Homosexuality

Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
edited August 5 in Epiphanies
Here is a link to the Homosexuality and Christianity thread on the old website.

Feel free to add to this thread or create a new thread on a subset of this topic
«1345

Comments

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Interesting development in one of those wedding-based discrimination cases. A couple in New York state would routinely rent out their farm for weddings but refused to do so for a lesbian couple. After the case wound its way through various levels of appeals the couple gave up, swallowing a $13,000 penalty. ($10,000 to the state of New York as a penalty for violating their anti-discrimination laws and $1,500 to each of the lesbians.)

    So now Robert and Cynthia Gifford have resumed renting their property for weddings, ostensibly available for the use of any couple who can legally wed in the state of New York (and who can afford the fee). They have, however, decided to take a "poison pill" approach to same sex couples. Their website now carries this warning/disclaimer:
    At Liberty Ridge Farm, our deeply held religious belief is that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and the Farm is operated with the purpose of strengthening and promoting marriage. In furtherance of this purpose and to honor and promote our moral and religious beliefs, we donate a portion of our business proceeds to organizations that promote strong marriages such as the Family Research Council.

    For those who are unfamiliar with them, the Family Research Council is an SPLC-designated anti-LGBT hate group*. This tactic is perfectly legal and does not seem to fall afoul of any anti-discrimination laws, even ones that prohibit a "hostile environment". It could even be argued that this kind of full disclosure is laudable, given that couples getting married usually don't think about (or care) what happens to their wedding money after they spend it.

    Of course there's a good chance this may backfire, losing the Giffords not just the custom of any same-sex couples but also a lot of opposite-sex couples as well. For Robert and Cynthia Gifford it probably won't since anyone who Googles their farm will probably come across this case so anyone who doesn't want to give money to homophobes will likely stay away even without this notice, but it might have a negative impact for anyone else trying it.


    *The SPLC does not designate every group opposed to gay rights as a "hate group". You have to really work at it to get that designation.
  • I think they're still arseholes but I think it's a fair way to deal with the situation. They have to treat people equally but they don't have to like it and their customers don't get to choose what is done with their money afterwards.
  • Still hostile and discriminatory.
    "You niggers can eat here, But we are giving part of the money you spent to the Klan"
  • NicoleMRNicoleMR Shipmate
    I doubt it's illegal though.
  • Would they go ahead and do a SSM if someone asked, even with the caveats?
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    As I said, I believe the problem will be self-correcting. Not every American jurisdiction has anti-discrimination laws that cover sexual orientation, yet even in those places very few businesses are willing to put up "No Queers" signs despite it being perfectly legal to do so in those jurisdictions. This is mostly because most business owners who are inclined to discriminate prefer to do so on the down-low, discriminating against gay people but not risking the business of any sympathetic straight people.

    With the Cliffords the calculus is a little different, since anyone who Googles them will come across their protracted legal battle. I'm guessing their thinking is that as long as that's going to be widely known (or at least knowable) there's little to be lost by publicly associating themselves with the FRC. For someone who doesn't have that reputation already I suspect this is not going to be a popular strategy, largely because if it was someone would be doing it already.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Interesting development in one of those wedding-based discrimination cases. A couple in New York state would routinely rent out their farm for weddings but refused to do so for a lesbian couple. After the case wound its way through various levels of appeals the couple gave up, swallowing a $13,000 penalty. ($10,000 to the state of New York as a penalty for violating their anti-discrimination laws and $1,500 to each of the lesbians.)

    So now Robert and Cynthia Gifford have resumed renting their property for weddings, ostensibly available for the use of any couple who can legally wed in the state of New York (and who can afford the fee). They have, however, decided to take a "poison pill" approach to same sex couples. Their website now carries this warning/disclaimer:
    At Liberty Ridge Farm, our deeply held religious belief is that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and the Farm is operated with the purpose of strengthening and promoting marriage. In furtherance of this purpose and to honor and promote our moral and religious beliefs, we donate a portion of our business proceeds to organizations that promote strong marriages such as the Family Research Council.

    For those who are unfamiliar with them, the Family Research Council is an SPLC-designated anti-LGBT hate group*. This tactic is perfectly legal and does not seem to fall afoul of any anti-discrimination laws, even ones that prohibit a "hostile environment". It could even be argued that this kind of full disclosure is laudable, given that couples getting married usually don't think about (or care) what happens to their wedding money after they spend it.

    Of course there's a good chance this may backfire, losing the Giffords not just the custom of any same-sex couples but also a lot of opposite-sex couples as well. For Robert and Cynthia Gifford it probably won't since anyone who Googles their farm will probably come across this case so anyone who doesn't want to give money to homophobes will likely stay away even without this notice, but it might have a negative impact for anyone else trying it.


    *The SPLC does not designate every group opposed to gay rights as a "hate group". You have to really work at it to get that designation.

    Blimey. What a bunch of charmers the FRC are!
  • Jimmy Carter weighs in:
    “I think Jesus would encourage any love affair if it was honest and sincere and was not damaging to anyone else and I don’t see that gay marriage damages anyone else”
  • I have never had much time for Jimmy Carter but his quote above is spot on. I really don't get why people from the right care about what goes on in people's bedrooms. If they are happy then fine.

    We ought to be bothered about more important things. As P J O'Rourke says...
    I'm so conservative that I approve of San Francisco City Hall marriages, adoption by same-sex couples, and New Hampshire's recently ordained Episcopal bishop. Gays want to get married, have children, and go to church. Next they'll be advocating school vouchers, boycotting HBO, and voting Republican.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    I have never had much time for Jimmy Carter but his quote above is spot on. I really don't get why people from the right care about what goes on in people's bedrooms. If they are happy then fine.

    We ought to be bothered about more important things. As P J O'Rourke says...
    I'm so conservative that I approve of San Francisco City Hall marriages, adoption by same-sex couples, and New Hampshire's recently ordained Episcopal bishop. Gays want to get married, have children, and go to church. Next they'll be advocating school vouchers, boycotting HBO, and voting Republican.

    Well indeed. They can be as politically misguided as anyone else.
  • Yay, Jimmy!
    (not worthy)

    And there's already at least one gay Republican group: Log Cabin Republicans.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited July 2018
    I have never had much time for Jimmy Carter but his quote above is spot on. I really don't get why people from the right care about what goes on in people's bedrooms. If they are happy then fine.

    We ought to be bothered about more important things. As P J O'Rourke says...
    I'm so conservative that I approve of San Francisco City Hall marriages, adoption by same-sex couples, and New Hampshire's recently ordained Episcopal bishop. Gays want to get married, have children, and go to church. Next they'll be advocating school vouchers, boycotting HBO, and voting Republican.

    That kind of concern trolling was probably more convincing before the Republicans adopted a thrice-married serial adulterer as their standard bearer. Of course the quote comes from a column written in 2004 praising Rush Limbaugh, a serial adulterer who was at the time in the process of separating from his third wife. Limbaugh has since married a fourth time, because marriage is so important to Republicans they want to have as many as possible, apparently. Mr. O'Rourke has only had two marriages, so apparently he's not as "pro-marriage" as Limbaugh.

    Just out of curiosity, what sort of things are "more important" than your family and your God?
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Just out of curiosity, what sort of things are "more important" than your family and your God?
    Destroying other people's families, and their right to worship their god as they see fit? I mean speaking on behalf of Republican Evangelicals.
  • Thatcheright--

    And, respectfully, did Maggie Thatcher support the things you are implying? (Cross-pond question. I really don't know.)

    Thx.
  • Margaret Thatcher was involved in section 28, which prevented any promotion of homosexuality
  • Thx.
  • Today's New York Times (requires use of a free click) has an article by "biblical scholar" Idan Dershowitz arguing that Leviticus 18 originally permitted gay sex and was later edited to say the contrary.

    (The article also says things about incest that made my head hurt).

    Thoughts, anyone?
  • So if you were only prevented from having homosexual incest, heterosexual incest was OK?
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    I did not find it a very convincing article. He treated (eg) the prohibition on sex with the aunt as contradicting the prohibition on sex with your uncle and thus not condemning homosexual practices. I don't read it as a contradiction but rather a fresh prohibition. Perhaps there's something in the Hebrew which helps his conclusion. I have absolutely no Hebrew at all, so can't comment on that, but the author does not refer to any either.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    It's bollocks. Utter and absolute bollocks.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    It's bollocks. Utter and absolute bollocks.
    Irrelevant. When you stone your children at the city gates for misbehaviour,* then Christians can pretend that they follow the bible without modification.

    *And other such instructions.

  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    Bumping thread for people who are posting on threads where this issue doesn't belong.
  • @Lamb Chopped

    If you can tell me that inerrantists can vote in support of marriage equality and not vote in favour of limiting it, if you can tell me that inerrantists can teach their children that being homosexual and acting on it is OK; then I think I can begin to think that maybe you don't all share the same guilt. This also goes for other issues, but I think this one is a good start.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    lilBuddha

    Don't know about Lamb Chopped but I certainly know well a number of folks who are happily signed up to an inerrantist view of scripture for whom this is no problem. They think Steve Chalke did a pretty good job in identifying a consistent biblical hermeneutic re a variety of justice issues (e.g slavery, the role of women, gender identity).
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    edited February 3
    Here is what Steve had to say.

    It got him into a huge amount of hot water. But I think it captured very well the unease with traditional interpretations and the awareness of the kind of basic unfairness inherent in wooden literalism.

    I think Steve Chalke has been moving on personally and he explains his own journey here.

    He is no longer a believer in inerrancy. Which has got him into even hotter water. But the 2013 article on homosexuality was a genuine attempt to address the relationship between biblical interpretation and justice issues, pointing out ways in which opinions have moved. He is quite right, for example, to describe the attacks on abolitionists as dangerous liberals. But nobody argues that now. In virtually all conservative church circles the abolitionists are championed as having found the truth of scripture.

    What they did was to weigh scripture with scripture and find a new point of balance. What Steve argued in 2013 is that there was a case for a similar journey re homosexuality. I know a lot of thoughtful Christians with very conservative views about the inerrancy of scripture who got that point and agreed with it. They felt the unfairness of the traditional view but did not want to abandon their beliefs about the truth of scripture.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    So B, Steve has inerrantist followers on the non-heterosexual?
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    Yes, I know some. As I said in the other thread, the principle of weighing scripture with scripture has always been accepted within inerrancy; I was introduced to that idea 45 years ago by a very conservative member of the Plymouth Brethren. Of course he had a pretty Brethrenly set of scales!

    But I think the driving force is this innate sense of fairness. People get torn between well known principles such as the supremacy of unselfish love, the importance of faithfulness, and these darned proof-texts about homosexual behaviour. They know something doesn't add up.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Aye. Evangelicalism is a broad church. There are many liberal ones here. I know three for sure in my big evo Anglican Leicester church. One's on the PCC! I'm on the extreme 'left' I realise. Beyond Steve I suspect. Most people here seem more conservative than me on the texts, including otherwise liberals.
  • So, here is the thing. Science points to homosexuality as being natural. And, unlike SL's "Be homo, but don't do homo" bullshit, it appears to serve an evolutionary purpose.
    The bible is wrong. Personally, I think the "no it really doesn't say that" crowd are waffling. For the right reasons and towards the right conclusion, IMO, but still trying to fit an octagon into a round hole.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited February 3
    Ancient Judaism, therefore early Christianity and until recently 99.9% of what followed was homophobic. But Paul is not including ordinary little people in Romans 1:18-26-27 or 1 Timothy 1:9-10. He is in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 in part. Most of us are included there. And whatever else he meant, deconstructing what he said and may have even meant liberally, he wasn't being damnationist: being lost in a truly depraved, criminal, exploitative, oppressive, wantonly permissive, unloving lifestyle does tend to prevent one from living in the Kingdom at the same time a tad. And there will be no such behaviour in the fully transcendent.
  • a truly depraved, criminal, exploitative, oppressive, wantonly permissive, unloving lifestyle

    And by that description, does sir have a gay lifestyle in mind, or late capitalism in general? To my mind, it describes late capitalism far better than it does the lives of most of the same-sex couples of my acquaintance.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    I couldn't agree more ThunderBunk. Well I could: It describes all human power structures and relationships. Wherever there is abuse of power, there is sin, there is want of the Kingdom. Paul could barely transcend his time and was therefore unexaminably homophobic. Not to be would have taken another road to Damascus.
  • by lilbuddha
    With homosexuality, Jesus' teaching on divorce are twisted to be anti-homosexual.

    Not so. I assume you refer to Mark 10; 2-12 and its Matthaean parallel.

    Three things to be said initially here, I think....

    1) There is no biblical problem about the notion of men loving other men and women loving other women. See for example 2 Sam 1 where David laments the death of Jonathan with the words "Your love for me was greater than the love of women".

    The issue is whether it is/can-ever-be appropriate and fitting to express such love by explicitly sexual acts.

    2) Because this is about acts and their appropriateness it is NOT, as pro-gay propaganda tries to suggest, in the same category as people 'being' red-haired or of black or other ethnicity; things which people indeed are, have no choice about and can't do anything to really change.

    It is in the territory of things people do and therefore very much have choice about. And in the territory of feeling urges and desires. And in that territory there are of course many things which are good or even excellent - but also plenty of things which are anything but good or excellent and on which nobody on the Ship is likely to be arguing that merely because you feel such desires and urges they are perfectly OK and nobody should complain at you satisfying said urges.

    On the contrary it is precisely in such matters that there can be legitimate disagreement about the rights and wrongs of what is done, and about whether the urges and desires are truly 'natural' in a 'made by God' sense or whether they are 'natural' only in the sense in which Paul speaks of the desires of a 'natural' - ie sinful - man. And therefore may quite rightly be considered as 'temptation'.

    3) In a plural society, in which freedom of religious/philosophical belief is allowed, the differences of opinion may mean - and in the case of gay issues certainly do mean - that people are entitled in the state to believe that gay sex is OK, and to practice it; but on the same grounds of freedom of belief, others are fully entitled to say it is wrong and to not practice it and to be critical about those who do practice it. NEITHER party is entitled to 'set the law on' the other to force the other to conform to their beliefs....

    And now turning to Mark....

    Yes, Jesus is asked a question about divorce. But it could not be much clearer that he chooses to answer that question by taking, as it were, 'a step back up the logic tree' and put divorce in the wider context of "What is marriage?" And the things he says about marriage basically preclude 'gay sex'. Just starting with "He (God) made them male and female...."

    In some ways the important bit here, which people often slide round, is where Jesus further quotes the OT point that "They shall become one flesh" - which is decidedly not easy to interpret any other way than that a male and a female shall unite via the different but complementary anatomy designed by God for sex. And further, they may become one flesh in a secondary way, in children who are 'one flesh' combined from the flesh of their parents.

    And put bluntly, no male with male nor female with female can possibly 'become one flesh' in those ways. They simply don't have the kit. And what they do instead is, well, not actually sex in God's terms at all, and is hardly respectful of sex as God intended - is it really 'just as good as' the designed male-with-female sex for two men to basically shove their dicks up each others' shitholes or down each others' throats?

    Atheists, agnostics, and various 'other-believers' are perfectly entitled to believe these things to be OK - and as I say, in a plural society to practice such things among themselves and not have the law set on them. Christians will prefer to respect God who clearly says that sex is for male-with-female.

    This is not 'distorting' a teaching on divorce, but following logically a wider teaching on marriage in general

    I've imported this here simply to save having to repeat it piecemeal.
  • by lilbuddha
    Science points to homosexuality as being natural.

    I'd like you to explain this in a bit more detail. But if all you mean is that science detects people being same-sex attracted and not opposite-sex attracted, this may not quite prove what you want. As pointed out above
    It is in the territory of things people do and therefore very much have choice about. And in the territory of feeling urges and desires. And in that territory there are of course many things which are good or even excellent - but also plenty of things which are anything but good or excellent and on which nobody on the Ship is likely to be arguing that merely because you feel such desires and urges they are perfectly OK and nobody should complain at you satisfying said urges.

    That is, people have 'naturally' all kinds of urges/desires to do things and those things are not necessarily 'good' just because people have desires and urges to do them. Desires and urges to steal, kill, lie, fight wars and so on, just for example.

    Which is why Dawkins, in 'River out of Eden', made the point that in an atheist world, essentially everything happens purposelessly in an ultimately purposeless universe, and therefore say Martin Luther King and Ian Brady are morally equal as things that just so happened. And as he explicitly says, there is therefore 'no good and no evil'. And that, according to Dawkins, is very much 'the science'!

    I rather suspect that appropriate tests would show that Brady had 'natural' desires to torture and kill children in pretty exactly the sense in which 'homosexuality' is 'natural'. Which is my point - unless really wanting to abandon moral right and wrong totally, then in areas like this involving urges/desires and actions where clearly there is a choice to do or not to do, it really isn't the same simple kind of 'being' whatever as 'being' red-haired or black-skinned, and it must at the very least be open to considerable possibilities of critique and question, and for that matter to there being more than one possible answer depending on alternative presuppositions (eg 'atheism' vs 'theism').
  • There are other models of morality than divine command theory. In particular, you may consider the harm caused by an action, or the motivation for an action.
  • The Biblical reasoning used to condone homosexuality is Matthew 7:16:
    You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? English Standard Version

    The fruits of faithful monogamous homosexual relationships are good; the people involved are healthier and happier, can support society without fear. Anyone seeing harm is usually hung up on the ickyness of homosexual acts, which are, like all bedroom acts, the business of those concerned and no others.

    The fruits of condemnation and conversion therapies are bad.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    by lilbuddha
    Science points to homosexuality as being natural.

    I'd like you to explain this in a bit more detail. But if all you mean is that science detects people being same-sex attracted and not opposite-sex attracted, this may not quite prove what you want. As pointed out above
    It is in the territory of things people do and therefore very much have choice about. And in the territory of feeling urges and desires. And in that territory there are of course many things which are good or even excellent - but also plenty of things which are anything but good or excellent and on which nobody on the Ship is likely to be arguing that merely because you feel such desires and urges they are perfectly OK and nobody should complain at you satisfying said urges.

    That is, people have 'naturally' all kinds of urges/desires to do things and those things are not necessarily 'good' just because people have desires and urges to do them. Desires and urges to steal, kill, lie, fight wars and so on, just for example.

    Which is why Dawkins, in 'River out of Eden', made the point that in an atheist world, essentially everything happens purposelessly in an ultimately purposeless universe, and therefore say Martin Luther King and Ian Brady are morally equal as things that just so happened. And as he explicitly says, there is therefore 'no good and no evil'. And that, according to Dawkins, is very much 'the science'!

    I rather suspect that appropriate tests would show that Brady had 'natural' desires to torture and kill children in pretty exactly the sense in which 'homosexuality' is 'natural'. Which is my point - unless really wanting to abandon moral right and wrong totally, then in areas like this involving urges/desires and actions where clearly there is a choice to do or not to do, it really isn't the same simple kind of 'being' whatever as 'being' red-haired or black-skinned, and it must at the very least be open to considerable possibilities of critique and question, and for that matter to there being more than one possible answer depending on alternative presuppositions (eg 'atheism' vs 'theism').

    Brady and homosexuality and your inability to weigh good and evil in the absence of God are genetically determined certainly.
  • Which is why Dawkins, in 'River out of Eden', made the point that in an atheist world, essentially everything happens purposelessly in an ultimately purposeless universe, and therefore say Martin Luther King and Ian Brady are morally equal as things that just so happened. And as he explicitly says, there is therefore 'no good and no evil'. And that, according to Dawkins, is very much 'the science'!

    I rather suspect that appropriate tests would show that Brady had 'natural' desires to torture and kill children in pretty exactly the sense in which 'homosexuality' is 'natural'. Which is my point
    Steve, the number of examples of offence in this short portion of a post are numerous. But, of particular note:

    1. By bracketing your comparison of MLK and Brady as "morally equal" by reference to Richard Dawkins creates the impression that you are citing 'River Out Of Eden' on this point. That is not a comparison that Dawkins makes, in the section of his book where he explicitly states there is no good and no evil (p132 in the edition I have) the example he gives of evil is a bus crash killing children. We do not tolerate potential libel on the Ship (see Commandment 7)

    2. Likening homosexuals to paedophiles is a very offensive category error. To make that comparison with a child killer like Brady even more so. This is not only a personal attack on homosexuals (see Commandment 3), it may also be close to hate speech under UK law.

    On the basis of these two egregious breaches of our Commandments, we hope you spend the next two weeks working on how you can make your points without causing needless offense because you won't be spending them posting on the Ship.

    Alan
    Ship of Fools Admin
  • Oh, so Steve isn't around, just wondering what an atheist world is, I suppose a world without God, but that would normally be called a natural world, or naturalistic. Think of Laplace, "I have no need of that hypothesis (God)". Worlds don't have beliefs or lack them, so can't be atheist. Physics isn't atheist, but methodologically naturalistic.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited February 5
    How do we tell the difference?
  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    edited February 6
    Is the correct meaning of Biblical passages directly addressing homosexuality that meaning that was intended by St. Paul, the authors of Leviticus, etc.? Could they have been wrong about the meaning of what they were writing? This ties back into the inerrantist threads.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    How do we tell the difference?

    Not sure if that's addressed to me. Scientists tend to assume methodological naturalism, that is, they ignore the supernatural. However, this doesn't mean that a scientist doesn't have personal views about gods, angels, whatever.
  • Science is non-theist, scientists can be whatever they want.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    How do we tell the difference?

    Not sure if that's addressed to me. Scientists tend to assume methodological naturalism, that is, they ignore the supernatural. However, this doesn't mean that a scientist doesn't have personal views about gods, angels, whatever.

    Sorry, I meant how can we differentiate between a world with or without God?
  • Picking up where we left off….

    First, about Dawkins and “River Out Of Eden”
    I tried a bit too hard to be brief and didn’t make it quite clear enough that an example I gave was not a quote from Dawkins himself but bore a different relation to his words. Here is the Dawkins passage
    “… if the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies like the crashing of this bus are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. It would manifest no intentions of any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet AE Housman put it

    For Nature, heartless Nature
    Will neither know nor care.

    DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”

    And my comment amounted to “If I take seriously the view Dawkins expresses here, a view of ‘the universe’ (= ‘everything there is’), then it would appear to be a logical consequence that….” And with that clarified, I feel my words to be fair comment and/or a reasonable argument about the business.

    On the other “charge” which Alan Cresswell levelled against me I will have to come back with more detail. For now I will comment that I’d already made the basic point in earlier posts that in effect I am challenging the common current view of the ‘category’ in which ‘gayness’ belongs. That is, it is not in the category of something people ‘just are’ like being, say, blue-eyed or red-haired, but very much in the category of things people ‘do’, and unlike being born blue-eyed etc., definitely have a choice about doing. That category is wide – essentially running all the way from what most would consider ‘saintly’ behaviour to what most would consider ‘devilish’. But in that category rather different considerations apply and it is at least very questionable whether, in that category of ‘doing/behaviour’ you can just say “I have these desires and urges to do such-and-such an act and therefore it is ‘natural’ and must be OK for me to do it”.

    I would also comment that I did not crassly compare homosexuals to paedophiles. I was responding to a Shipmate’s comment about what ‘science’ showed and asking a question about the extent and limits of ‘the science’ in this kind of context. Namely that as far as I can tell, the same kind of tests that would show the ‘naturalness’ of heterosexuality and homosexuality would also show a similar ‘naturalness’ of other ‘paraphilias’ including some, such as the proclivities of Brady, that would be considered questionable or evil – and therefore the science in this case, when considered more broadly, might well be ‘proving’ either not enough or altogether too much. That is surely a question that needs a proper answer, and being ‘offended’ is not a proper answer but an evasion.


  • @Steve Langton - responses start here in Hell as there is no possible answer to this outwith Hell.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    Well I'm still not clear why you are so animated about this, Steve.

    I don't know about you, but I frequently move around in the community and interact with people who are different, and have different values to me.

    I don't see the need to compare people who do things I find distasteful to mass murderers. And I'm perfectly happy to allow others to do things I don't like without needing to offend them.

    If it isn't specifically hurting someone else, what business is it of mine anyway?

  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Picking up where we left off….
    Why?

  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.
Sign In or Register to comment.