reduce to Act, or Intention, or Motive - you said, a few posts back, about a possible hiring policy "If the job involves meeting clients and the important clients happen to be Lutherans, then someone who can make a favourable impression - who conforms to the clients' prejudices - could legitimately be preferred."
I'll develop that theme a little.
I've just been appointed manager of a branch of a small business - a bakery, in fact. There's an open space, a counter, a food-preparation area that's visible from the front of shop (customers like to see that the sandwiches and pasties are freshly made in a clean environment) and a very small seating area where customers can sit down for a cream slice and cup of coffee. That's not a key part of the business, rhough, and I don't always have the staff to run the coffee machine and keep the are clean, so it's not always open to the public.
The trouble is that my branch of the chain is in Bigotsville. Now I'm not remotely racist or homophobic, but many of my customers are. If I employed a black person to prepare or serve food, I'd lose business, because almost everyone in Bigotsville thinks black people are dirty and lazy. And employing gays is almost as bad - I'm sometimes asked whether I'd employ a gay baker, because everyone 'knows' that God has infected them all with AIDS and sundry other plagues as a punishment for their sins, and that you can get HIV from a chocolate brownie, and if I had to confess that I did employ gays the business would collapse.
The residents of Bigotsville can just about stand to see blacks and gays queue up for bread and cakes, but they wouldn't go into a shop where a black woman was sitting down with a coffee, or two men were holding hands and sharing a cream slice. No matter how fond the local blacks and gays may be of my scones, if I let them sit and eat, I know for a fact that they couldn't possibly scoff enough to make up for my lost custom.
I'm not prejudiced. All I care about is running my little shop well for my employer. I'll stick to the law, but I'll try to maximise my profits as far as I legally can, and Bigotsville is, alas, in a country modelled on your idea of a "plural society" which has no anti-discrimination legislation. So I've decided. I can't afford to employ blacks or gays, and I'll politely but firmly close off the seating area or remove seats if any of them looks likely to linger in my shop for longer than strictly necessary.
All other bakers (and like members of the food and catering industry) are doing the same. As a result there's nowhere on Bigotsville High Street where a gay couple can sit down with a carrot cake or eclair, and no opportunities in town for a black person to begin a career as a commercial baker or chef.
OK - that's the situation. Firstly, do you agree that this is a problem? That it is unjust? That if we can do something about it, we should?
If so, isn't it obvious that the problem isn't about "particular acts" - no one has the right to be employed by me, and no one has an expectation of getting a seat in my baker's shop at any time anyway. And it's not about intention - I'm not intending to hurt anyone, only to accommodate the views of my customers. And my motive - to sell as much cake and bread as I can - is a good one for a manager of a bakery to have, so it isn't about motive either.
What is it "about"? If it has to be "about" just one thing, then I think it's "about" systematic injustice. The people I'm excluding, in relatively minor ways, for reasons that are at least comprehensible, are being excluded by lots of other business and this is harming society - harming the individuals whom we are marginalising, and harming the rest of us by depriving us of their talents. And the problem with treating bigotry as a respectable opinion, the indulgence of which can be a legal, social and contractual obligation, is that it makes changing to a genuinely fair and inclusive society very difficult. As far as I can tell, you are not proposing anything at all that would address the problem. Your "plural" society would see nothing about the Bigotsville bakery that needs reform. Am I wrong about that?
quote:
I suspect that those who enacted the Jim Crow laws were convinced that they were addressing a social problem...
And I suspect that when Genghis Khan ate his breakfast it was because he felt a bit peckish in the mornings. I'm not going to forgo my Weetabix for that reason.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by orfeo;
quote:
Being vs doing. We see it here every time Steve Langton brings it up. There are people who insist that homosexuality is a behaviour, not a characteristic.
More accurately, unlike race, homosexuality is a characteristic which also involves behaviour as well as just 'being'. Kleptomania is another such 'characteristic' which also involves behaviour - and of course in that case pretty much everybody will find the behaviour to be wrong. We do not accept that just because someone 'IS' kleptomaniac their stealing must be right and OK for them to do. As a general principle, when behaviour as well as mere 'being' is involved, the behaviour is open to moral critique/questioning.
Same goes for 'gay sex' - it is open to reasonable question whether it is fitting and appropriate for people to do sex in that way.
In atheism, where everything just happens for amoral reasons of physics and chemistry, I suppose people won't see that something they want to do can possibly be wrong. Though those same people will very quickly decide, illogically and inconsistently, that other people's acts that they don't like can be wrong....
Theists - particularly Christians, Jews, and Muslims - believe we live in a purposeful world in which there is right and wrong. God says that He 'made them male and female' and that's what marriage is about. 'Gay sex' is therefore wrong.
It's not the world's greatest sin - just unfortunately one that has ended up as a major focus of the battle between believing and disbelieving God, doing things God's way or insisting we know better.
Interesting that 'gay' advocates like Stephen Fry seem also to have reservations about some 'gay sex' practices like buggery.....
But that 'behaviour involved' aspect means that any attempt to have 'gays' tolerated on the same basis as racial differences is misconceived and ultimately dishonest - not to mention if people can be penalised for disagreeing, it's persecutory....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Oh Langton do stop. Really, it's like listening to nails running down a blackboard.
Being gay is nothing like being a career criminal, a kleptomaniac or someone who is addicted to watching QVC.
There is nothing to apologise for, there is nothing inherently bad about it, nothing about it that you need to seek to "change".
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Being gay is nothing like being a career criminal, a kleptomaniac or someone who is addicted to watching QVC.
Depends on your definition of 'gay' and how you construe the situation. 'Gay' is a lot more like all of the above than it is like being a a different race, which is simply 'being' with no behaviour involved.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
More accurately, unlike race, homosexuality is a characteristic which also involves behaviour as well as just 'being'. [Religion] is another such 'characteristic' which also involves behaviour . . .
<snip>
But that 'behaviour involved' aspect means that any attempt to have [religious believers] tolerated on the same basis as racial differences is misconceived and ultimately dishonest - not to mention if people can be penalised for disagreeing, it's persecutory....
I guess it's not so much being religious that's objectionable, it's all the religious behavior that's legitimate grounds for discrimination: the praying, the churchgoing, wearing niqabs and yarmulkes, etc. I even hear they try to convert others to their abnormal lifestyle!
Seriously, this is just so much special pleading about why their behavior is grounds for discrimination, but your behavior should be protected by law.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
In atheism, where everything just happens for amoral reasons of physics and chemistry, I suppose people won't see that something they want to do can possibly be wrong. Though those same people will very quickly decide, illogically and inconsistently, that other people's acts that they don't like can be wrong....
Theists - particularly Christians, Jews, and Muslims - believe we live in a purposeful world in which there is right and wrong. God says that He 'made them male and female' and that's what marriage is about. 'Gay sex' is therefore wrong.
You've put forward this false dichotomy before that all gay people are really atheists. More accurately that anyone who disagrees with you is some kind of non-believer. (e.g. your claim that there's no such thing as Muslims because Islam is a false relgion.)
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
It's not the world's greatest sin - just unfortunately one that has ended up as a major focus of the battle between believing and disbelieving God, doing things God's way or insisting we know better.
Indeed. Worshipping false gods would seem to rank higher, at least among the Abrahamic faiths. Of course the trickier part is figuring out which gods are false and calibrating discrimination to correctly come out against anyone who isn't some very particular form of so-called "Anabaptist".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by orfeo;
quote:
Being vs doing. We see it here every time Steve Langton brings it up. There are people who insist that homosexuality is a behaviour, not a characteristic.
More accurately, unlike race, homosexuality is a characteristic which also involves behaviour as well as just 'being'.
A gay person could be a lifelong celibate. This is not a contradiction in terms. Therefore you are wrong. Being gay does not "involve behaviour" any more or less than being straight.
quote:
It's not the world's greatest sin - just unfortunately one that has ended up as a major focus of the battle between believing and disbelieving God, doing things God's way or insisting we know better.
It's not "unfortunate;" it's intentional. Homosexuality was chosen as a pressure point to rally the "Christian" troops, and to paint an artificial line between "us" (god-fearing Christians) and "them" (queers and their baby-Jesus-hating allies), primarily in the United States, where that tension is used to enlist votes to make life even more comfortable for the indolent rich.
You're being played.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Theists - particularly Christians, Jews, and Muslims - believe we live in a purposeful world in which there is right and wrong. God says that He 'made them male and female' and that's what marriage is about. 'Gay sex' is therefore wrong.
You missed the "some" before "theists". Unless I and millions of others who don't fit into your neat two category model don't exist of course.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Theists - particularly Christians, Jews, and Muslims - believe we live in a purposeful world in which there is right and wrong. God says that He 'made them male and female' and that's what marriage is about. 'Gay sex' is therefore wrong.
You missed the "some" before "theists". Unless I and millions of others who don't fit into your neat two category model don't exist of course.
You don't. Or more accurately, since you disagree with Steve Langton (and therefore God) you're actually an atheist.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
An analysis of the early standard of what constitutes "atheism":
quote:
Historians did not try to be calm about it in the early, juicy days when atheism was first presented as having a history. In the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, pamphlets and books discussing famous atheists were a thriller genre, scandalous tales of tyrants and madmen which occupied largely the same niche as biographies of serial killers, or penny museums displaying the death masks of executed murderers. Treatises on “Infamous Atheists” served a slightly more learned audience than wax heads and the numerous early versions of the Sweeny Todd legend, but only slightly, and as they proliferated in printing shops tales of the scandalous excesses of Tiberius and Caligula under the label “atheist” were part morality play, part voyeurism, and part slander as each particular collection targeted its audience’s enemies. French collections accused Italians and Englishmen of atheism while Italian collections accused Frenchmen; Catholic collections accused Martin Luther and John Calvin of atheism, while Protestant collections accused popes and papists, and almost all European collections accused Muslims and Jews of atheism in a spirit of general racism and lack of accountability and lexical clarity.
You may note that neither Martin Luther nor Caligula is on record as ever having philosophically attacked the existence of God, but the logic chain of these collections is, from our perspective, backwards: (1) Fear of Hell drives men to good behavior. (2) These men were bad. (3) These men did not fear Hell. (4) These men were atheists. In the Renaissance, sinful living in overt defiance of divine law was considered evidence of atheism, to the degree that we have records of many atheism trials from the fourteenth through sixteenth centuries in which the evidence brought by the prosecution involves no statement of unbelief on the part of the accused. Rather the evidence will be sinful living, promiscuity, homosexuality, gluttony, irreverence of civic and religious authority, anything from a monk taking in a mistress to a drunkard running around in public with no pants on (See Nicholas Davidson, “Atheism in Italy 1500-1700,” in Atheism from the Reformation to the Enlightenment, ed. Michael Hunter & David Wootton (Oxford, 1992), 55-86, esp. 56-7).
SL seems to be applying a centuries-old standard under which anything he considers sufficiently immoral is evidence of atheism.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Theists - particularly Christians, Jews, and Muslims - believe we live in a purposeful world in which there is right and wrong . God says that He 'made them male and female' and that's what marriage is about. 'Gay sex' is therefore wrong.
You missed the "some" before "theists". Unless I and millions of others who don't fit into your neat two category model don't exist of course.
So you don't believe we live in a purposeful world in which there is right and wrong? That's usually considered to be rather the essence of theism as opposed to other ideas of God.
Yes, however, I was a bit slack in omitting the point that 'for Christians and Jews who take the Bible seriously' God has made them male and female and that's what marriage is about, and in that context 'gay sex' is wrong. There may be other theists who take different views of sexuality.... If they claim to be Christians they would appear to be rather inconsistent to their professed faith....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Croesos;
quote:
SL seems to be applying a centuries-old standard under which anything he considers sufficiently immoral is evidence of atheism.
No, that would be the attitude of the Romans who considered Christians to be 'atheists', or the Greeks who put Socrates to death as an 'atheist'. I'm going by the logical implications of atheist belief as expressed by atheists - though, as I said, they only believe those implications when it suits them, and are inconsistent when they want to portray others as wrong.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Theists - particularly Christians, Jews, and Muslims - believe we live in a purposeful world in which there is right and wrong . God says that He 'made them male and female' and that's what marriage is about. 'Gay sex' is therefore wrong.
You missed the "some" before "theists". Unless I and millions of others who don't fit into your neat two category model don't exist of course.
So you don't believe we live in a purposeful world in which there is right and wrong?
I do. I have yet however to have anyone explain to me why homosexuality falls into the "wrong" category
quote:
That's usually considered to be rather the essence of theism as opposed to other ideas of God.
Yes, however, I was a bit slack in omitting the point that 'for Christians and Jews who take the Bible seriously'
You'd still have been wrong. For "seriously" read "exactly the same way as I do"...
quote:
God has made them male and female and that's what marriage is about, and in that context 'gay sex' is wrong.
...because I find that answer utterly unconvincing.
quote:
There may be other theists who take different views of sexuality....
Surely not? Even on this thread? Wow!
quote:
If they claim to be Christians they would appear to be rather inconsistent to their professed faith....
Only for values of "Christian" that equal "believe exactly what Steve Langton believes".
For those of us who think a more objective standard might be, for example, the creeds, I'm sure you'll be able to show where your particular beliefs about sexuality are addressed there.
Or desist from this line of argument, of course. Your choice.
[ 07. February 2017, 15:50: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Croesos;
quote:
SL seems to be applying a centuries-old standard under which anything he considers sufficiently immoral is evidence of atheism.
No, that would be the attitude of the Romans who considered Christians to be 'atheists', or the Greeks who put Socrates to death as an 'atheist'. I'm going by the logical implications of atheist belief as expressed by atheists - though, as I said, they only believe those implications when it suits them, and are inconsistent when they want to portray others as wrong.
To repeat:
quote:
[T]he logic chain of these collections is, from our perspective, backwards: (1) Fear of Hell drives men to good behavior. (2) These men were bad. (3) These men did not fear Hell. (4) These men were atheists.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Yes, however, I was a bit slack in omitting the point that 'for Christians and Jews who take the Bible seriously' God has made them male and female and that's what marriage is about, and in that context 'gay sex' is wrong. There may be other theists who take different views of sexuality.... If they claim to be Christians they would appear to be rather inconsistent to their professed faith....
In other words, disagreeing with Steve Langton (God's One True Prophet) is evidence that one doesn't really believe in Christianity and is therefore an atheist. That seems to be exactly the same chain of reasoning used by Renaissance pamphleteers to claim that Caligula and Martin Luther were atheists.
[ 07. February 2017, 15:54: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
No, that would be the attitude of the Romans who considered Christians to be 'atheists', or the Greeks who put Socrates to death as an 'atheist'. I'm going by the logical implications of atheist belief as expressed by atheists - though, as I said, they only believe those implications when it suits them, and are inconsistent when they want to portray others as wrong.
Point of Information: the Trial of Socrates (as depicted by Plato) was on the charges of (1) impiety against the city state and (2) corrupting the youth.
Whilst (1) included something about not respecting the gods, it is an exaggeration to say he was put to death for being an atheist.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Croesos;
quote:
Seriously, this is just so much special pleading about why their behavior is grounds for discrimination, but your behavior should be protected by law.
You are as usual forgetting that as an Anabaptist I don't expect legal protection and do expect discrimination.
by Croesos;
quote:
You've put forward this false dichotomy before that all gay people are really atheists. More accurately that anyone who disagrees with you is some kind of non-believer. (e.g. your claim that there's no such thing as Muslims because Islam is a false religion.)
I don't claim that "there's no such thing as Muslims" - heck, I know quite a few!! I do claim that Islam is in various ways a false religion, though that is decidedly too big a tangent to follow here.
Given what Jesus said, it looks like those disagreeing are 'some kind of non-believer'; In one rather strange case a Shipmate failed to produce any evidence of 'other interpretations' of Jesus' words and went to the alternative idea that despite being the incarnate Son of God, Jesus was 'mistaken'. Said Shipmate then produced a decidedly unusual view of the Incarnation to explain Jesus' fallibility in the matter. She, it seems, is a 'non-believer' in what Jesus actually said, and on the face of it, not therefore much of a believer in Jesus himself.
And desperate as she appeared to be to be considered a Christian, I can't feel that many people would see it as sensible to follow a religion whose leading teacher could be so unreliable and by implication a God who can't reliably self-incarnate to be able (in the particular case) to correctly interpret his own words.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
No, that would be the attitude of the Romans who considered Christians to be 'atheists', or the Greeks who put Socrates to death as an 'atheist'. I'm going by the logical implications of atheist belief as expressed by atheists - though, as I said, they only believe those implications when it suits them, and are inconsistent when they want to portray others as wrong.
Point of Information: the Trial of Socrates (as depicted by Plato) was on the charges of (1) impiety against the city state and (2) corrupting the youth.
Whilst (1) included something about not respecting the gods, it is an exaggeration to say he was put to death for being an atheist.
Wikipaedia says, on a quick check, that
quote:
For political reasons, Socrates in Athens (399 BCE) was accused of being atheos ("refusing to acknowledge the gods recognized by the state").
And in the comparison I was making, about how Christians could be referred to as 'atheists' by their persecutors, I feel the comparison stands.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Interesting that 'gay' advocates like Stephen Fry seem also to have reservations about some 'gay sex' practices like buggery.....
Once again:
Anal sex is practiced by more straight couples than gay couples. Other couples (both straight and gay) don't like the idea, or have tried it and didn't enjoy it. You could replace "anal sex" with probably any other sexual activity and this statement would still be true.
Stephen Fry has often mentioned his dislike for anal sex. He's still gay, because being gay doesn't have much to do with shoving a penis up an arsehole.
quote:
But that 'behaviour involved' aspect means that any attempt to have 'gays' tolerated on the same basis as racial differences is misconceived and ultimately dishonest - not to mention if people can be penalised for disagreeing, it's persecutory....
When gay people are asking you to "tolerate" them, they're not having sex. I'm pretty sure that no gay couple wants to have sex in front of you, and no gay couple wants your opinion on their particular preferences and techniques.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Mousethief;
quote:
A gay person could be a lifelong celibate. This is not a contradiction in terms. Therefore you are wrong. Being gay does not "involve behaviour" any more or less than being straight.
Agreed that a person who perceives themselves as 'gay' could be a lifelong celibate. But what the Bible forbids is the sexual acts. And I think you'll find that an awful lot of 'gay' people do in fact do or want to do those acts.
And 'gay' or 'straight', didn't Jesus imply that there can be sins of desiring even though they don't lead to action?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
LWikipaedia says, on a quick check, that
quote:
For political reasons, Socrates in Athens (399 BCE) was accused of being atheos ("refusing to acknowledge the gods recognized by the state").
And in the comparison I was making, about how Christians could be referred to as 'atheists' by their persecutors, I feel the comparison stands.
Very hard to take you even slightly seriously when you post things showing you lack basic knowledge about something. Socrates was forced to drink hemlock because he was a threat to the state and refused to back down.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
You are as usual forgetting that as an Anabaptist I don't expect legal protection and do expect discrimination.
Yes, we all know this! You've done nothing on this thread other than argue in favor of discrimination and against legal protections for homosexuals.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Interesting that 'gay' advocates like Stephen Fry seem also to have reservations about some 'gay sex' practices like buggery.....
Once again:
Anal sex is practiced by more straight couples than gay couples. Other couples (both straight and gay) don't like the idea, or have tried it and didn't enjoy it. You could replace "anal sex" with probably any other sexual activity and this statement would still be true.
As LC points out, there are no such things as "gay sex practices". There are no sex acts that can be performed by a homosexual couple that cannot also be performed by a heterosexual couple.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Mousethief;
quote:
It's not "unfortunate;" it's intentional. Homosexuality was chosen as a pressure point to rally the "Christian" troops, and to paint an artificial line between "us" (god-fearing Christians) and "them" (queers and their baby-Jesus-hating allies), primarily in the United States, where that tension is used to enlist votes to make life even more comfortable for the indolent rich.
Which isn't where I'm coming from....
And you know my opinion of that strand in American Christianity (and such equivalent as there is in the UK).
Though I don't think it was as deliberate a choice as you think; it's more that as things worked out, homosexuality became a kind of 'last bastion by default', and of course an issue with a high emotional charge. If they wanted to continue with the advocating of 'godly government' in a society with 'no establishment of religion' there weren't many other issues that could be used.
It's a bit the same here with the bind the Anglicans have got themselves into; they want to continue to have the political influence, they also want to be biblically faithful about sexuality.
Reality is that continuing biblically faithful involves giving up the place in the state; and they don't want to do that....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There are no sex acts that can be performed by a homosexual couple that cannot also be performed by a heterosexual couple.
Without wanting to startle the herds, a modicum of imagination suggests that this can't be true.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Mousethief;
quote:
It's not "unfortunate;" it's intentional. Homosexuality was chosen as a pressure point to rally the "Christian" troops, and to paint an artificial line between "us" (god-fearing Christians) and "them" (queers and their baby-Jesus-hating allies), primarily in the United States, where that tension is used to enlist votes to make life even more comfortable for the indolent rich.
Which isn't where I'm coming from....
And you know my opinion of that strand in American Christianity (and such equivalent as there is in the UK).
Though I don't think it was as deliberate a choice as you think; it's more that as things worked out, homosexuality became a kind of 'last bastion by default', and of course an issue with a high emotional charge.
That strain of Christianity always needs enemies. Taking a public stand against "race mixing" has gone from being mainstream to being stuffed down the memory hole, but some kind of enemy is still needed. You're optimistic if you think being anti-gay is truly a "last bastion". They'll find someone else. It looks like a lot of them are already making the switch from being anti-gay to going after the transgendered.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There are no sex acts that can be performed by a homosexual couple that cannot also be performed by a heterosexual couple.
Without wanting to startle the herds, a modicum of imagination suggests that this can't be true.
Not really. There are a few things a heterosexual couple can do that a homosexual couple can't, but everything a homosexual couple can do a heterosexual couple can also do.
In other words, while there are no "gay sex practices", there are a few "straight sex practices".
[ 07. February 2017, 16:49: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Croesos;
quote:
Yes, we all know this! You've done nothing on this thread other than argue in favor of discrimination and against legal protections for homosexuals.
Actually I'm arguing against legal inequality in favour of 'gays'. Specifically, against the idea that 'gays' should be able to demand that others be forced to produce propaganda (in this case a slogan on a cake) for a 'gay' cause - indeed a 'gay behaviour'.
by Croesos;
quote:
As LC points out, there are no such things as "gay sex practices". There are no sex acts that can be performed by a homosexual couple that cannot also be performed by a heterosexual couple.
Interesting phrasing!
There is of course one sex act that can only be performed by heterosexual couples, because 'gay' couples do not have the necessary complementary physical equipment. And that heterosexual couples can do things gay couples do may not necessarily make those things right in the heterosexual context either.
And Jesus made rather a big issue of that "God made them male and female" thing.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Croesos;
quote:
As LC points out, there are no such things as "gay sex practices". There are no sex acts that can be performed by a homosexual couple that cannot also be performed by a heterosexual couple.
Interesting phrasing!
There is of course one sex act that can only be performed by heterosexual couples, because 'gay' couples do not have the necessary complementary physical equipment.
Well, it was your phrasing to begin with. You seemed to think that the existence of some kind of special sex act that only gay people were doing was relevant enough to comment on, though I'm not sure exactly what your point was beyond "ewwww, gay sex is icky!!!"
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And Jesus made rather a big issue of that "God made them male and female" thing.
Not really. He mentioned it once in the context of divorce, and that mention made it into two of the four Gospels. He made a far bigger issue out of usury or general injustice.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Actually I'm arguing against legal inequality in favour of 'gays'. Specifically, against the idea that 'gays' should be able to demand that others be forced to produce propaganda (in this case a slogan on a cake) for a 'gay' cause - indeed a 'gay behaviour'.
Hold on a second. Under your being/doing rubric, why isn't that kind of so-called "discrimination" okay? It would seem to fall under the "doing" side of things.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Croesos
quote:
Not really. He mentioned it once in the context of divorce, and that mention made it into two of the four Gospels. He made a far bigger issue out of usury or general injustice.
Agreed, which is why I said earlier that 'gay sex' is not in itself all that great a sin. Though Jesus had a lot else to say about sexual matters in general. If he actually believed 'gay sex' to be OK, I'd have expected him to say so openly, not leave it to be dubiously deduced from what he doesn't say. Especially when what he does say supports the traditional view. In view of current practice in the pagan world it was clearly a 'live' issue.
On the other hand, the person mentioned above telling us all that Jesus was mistaken and producing in order to justify 'gay sex' a version of the Incarnation that makes Jesus and God look incompetent - that's major sin, not just seeking to interpret Scripture but basically rather explicitly telling God she knows better....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Actually I'm arguing against legal inequality in favour of 'gays'. Specifically, against the idea that 'gays' should be able to demand that others be forced to produce propaganda (in this case a slogan on a cake) for a 'gay' cause - indeed a 'gay behaviour'.
Hold on a second. Under your being/doing rubric, why isn't that kind of so-called "discrimination" okay? It would seem to fall under the "doing" side of things.
Could you explain that more clearly?? What exactly 'fall(s) under the "doing"side of things' here?
For clarity from this end, I'm generally of the view that you should serve gay people with things you'd serve anyone else with.
But if I go to a printer and ask him to print Bibles, and he says "No, I don't agree with your Bible so I won't print it", I don't see that I've any grounds to object to that. He is strong enough in his integrity that he's willing to lose a money-making opportunity to refuse to do something he disagrees with, me I respect that. He doesn't want to print my propaganda, I shouldn't be able to force him to. Same the other way, if you're talking equality.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Not really. There are a few things a heterosexual couple can do that a homosexual couple can't, but everything a homosexual couple can do a heterosexual couple can also do.
In other words, while there are no "gay sex practices", there are a few "straight sex practices".
I'm sorry, I'm not comfortable typing graphic sexual scenes or positions, but that's clearly not true.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
The "harm" comes in many forms, including tax and inheritance law, next-of-kin designation, hospital visiting rights, even the ability to stay home with your partner's sick child under the Family Medical Leave act.
Eliab suggested a few posts ago that the legal position in the US is different to the UK & Ireland.
If the form of civil partnership in your state doesn't give people the rights you list here, then I can quite see the justice in a claim that it should, and would vote for such a change.
Seems to me that a plural secular society should allow for other models of household than husband +wife + 2 kids...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
For clarity from this end, I'm generally of the view that you should serve gay people with things you'd serve anyone else with.
So if someone is of the opinion that they shouldn't be forced to serve [gay / black / Jewish / whatever] people the same as they'd serve decent folk* you're willing to force them to act as a form of propaganda against their own beliefs? That doesn't seem consistent with your position elsewhere.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
The "harm" comes in many forms, including tax and inheritance law, next-of-kin designation, hospital visiting rights, even the ability to stay home with your partner's sick child under the Family Medical Leave act.
Eliab suggested a few posts ago that the legal position in the US is different to the UK & Ireland.
If the form of civil partnership in your state doesn't give people the rights you list here, then I can quite see the justice in a claim that it should, and would vote for such a change.
There's also the problem of inventing a legal status that has no definition outside your jurisdiction. Although the specifics may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, marriage is a recognized legal arrangement in virtually every legal system. There may be trouble with specifics, or having your particular configuration of marriage recognized in a new jurisdiction, but that's nothing compared to explaining to a foreign bureaucracy what your rights are as a "civil partner" or an "ortho-laminate" or some other term that's meaningless under their legal system.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Seems to me that a plural secular society should allow for other models of household than husband +wife + 2 kids...
And so it does. But what's less clear is why the state needs to set up a completely separate version of family law outside of the normal legal code to cover homosexuals who wish to marry. If you're going to argue that homosexual couples should have the same rights under law, then give them the same rights, not a duplicate copy with a separate legal code. (Gaylaw?)
There's also the problem that, even if we assume arguendo that separate can be equal, there's no reason to believe that those who have agitated constantly that same sex couples shouldn't have any legal recognition at all would not continue to work to reduce the various rights secured in your proposed Gaylaw over time. One of the key factors in maintaining legal equality is that everyone is covered by the same law. It's very easy to strip away rights if those doing so are confident it will only apply to a disliked minority. It's a lot harder when the same law applies to everyone. In short, the idea of a segregated legal system seems to require an assumption of good faith that those proposing it have in no way earned.
--------------------
*For whatever your value of "decent folk" might be.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Not really. There are a few things a heterosexual couple can do that a homosexual couple can't, but everything a homosexual couple can do a heterosexual couple can also do.
In other words, while there are no "gay sex practices", there are a few "straight sex practices".
I'm sorry, I'm not comfortable typing graphic sexual scenes or positions, but that's clearly not true.
Not as queasy as mr cheesy, I'll say it for him: mutual fellatio is only possible between a male couple, and mutual cunnilingus between a female couple. A step further to say that fellatio is only possible where 1 of the couple is male, and cunnilingus where 1 is female.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Too late to edit. At least of a couple must be male for any fellatio and 1 female for any cunnilingus.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
a version of the Incarnation that makes Jesus and God look incompetent
The Bible makes God look incompetent. The only rational way to read the damn thing is through Jesus' message. And homophobia doesn't fit.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And 'gay' or 'straight', didn't Jesus imply that there can be sins of desiring even though they don't lead to action?
Not in general, no. He appeared to be referring to desiring one particular person with a certain mindframe ("lust in his heart"). The "I wish I had someone to have sex with" kind of desiring never comes up (excuse the pun).
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Though I don't think it was as deliberate a choice as you think;
Then I suggest you read Frank Schaeffer's biography of his dad. It was quite intentional.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There are no sex acts that can be performed by a homosexual couple that cannot also be performed by a heterosexual couple.
Without wanting to startle the herds, a modicum of imagination suggests that this can't be true.
Not really. There are a few things a heterosexual couple can do that a homosexual couple can't, but everything a homosexual couple can do a heterosexual couple can also do.
In other words, while there are no "gay sex practices", there are a few "straight sex practices".
I have had a sex act described to me by a gay man that a heterosexual couple could not do. I won't go into detail, but let's say it has to do with relative numbers of certain body parts. Or, you could trust that some people might know something you don't.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
If he actually believed 'gay sex' to be OK, I'd have expected him to say so openly, not leave it to be dubiously deduced from what he doesn't say.
If he actually believed 'gay sex' to be sinful, I'd have expected him to say so openly, not leave it to be dubiously decided from what he doesn't say.
Works both ways. Argument from silence is like that.
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Not as queasy as mr cheesy, I'll say it for him: mutual fellatio is only possible between a male couple, and mutual cunnilingus between a female couple.
Your imagination isn't strong enough by half.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Oh! But it's no stronger now than when I posted.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
God says that He 'made them male and female' and that's what marriage is about.
I will not bother responding to the rest of your reply to me, because:
1. Others have already done the job.
2. I have zero confidence that you would take any notice.
But I will respond to this. Because whenever anyone says this I have to fight the urge to buy a missile launcher and aim it at someone's head.
God does not say this. This is your interpretation of two separate things that God said.
Seriously. You can go ahead and whack together two separate Bible verses if you wish, but in the name of all things holy at least recognise that is what you are doing. At least acknowledge that when Jesus cited things when answering a question about divorce, he was addressing a question about divorce not about whether two blokes could marry.
At least address the enormous problems you create when if potentially procreative sex acts are what marriage is all about. The glaring inconsistencies whereby infertile heterosexual couples keep getting a free pass. Gay couples aren't the only ones having the wrong kind of sex.
The passage in Genesis that talks about a man and his wife coming together, starting with "for this reason", is not straight after the bit in Genesis about being created male and female. THAT IS NOT THE STATED REASON. YOU ARE JUST INFERRING IT.
And every time you just slap those two notions together and treat it as if it's so self-evident that anyone who thinks differently can't possibly be a genuine Christian and must be an atheist, you are being breathtakingly arrogant and rude and frankly I hope that one day you end up with burning coals of shame on your head.
It's not even about whether you're right or wrong on this, it's about the complete unwillingness to accept that other theists, including this gay one right here, might sincerely have a different view to 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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Yes, however, I was a bit slack in omitting the point that 'for Christians and Jews who take the Bible seriously' God has made them male and female and that's what marriage is about, and in that context 'gay sex' is wrong. There may be other theists who take different views of sexuality.... If they claim to be Christians they would appear to be rather inconsistent to their professed faith....
THIS. THIS is what makes me ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
I take the Bible seriously. Just because I don't believe the same things that you do DOES NOT MEAN I AM NOT TAKING THE BIBLE SERIOUSLY.
You take a complex book written in entirely different languages several thousand years ago and treat it like it's all so simple and obvious. Do you have any idea how infuriating that is?
I have written extensively in the past about the lengths of study, prayer and downright agony I went through before coming out. And you basically just throw that in the bin as if it never happened, that I said "oh, fuck the Bible I'm going to ignore it because it's wrong".
Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing.
[ 08. February 2017, 08:38: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You take a complex book written in entirely different languages several thousand years ago and treat it like it's all so simple and obvious. Do you have any idea how infuriating that is?
I honestly doubt that SL has the capability to understand that someone else could look at the same data he looks at and come to a different conclusion. He seems to believe that because he thinks it, then that is the only possible logical conclusion.
And therefore anyone else who comes to a different conclusion must be definition be less logical. Or biblical, which for SL is the same thing.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
