|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: And there's another gay bakery case
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
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.
It's about time he fucking learned the capability.
--------------------
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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
some of what has come up overnight needs longer responses than I can give right now, but this from Mousethief can be dealt with quite quickly
quote:
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.
Things Jesus DOES say include that the OT is the Word of God - that notion is inherent in the way he uses it to deal with the divorce issue, when he opens his argument with "have you not read....?" and it's the same elsewhere. The OT says 'gay sex' is wrong - Jesus says the OT is God's Word - silence amounts to support of the OT position. In contrast to places where Jesus explicitly says "But I say unto you..." and even then is clearly extending rather than contradicting; or cases like the continuance of the sacrificial system where it is inherent in Jesus' own sacrifice that the OT system is no longer needed.
This is a case where what is said precludes the idea that the alternative is OK, just unsaid. He made them male and female and their becoming one flesh is the meaning of marriage - male with male and female with female are incapable of the 'one flesh' that male and female are designed to do.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The OT says 'gay sex' is wrong
And again, this is what YOU think it says.
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Things Jesus DOES say include that the OT is the Word of God
No he doesn't. That's another thing you've inferred that you seem to think everyone must accept.
I can think of vast swathes of the OT which are clearly not the Word of God - not a God you could remotely call "good", anyway.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
I also think that before I reply further I want orfeo to think seriously about this one;
quote:
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.
First off, yes, Jesus is addressing a question about divorce. BUT he addresses it by going back to the OT and saying, in effect, "So what does the OT say about marriage?" And he rather emphatically chooses texts about male and female to define that.
Second, as in the previous discussion on another thread, you're accusing ME of "whack(ing) together two separate Bible verses".
May I remind you, yet again, that this is not my personal interpretation arbitrarily whacking verses together. This is interpretation by Jesus, God Incarnate - the writer of the OT - interpreting his own words, and presumably not acting arbitrarily in so doing. And if you can't take Jesus seriously, and you can't even be bothered to notice that it's HIS interpretation rather than mine, how 'seriously' are you taking the Bible?????
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
The irony of it all is that the relevant Gospel text comes out of the pharisees' desire to ask Jesus a question to which they believe he *cannot give a right answer*. He can either say that divorce is licet, which would seem to contradict the OT, or he can say that Moses was wrong, which would also seem to contradict the OT.
And Jesus's answer is that humans need law, because we have unloving hearts. But if we only accepted Him, the Love of God made flesh, we wouldn't have unloving hearts and the need for law and indeed the question itself would go away.
The challenge then is to try to reframe this around the question of sexuality and same-sex marriage. This is the modern day pharisees' question to which Jesus can make no right answer. And perhaps that tells us more about what it means for our relationship with Jesus if we devote our energy to seeking His definitive answer to that question, rather than accepting him as the Love of God made flesh, and watching the question disappear.
I tend to fall back on the wisdom of the late Ken Brown, who said even if the conservative position turns out to be right, that none of us would suffer for having been loving, kind and fair to people; likewise, if the liberal position turns out to be right, none of us would suffer for genuinely wanting to follow the Word of God, provided it didn't lead us to being unkind and unfair. Or something like that - I am paraphrasing from memory.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
May I remind you, yet again, that this is not my personal interpretation arbitrarily whacking verses together. This is interpretation by Jesus, God Incarnate - the writer of the OT - interpreting his own words, and presumably not acting arbitrarily in so doing. And if you can't take Jesus seriously, and you can't even be bothered to notice that it's HIS interpretation rather than mine, how 'seriously' are you taking the Bible?????
It's like you completely ignored the part of my post where I addressed this. I simply don't accept that you can leap from Jesus talking about divorce to an answer about homosexual couples.
I didn't even say that the whacking of verses together was "arbitrary". That's a word you've thrown in of your own accord. All that I ask of you is that you stop declaring that anyone who disagrees with you is not taking the Bible seriously.
But no, instead you decide to do it again. And you decide to double down by declaring that I'm not taking Jesus seriously. You seem to believe that you can make all sorts of inferences about my motives and inner thoughts, just because I don't think that a discussion of divorce, clearly asked in the context of the dirvorce of heterosexual couples, is CONCLUSIVE PROOF of the wrongness of loving homosexual relationships.
The next thing I want to say to you could only be said in Hell.
[ 08. February 2017, 10:06: 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
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
Not being conversant with the ways of Dead Horses....is one allowed to ask if the beloved Steve Langton hasn't got a garden to see to? Or a home to clean? A car to valet? or a group of friends and extended family to care for
I mean ......seriously.......
Were anyone i know to be hovering in their opinions on this topic, one look at the posts above would remove all possible doubt:
Believe as dictated in some of these hate filled posts?
Or choose to disagree, purely based on the worrying character of the writings offered
I could weep
[ 08. February 2017, 11:20: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
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.
Such as a wedding cake with the two people's names on it?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
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.
Such as a wedding cake with the two people's names on it?
.. but not one extolling the virtues of Everton Football Club because that might be construed as denigrating the institution that is Liverpool Football Club.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
He made them male and female and their becoming one flesh is the meaning of marriage -
I hesitate to add anything to orfeo's testimony, but I'd strongly disagree with that even from a straight perspective.
Penis-in-vagina sex (which I assume is what you mean by "becoming one flesh" since its the sort of sex that gay people don't do) isn't the meaning of my marriage. Love, commitment, having someone to share one's life with, not being alone, trying to reflect the unconditional love of God for his people - all those are better candidates (both personally and Biblically speaking) for the "meaning of marriage". If I never have sex again, my marriage will still have meaning.
It's a trivial degree of offensiveness next to the assertion that people who disagree with you can't be taking the Bible, or Jesus, seriously, but I don't think it should go completely unremarked that you are insulting a lot of straight Christians (and non-Christians) as well as gay ones by reducing marriage to fucking.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
This is a case where what is said precludes the idea that the alternative is OK, just unsaid. He made them male and female and their becoming one flesh is the meaning of marriage - male with male and female with female are incapable of the 'one flesh' that male and female are designed to do.
So here's a problem. We know that the statement "he made them male and female" doesn't mean what you want it to mean here, because we know that intersex people exist, and whilst almost all intersex people identify with one or other gender, they do not have the unambiguous binary biological sex that you're making this statement mean.
We can argue about what exactly Jesus did mean when he quoted Genesis in response to a question about divorce, but I don't think it's possible that he meant what you seem to think.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
I tend to fall back on the wisdom of the late Ken Brown, who said even if the conservative position turns out to be right, that none of us would suffer for having been loving, kind and fair to people
Love is something many people lack despite this being a pretty big deal to Jesus.
--------------------
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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Things Jesus DOES say include that the OT is the Word of God - that notion is inherent in the way he uses it to deal with the divorce issue, when he opens his argument with "have you not read....?" and it's the same elsewhere. The OT says 'gay sex' is wrong - Jesus says the OT is God's Word - silence amounts to support of the OT position. In contrast to places where Jesus explicitly says "But I say unto you..." and even then is clearly extending rather than contradicting; or cases like the continuance of the sacrificial system where it is inherent in Jesus' own sacrifice that the OT system is no longer needed.
This is a case where what is said precludes the idea that the alternative is OK, just unsaid. He made them male and female and their becoming one flesh is the meaning of marriage - male with male and female with female are incapable of the 'one flesh' that male and female are designed to do.
This seems to be the exact opposite of what that passage of Genesis is telling us.
quote:
So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.
Men and women aren't the "same flesh" because they have sex, they have the "same flesh" because their primordial ancestors were literally formed out of the same flesh and sex is a symbolic reminder. It's perverse to read this passage as indicating that all humans of the same gender have different flesh from each other.
The same goes for the earlier passage of Genesis 1:
quote:
So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
Now an ordinary person might read this as a kind of universal sameness of humanity, all wrought "in the image of God". It is, once again, an extremely perverse reading which can only be arrived at with ulterior motives to interpret this passage as meaning that Adam is a different kind of being than Steve.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
So here's a problem. We know that the statement "he made them male and female" doesn't mean what you want it to mean here, because we know that intersex people exist,
Hang on, intersex doesn't exist. It is the invention of the atheist liberal media fake news and anyway, people choose to be intersex. There are only straight males and females born, all the rest is choice. Even hermaphroditism is a choice.
And besides, SIN! Six thousand years ago, someone failed to follow the Atkins diet and ate carbs so now disease, homosexuality and the trains run late.
--------------------
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 Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
He made them male and female and their becoming one flesh is the meaning of marriage -
I hesitate to add anything to orfeo's testimony, but I'd strongly disagree with that even from a straight perspective.
Penis-in-vagina sex (which I assume is what you mean by "becoming one flesh" since its the sort of sex that gay people don't do) isn't the meaning of my marriage. Love, commitment, having someone to share one's life with, not being alone, trying to reflect the unconditional love of God for his people - all those are better candidates (both personally and Biblically speaking) for the "meaning of marriage". If I never have sex again, my marriage will still have meaning.
It's a trivial degree of offensiveness next to the assertion that people who disagree with you can't be taking the Bible, or Jesus, seriously, but I don't think it should go completely unremarked that you are insulting a lot of straight Christians (and non-Christians) as well as gay ones by reducing marriage to fucking.
Indeed! And even worse to reduce marriage to procreating by fucking. We've already been over ad somni the problem with allowing post-fertile couples to marry. This "purpose" for marriage doesn't play out.
But perhaps we want to define it as PIV sex, even if procreation is not possible. Do we, then, inquire whether a man can get it up before we allow the couple to marry? Should Larry Limpdick be permitted to marry Teresa Tonguejob? Would anybody seriously say no?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Seriously guys if you want me to produce a coherent response it might be an idea not to just overwhelm me with assorted stuff. The only way I could possibly reply to all of it would be to go offthread and write a book which hopefully would answer by putting all my ideas in a coherent list. As of now I arrived back from a day elsewhere (which answers one Shipmates query about me having a life outside the Ship) and at this time of night I'm not going to even try to answer everything.
However, this from orfeo....
quote:
I didn't even say that the whacking of verses together was "arbitrary". That's a word you've thrown in of your own accord. All that I ask of you is that you stop declaring that anyone who disagrees with you is not taking the Bible seriously.
But no, instead you decide to do it again. And you decide to double down by declaring that I'm not taking Jesus seriously.
OK, orfeo, Ive gone back to what you originally said - this;
quote:
God does not say this. This is your interpretation of two separate things that God said.
Seriously. You can go ahead and (do that) 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.
(NOTE: the bracketed words 'do that' are there because I think I accidentally edited them out - I'm not confident of my ability to go back to the page the original is on without losing the post. I'll check as soon as I've entered it and if I find I've misremembered I'll put a corrective post in ASAP)
OK, since you're determined to out-pedant me, yes the word 'arbitrarily' is mine - but the use of the phrase 'whacking together' did rather seem to imply that you thought I was doing it arbitrarily, and the double point is that I wasn't the one "whack(ing) together two separate Bible verses", and there is reason to believe it wasn't arbitrary on the part of the person who did "whack" them together.
The person who put those verses in Genesis together was JESUS. NOT ME!!!!! I'm just following what he did and taking it seriously.
And in orthodox Christianity, if Jesus put those verses together, then GOD put them together. As in, to correct your earlier statement;
"God does say this. This is HIS interpretation of two related things that He said back in the OT".
If you're going to carry on ignoring that and making the completely UNTRUE assertion that it is me making the connection between those passages rather than, as the Bible says, God in Christ who makes the connection - you'll have to pardon me for having doubts about how seriously you're taking either Jesus or the Bible. Because on the face of it, persistently making this accusation against me is absolutely NOT taking Jesus or the Bible seriously.
As for;
quote:
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.
Since Jesus was addressing a question about divorce I wouldn't be denying that, would I? Why would you think I was denying it? I'm just making the rather obvious point that the way Jesus chose to answer the question about divorce is precisely by going 'back to basics' on marriage, and it does seem rather relevant to our current topic that he goes straight to a verse about God making them male and female and what follows from that. As far as I can see, any other interpretation is stretched to say the least.
And for tonight that's it. If you can all manage NOT to add even more overnight you might all get some answers to the points you've already made....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Right - with apologies but it is late and I am tired - orfeo's original text was
quote:
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.
In commenting on that I accidentally 'cut' the phrase "whack together two separate Bible verses" when I intended to 'copy' it into my comments. Put that phrase back in place of the bracketted 'do that' in the quote above.
Again, Sorry - but I'm definitely having a rest before saying any more about this.....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
... Should Larry Limpdick be permitted to marry Teresa Tonguejob? Would anybody seriously say no?
IngoB, but he's not here. And if they did marry in the RC church, the marriage could be annulled. But if Larry manages it just once and never again, they're married.
All that Genesis and "complementarity" and "one flesh" sounds so transcendent and philosophical and poetic, but if I asked 100 people, "what's most important in your marriage?", I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get 100 people telling me it was the first fuck.
--------------------
"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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Good point, Soror Magna. For the Roman Catholic Church, it really is all about fucking.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Steve, you seem completely determined to ignore that I explicitly referred to when Jesus talked about divorce.
You're not telling me anything I didn't already know when I wrote my original post. You're just telling me that because Jesus referred to 2 verses for one purpose, I have to treat you referring to 2 verses for a DIFFERENT purpose as exactly the same thing. authorised by God.
In a word: No. Jesus did not put those 2 verses together for the same purpose you are putting them together, and so however loudly you declare that Jesus did it, not you, my answer will be that Jesus did a different thing. Purpose and context matters. The answer is not automatically the same when the question is different.
[ 09. February 2017, 01:38: 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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Things Jesus DOES say include that the OT is the Word of God - that notion is inherent in the way he uses it to deal with the divorce issue, when he opens his argument with "have you not read....?" and it's the same elsewhere. The OT says 'gay sex' is wrong - Jesus says the OT is God's Word - silence amounts to support of the OT position. In contrast to places where Jesus explicitly says "But I say unto you..." and even then is clearly extending rather than contradicting; or cases like the continuance of the sacrificial system where it is inherent in Jesus' own sacrifice that the OT system is no longer needed.
This is pretty much exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned adjustable hermdneutics. "[S]lence amounts to support of the OT position" for lynching gay men*, but when it comes to executing your kids for "sass" a bit of wishful guesswork about Bronze Age cultures in the Fertile Crescent and an anecdote about the Roman Republic are sufficient. For some reason Jesus' silence on that matter is non-determinative. But when it comes to the question of the legal status of homosexual relationships under the state, well, this part where Jesus' silence on the matter counts as "support". That's motivated reasoning, not Biblical analysis.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Seriously guys if you want me to produce a coherent response it might be an idea not to just overwhelm me with assorted stuff.
It seems a bit arrogant to demand that everyone else confer together and come up with a coordinated response and summary document so you don't waste your precious time.
--------------------
*Interestingly the Old Testament contains no prohibitions against lesbianism, so two chicks getting it on must be okay with Jesus.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Good point, Soror Magna. For the Roman Catholic Church, it really is all about fucking.
I think you lot are wrong about the Catholic Church being against gay marriage.
--------------------
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 lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Good point, Soror Magna. For the Roman Catholic Church, it really is all about fucking.
I think you lot are wrong about the Catholic Church being against gay marriage.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by orfeo;
quote:
It's like you completely ignored the part of my post where I addressed this. I simply don't accept that you can leap from Jesus talking about divorce to an answer about homosexual couples. ........... I don't think that a discussion of divorce, clearly asked in the context of the divorce of heterosexual couples, is CONCLUSIVE PROOF of the wrongness of loving homosexual relationships.
I'm getting worried about your insistence on limiting the discussion here. You seem determined to insist that because Jesus is asked a question about divorce, apparently I'm not allowed to interpret his response in any other context.
But the point is that divorce is NOT an isolated topic; it's part of a whole complex of things of which, of course, marriage is the primary. A person asked about divorce doesn't have to limit his answer to the narrow issue of divorce; indeed it's likely that there will be a better and more comprehensive answer in going that step further back up the ladder, that stage deeper into the overall situation, and answering about divorce in terms of the concept of marriage.
Anybody could do that wider context kind of answering; it's not an unnatural thing to do. It's the kind of thing I think to do, and i know Aspie 'absent-minded professor' types do such answering to come up with their answers in areas like physics. Your insistence that the answer must be interpreted only in terms of divorce is somewhat unnatural.
And what 'anybody' can do, Jesus regularly does, in other answers he gives. And he does it in this case. He's asked about divorce, and he responds in terms of "What is marriage?" And he goes back to 'the beginning' for the definition of marriage. He goes back to very precisely "God made them male and female". NOT 'male and male', or 'female and female', but "male and female". It is "male and female" who become 'one flesh' in a way that (thank you Croesos earlier) is only possible for male with female.
It's not a 'leap' on my part to think that Jesus is expressing the idea that marriage is about male and female; it's a leap on your part, against the evidence of Jesus' words, to suggest that he's saying anything else.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
It's not a 'leap' on my part to think that Jesus is expressing the idea that marriage is about male and female; it's a leap on your part, against the evidence of Jesus' words, to suggest that he's saying anything else.
Please. "The Bible says X, therefore X. The Bible doesn't say X, therefore X" ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
He goes back to very precisely "God made them male and female". NOT 'male and male', or 'female and female', but "male and female".
Not so. Genesis 1 refers only to God creating "mankind" (plural) as "male and female". The idea of only one man and one woman at the creation is from the next chapter over. Genesis 1 refers to a group which would seem to have many men and many women in it. In other words, male and male and female and female and male and . . . "
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
It is "male and female" who become 'one flesh' in a way that (thank you Croesos earlier) is only possible for male with female.
If you want to take Genesis 2 truly literally, becoming "one flesh" is only possible for rib-derived clones.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
It's not a 'leap' on my part to think that Jesus is expressing the idea that marriage is about male and female; it's a leap on your part, against the evidence of Jesus' words, to suggest that he's saying anything else.
Actually the real leap is the way most Christians, yourself included, seem to have come to the conclusion that Jesus isn't talking about divorce at all! Very few contemporary Christians are willing to apply the same level of spite they say Jesus is directing them to apply to homosexuals in this passage towards divorced people. I don't seem to recall any big stinks being made about employment or housing protections for the divorced, or how various service industries should be free to deny service to the divorced.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by orfeo;
quote:
It's like you completely ignored the part of my post where I addressed this. I simply don't accept that you can leap from Jesus talking about divorce to an answer about homosexual couples. ........... I don't think that a discussion of divorce, clearly asked in the context of the divorce of heterosexual couples, is CONCLUSIVE PROOF of the wrongness of loving homosexual relationships.
I'm getting worried about your insistence on limiting the discussion here. You seem determined to insist that because Jesus is asked a question about divorce, apparently I'm not allowed to interpret his response in any other context.
Actually, what I've been asking you to do is not declare anyone who DOESN'T follow your interpretation to be an "atheist" or "not taking the Bible seriously" or "not taking Jesus seriously".
I really don't think I could've been any clearer on this. I explicitly gave you permission to interpret. The whole point was I asked you to recognise was that interpretation was what you were doing.
It seems you can't even grasp this when I highlight "CONCLUSIVE PROOF". You see me as limiting discussion because I ask you not to declare QED? That's just completely backwards. It's you who are trying to limit discussion by declaring that there simply isn't anything to discuss because you know all the answers, and anyone who doesn't come up with the same answers from the Bible isn't reading the Bible properly.
[ 10. February 2017, 04:55: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
To put it bluntly, Steve, every time you write a long reply to me why your interpretation is open you are missing the point in spectacular fashion.
I for one was not challenging whether it was open. I was challenging the way in which you have no respect for any other interpretation.
Or for the lived experience of a gay Christian who has spent far more time thinking about these questions than you will EVER have to.
[ 10. February 2017, 05:07: 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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by orfeo;
quote:
Actually, what I've been asking you to do is not declare anyone who DOESN'T follow your interpretation to be an "atheist" or "not taking the Bible seriously" or "not taking Jesus seriously".
I don't recall declaring anyone to personally be an atheist; I do recall pointing out that the usual current rhetoric about 'gayness' is based on atheist rather than biblical ideas, and as far as I can tell, a lot of the people using the rhetoric don't get that, and also don't get that the ideas in question have significant philosophical, moral and epistemological problems.
My recent strong comments on you "not taking the Bible seriously" or "not taking Jesus seriously" were related to posts by you in which you very much appeared to be saying that it was I rather than Jesus who had connected/combined/"whacked together" two texts from the OT which were being discussed. And it took a bit of doing to get you to clarify that you did in fact accept that JESUS put the texts together and that you were rather suggesting that I was somehow misinterpreting the results.
So long as you were appearing to accuse me of making a connection actually made by Jesus himself, you definitely also appeared to be "not taking the Bible seriously" and "not taking Jesus seriously".
Sure I'm interpreting. But it is the point of interpreting to try and discover/demonstrate the true interpretation. By all means prove me wrong; but don't just jabber vaguely about 'interpretations'. SHOW that your interpretation is better, more logical, has better evidence, etc. Just that an interpretation exists doesn't make it valid without that showing the basis of the interpretation.
You've talked about what gets on your wick; one of the things that has been getting on my wick is people who seem to think that just to say "There are other interpretations" is somehow a 'killer argument' in itself without giving details of the other interpretations and their foundations.
"Conclusive proof" - That's bigger than I want to deal with on what I'm expecting will be a very busy weekend. What I'll very much say is that both the specific text we've been discussing and the biblical evidence AS A WHOLE create a very strong "prima facie case" that 'gay sex' is wrong; the burden of proof is, I submit, very much on you rather than me to prove otherwise, and you will need stronger evidence than anything I've yet seen from anyone.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
So long as you were appearing to accuse me of making a connection actually made by Jesus himself, you definitely also appeared to be "not taking the Bible seriously" and "not taking Jesus seriously".
The connection Jesus made was that Genesis says that (1) God created humans as male and female and (2) that marriage partners create a new household and new life together, to draw the conclusion that while divorce was allowed as a concession to weakness, marriage was always part of God's plan.
The connection you made was that because God created humanity male and female, and that married men and women have p-in-v sex, and that's the meaning of marriage.
It seems obvious to me that someone who takes the Bible seriously could agree with the connection that Jesus made, while rejecting the one that you made, because they aren't the same thing. Also the one that Jesus made elevates and honours marriage, and the one you made belittles and cheapens it. Also Jesus's connection makes sense of different ideas in scripture which appear to be in tension in the interests of protecting a socially vulnerable group, whereas yours throws out soundly Biblical ideas about the purpose of marriage to support an attack on a socially vulnerable group.
It seemed even more obvious to me that orfeo was attacking your use of the two Genesis verses, not the different use of them made by Jesus. If you misunderstood his meaning, when I think it was clear to everyone else on this thread, why do you think that you are uniquely qualified to tell us what Jesus must have meant?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
It's not a 'leap' on my part to think that Jesus is expressing the idea that marriage is about male and female; it's a leap on your part, against the evidence of Jesus' words, to suggest that he's saying anything else.
Jesus was asked about terminating a heterosexual marriage, in a context where heterosexual marriage was the only marriage. And he answers about heterosexual marriage.
It seems to me to be rather a stretch to read his answer as containing any kind of statement about whether heterosexual marriage is the only marriage.
And I repeat: we know that the idea that humans are divided into two sexes is not quite true. Which means that whatever Jesus did mean, he can't have meant that all humans are created either male or female.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
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".
Holding hands is a behaviour. All the different varieties of hand-holding actions are behaviours.
Being homosexual - being sexually attracted to persons of the same gender instead of to people of the opposite gender - how can that not be a characteristic ?
quote:
They will infer all sorts of "behaviours' that must be going on in the privacy of people's homes.
The suggestion is that a shopkeeper may justifiably refuse to serve people who are currently exhibiting drunken behaviour in his shop. Not that it is OK to refuse service on the basis of an inference that someone probably gets drunk at home.
quote:
And they will treat all of those "homosexual behaviours" as somehow fundamentally different from the equivalent heterosexual behaviours.
And your objection boils down to people perceiving less equivalence than you do...
quote:
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".
I don't think it's an intrinsically different behaviour. I see the difference as being that in one case the behaviour is in accordance with tradition. And I defend people's right to see tradition as significant.
Other than tradition, seems to me that you're right to suggest that marriage is no more than a civil partnership. Legal recognition of a meaningful relationship.
--------------------
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
Russ, the point wasn't about holding hands being a behaviour. The point was about how people will claim that 2 men holding hands is a different behaviour to a man and a woman holding hands.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I've just been appointed manager of a branch of a small business - a bakery, in fact...
...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...
...
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...
...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 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?
There's no problem with you. You are being a good employee, making hiring decisions in the best interests of the business as you perceive them to be. You do not deserve to be punished for your actions. No black would-be-baker has a moral claim against you. You have never pretended to he doing anything other than hiring the person who it will be most economically advantageous for the business to have on the payroll.
Yes it's unfair.
Black people in Bigotsville are being denied the opportunity to develop their talents. In much the same way that people who can't afford to leave small towns always have limited opportunity.
Black people in Bigotsville are suffering rejection while less-capable people get the jobs. In much the same way that an ordinary person might lose out at a job interview or audition to a particularly good-looking young woman.
Being born black and poor in Bigotsville is no fun. But a part of that is nothing exceptional or extra-ordinary.
In the situation as you have described it, the black people are in effect being collectively slandered. A demonstrably-untrue belief about them is widely held, that would be actionable if expressed about an individual.
What could and should be done ?
You as the bakery manager can consider whether it would be acceptable to your customers to employ a black baker if all your staff wore white gloves. You could contact your colleague who manages the bakery in nearby Cosmopolitania to see if he has any vacancies for someone who you vouch for.
But the underlying problem is in the hearts and minds of the citizens of Bigotsville. How would you change their hearts and minds ?
Perhaps you could raise some money from like-minded people to make a movie in which a sympathetic character from Bigotsville gradually comes to realise that the beliefs he's grown up with are untrue ?
But maybe that's not political enough for you ?
quote:
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.
The problem with demonising political opponents and seeking to de-legitimise their views is that it's not how you want them to treat you...
--------------------
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
I'm done with the bullshit theory of equivalence.
Your POV increases harm.
Our POV decreases harm.
simples.
--------------------
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 Russ:
quote:
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.
The problem with demonising political opponents and seeking to de-legitimise their views is that it's not how you want them to treat you...
The problem with your attitude here is that it assumes that all points of view are equally valid and equally defensible. They are not.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
There's no problem with you. You are being a good employee, making hiring decisions in the best interests of the business as you perceive them to be. You do not deserve to be punished for your actions. No black would-be-baker has a moral claim against you. You have never pretended to he doing anything other than hiring the person who it will be most economically advantageous for the business to have on the payroll.
Words fail me.
You have thoroughly convinced me that your viewpoint is wrong to the core, and yet you happily say that a willing participant of an evil system has done nothing wrong, because it's their job. That's the Nuremberg defence, and you think it's a good thing.
This way...
--------------------
.
Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Goldfish Stew:
you happily say that a willing participant of an evil system has done nothing wrong, because it's their job. That's the Nuremberg defence, and you think it's a good thing
Just to be clear, what alternative action are you proposing ? That the bakery manager should hire the black person in the full knowledge that this will bankrupt this particular bakery ? (Because that's how I read Eliab's scenario). Or that the manager is morally obliged to resign their job rather than make that particular hiring decision ?
--------------------
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
How do you change hearts and minds?
Not by keeping quiet.
I was brought up in one of the most racist regimes on Earth (1960s South Africa). My Dad broke the law all the time.
When I started teaching in the 1970s I heard many racist comments in the staff room. I remained friends with the people, but never failed to call them out. 'That's a racist comment". They'd often then say 'oh no, I'm not racist but .... and go on to say very racist things (e.g. They all smell don't they? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ). I would patiently explain why it was racist.
Over time they changed their views - I hope partly because I made them think.
Most bigotry is down to ignorance ime.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
... Black people in Bigotsville are being denied the opportunity to develop their talents. In much the same way that people who can't afford to leave small towns always have limited opportunity.
Black people in Bigotsville are suffering rejection while less-capable people get the jobs. In much the same way that an ordinary person might lose out at a job interview or audition to a particularly good-looking young woman.
Being born black and poor in Bigotsville is no fun. But a part of that is nothing exceptional or extra-ordinary. ...
No. No matter how many times you repeat this assertion - that racism isn't any different than disliking big noses, or living in a small town, or being poor or ordinary-looking - it's not the same. Just walk out your front door, find a non-white person with a big nose, and ask. Or go to the library and see if big-nosed people have ever been mass-murdered or correctively raped or ethnically cleansed or had their homes and businesses and language and culture destroyed and their children taken away from them.
You may believe that there isn't any difference between racism and disliking big noses, but the people on the other end of that will tell you otherwise. Either they're all lying or you're wrong. HISTORY says you're wrong.
Of course, the fact that you wrote "and a part of that" shows you are fully aware that the black residents of Bigotsville face additional disadvantages that the other residents do not. That other part of their experience is exceptional. It is extraordinary. And you just admitted it. Bloody well about time.
--------------------
"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 Soror Magna:
go to the library and see if big-nosed people have ever been mass-murdered or correctively raped or ethnically cleansed or had their homes and businesses and language and culture destroyed and their children taken away from them.
And the relevance of this history is ?
Are you asserting that a wrongful act (such as stealing) is worse if the victim has the same colour skin as people to whom historically these bad things happened ?
quote:
You may believe that there isn't any difference between racism and disliking big noses, but the people on the other end of that will tell you otherwise.
What I believe is that there's an element of special pleading in the "protected characteristics" position that you and others are arguing.
And when people won't admit that they're special pleading, the usual approach is to try to agree the rights and wrongs of the situation in terms of a group of people about whom they have no strong feelings. Such as people with big noses.
And then watch them squirm as they try to argue that that doesn't apply to the people they do sympathise with, whose case is special and different...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Black people don't have the privilege of taking each case as an independent, unrelated monad. Trying to make them such is surely a screaming case of white privilege. Dragging big noses into it is surely a case of red herring or straw man, take your pick.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Dragging big noses into it is surely a case of red herring or straw man, take your pick.
BahDumdumcrash
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 lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Dragging big noses into it is surely a case of red herring or straw man, take your pick.
BahDumdumcrash
I didn't even see that. I'm funny in my sleep.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
What I believe is that there's an element of special pleading in the "protected characteristics" position that you and others are arguing.
And when people won't admit that they're special pleading, the usual approach is to try to agree the rights and wrongs of the situation in terms of a group of people about whom they have no strong feelings. Such as people with big noses.
And then watch them squirm as they try to argue that that doesn't apply to the people they do sympathise with, whose case is special and different...
When you use phrases like 'watch them squirm' you make it harder than it need be to believe that you are altogether arguing sincerely and in good faith.
I've asked you two or three times now to give a reason why you think the people you're arguing with are being inconsistent in not including nose size as a protected characteristic. You haven't done so.
The principle given - just to remind you - is that there is demonstrable need in the case of race, religion, sexual orientation and the other usual suspects; and no proven need in the case of nose size (except where a proxy for race). If nose size did start to need protection then we'd all be for including it as a protected characteristic. But it is not so at the moment. So do you have any actual reason to believe that there's special pleading going on?
Instead you come up with some stuff about working from legal principles. That's a funny view of the law. The UK, US, Australia and Ireland are all common law jurisdictions; the foundation of law is that the law evolves based on need and on historical precedent rather than being build from the ground up on abstract right or principle. If you're arguing against protected characteristics on the grounds that there's no abstract right or principle behind the selection you're arguing against the entirety of common law.
In any case, you've rather backed up orfeo's case that a principle such as you may discriminate against behaviour but not against innate characteristics fails to do the work, by agreeing that holding hands is a behaviour.
(Aside from sexual orientation, the other protected trait that the behaviour/ characteristic principle fails to protect is religion.)
--------------------
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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But the underlying problem is in the hearts and minds of the citizens of Bigotsville. How would you change their hearts and minds?
If these kinds of discussions go on long enough, eventually we end up back at the 1963 Brimingham Campaign with some Segregation apologist making the case that it wasn't so bad and that horrible King person was just too terribly forward and uncouth.
Russ is essentially advancing the argument made by what's known as the "Call for Unity", condemning the Civil Rights movement as too confrontational.
quote:
However, we are now confronted by a series of demonstrations by some of our Negro citizens, directed and led in part by outsiders. We recognize the natural impatience of people who feel that their hopes are slow in being realized. But we are convinced that these demonstrations are unwise and untimely.
Essential Russ-speak. Yes, discrimination is bad, but nowhere near as bad as what happens when certain uppity folk point out how bad Segregation is and start demanding justice. Just start changing "hearts and minds" (in some vague and unspecified way) and all the rest will fall in to place, despite nearly a century's worth of failure by this strategy.
There was, of course, a somewhat famous response to this kind of thinking.
quote:
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant 'Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."
<snip>
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
This sounds a lot like a direct response to the idea that instead of confronting racist injustice directly black people should put on a show for white people about how a nice white person eventually decided that racism was wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
A demonstrably-untrue belief about them is widely held, that would be actionable if expressed about an individual.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
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.
The problem with demonising political opponents and seeking to de-legitimise their views is that it's not how you want them to treat you...
I'm not sure how to reconcile these two points. Russ seems to be demonizing and de-legitimizing the idea that black people are lazy, filthy inferiors to white people, which he claims is a "demonstrably-untrue belief" and yet warns against calling such beliefs "demonstrably untrue" or "demonizing" such opinions.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Perhaps you could raise some money from like-minded people to make a movie in which a sympathetic character from Bigotsville gradually comes to realise that the beliefs he's grown up with are untrue ?
In other words, your suggestion is to demonize and de-legitimize racism. I thought that was on your forbidden list.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Are you asserting that a wrongful act (such as stealing) is worse if the victim has the same colour skin as people to whom historically these bad things happened ?
Hate crimes are usually "message" crimes. They're not meant to affect only the primary, immediate victim but to send a message to the wider community. That's why the murder of Emmett Till (to pick an example entirely not at random) is more serious than a murder not motivated by racial animus. The point is not just the murder of Till, but to send a message to every other black person in Leflore County (or possibly all of Mississippi). There's an element of terrorism there that's not present in non-bias crimes.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
What I believe is that there's an element of special pleading in the "protected characteristics" position that you and others are arguing.
Virtually all of law is "special pleading" under this reasoning. Legal codes develop to address things that are actual problems, or things that are reasonably anticipated as being problematic in the future. The reason nose shape isn't covered under discrimination laws is pretty much the same reason "planet of origin" isn't covered, or the reason that slaughterhouse standards for griffons have yet to be developed.
[ 13. February 2017, 03:51: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Black people don't have the privilege of taking each case as an independent, unrelated monad.
His debate tactic appears to be trying to insult as many groups as possible. Earlier, he separated race out from homosexuality in how it is treated, now he is applying "special pleading" to it.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Russ is basically trumpeting all of the values of formal equality while not acknowledging all the failings that led people to aim for substantive equality instead.
There are laws targeting racism and sexism because racism and sexism are real world problems with demonstrable effects.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
