Homosexuality

245

Comments

  • I would draw your collective attention to lilbuddha's comment about
    SL's "Be homo, but don't do homo" bullshit,

    She is pretty vehement about it and clearly thinks that 'homo' is in fact something people 'do'. And lilbuddha is far from alone on the Ship in thinking that way. But it is rather the point that if it involves 'doing' it can't be in the category of simply 'being' that is typically claimed by the pro-gay lobby. And if it is in the category of doing/behaviour then it has to be open to challenge and critique in ways that are not the case with things people really simply 'are' like being, say, red-haired or blue-eyed.

    It is true that in certain world-views being and doing are effectively the same thing; but those may not be the only world-views permissible in a plural society that allows - or is supposed to allow - that people can disagree about world-views.

    Do note that I emphatically advocate same-sex love, and also equality for those who interpret themselves as 'gay'. Trouble is that if there is a category error here, then it may well be that more than equality is being demanded, which could be a considerable civil liberties problem.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.

    Where is our lost 🤮 emoticon??
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    I would draw your collective attention to lilbuddha's comment about
    SL's "Be homo, but don't do homo" bullshit,

    She is pretty vehement about it and clearly thinks that 'homo' is in fact something people 'do'.

    First you seem to be reading rather a lot into a satirical rewriting of your own position. Second - of course it is something "they do". Just like being anything is something you do. Third Lilbuddha hasn't been here for a while so is unlikely to be able to explain what she meant.
    And lilbuddha is far from alone on the Ship in thinking that way.

    I doubt there are many people here who believe that homosexuality is something characterised simply by what you "do" rather than what you "are", other than you.
    But it is rather the point that if it involves 'doing' it can't be in the category of simply 'being' that is typically claimed by the pro-gay lobby. And if it is in the category of doing/behaviour then it has to be open to challenge and critique in ways that are not the case with things people really simply 'are' like being, say, red-haired or blue-eyed.

    Steve, listen to me: two men who are married to each other are not necessarily actively "doing" anything other than loving each other at any given moment.
    Just like my wife and I are not characterised simply by what we do less than 1% of the time.

    And, I'm sorry to break it to you, but there are couples of all kinds who have zero genital contact at all. Including some homosexuals.

    Because being homosexual is not all about what you do with your genitals.
    It is true that in certain world-views being and doing are effectively the same thing; but those may not be the only world-views permissible in a plural society that allows - or is supposed to allow - that people can disagree about world-views.

    No Steve. Almost every sensible person realises that people are many faceted and do not simply fit within the characterisations of others. Being gay is not just about sex. You can like it or lump it, but it is a fact.
    Do note that I emphatically advocate same-sex love, and also equality for those who interpret themselves as 'gay'. Trouble is that if there is a category error here, then it may well be that more than equality is being demanded, which could be a considerable civil liberties problem.

    Mate, you are getting in a lather for no reason.

    If a man loves and wants to live with another man, why it how they choose to live is of no concern of yours.

    And critically of no concern of the state either.

    You can deny all kinds of things. You can claim all colours are shades of pink and that all people with blue hats are computer generated.

    It makes not the slightest bit of difference.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited March 26
    But it is rather the point that if it involves 'doing' it can't be in the category of simply 'being' that is typically claimed by the pro-gay lobby.

    <snip>

    Do note that I emphatically advocate same-sex love . . .

    Given that you claim to "advocate" (i.e. lobby for) "same-sex love", doesn't that make you part of the "pro-gay lobby"?
    Trouble is that if there is a category error here, then it may well be that more than equality is being demanded, which could be a considerable civil liberties problem.

    Sorry, I'm not getting how this constitutes "a considerable civil liberties problem". Most societies with broad protections of civil liberties include things you would consider "doing" rather than "being", like religion and religious practice. Religion seems a lot more amenable to change than sexual orientation, given how easily people seem to change religions compared with the difficulties encountered by those trying to change their sexual orientations. Yet protections for the free exercise of religion is rarely considered "a considerable civil liberties problem" by the same people who consider homosexuality to be so.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    I would draw your collective attention to lilbuddha's comment about
    SL's "Be homo, but don't do homo" bullshit,

    She is pretty vehement about it and clearly thinks that 'homo' is in fact something people 'do'.

    First you seem to be reading rather a lot into a satirical rewriting of your own position.

    Well I had noticed that lilbuddha wasn't in fact representing my position very accurately; but she does rather clearly make that distinction between 'being' and 'doing'.
    Second - of course it is something "they do". Just like being anything is something you do. Third Lilbuddha hasn't been here for a while so is unlikely to be able to explain what she meant.

    Trivially "being anything is something you do". However there is a rather significant difference between on the one hand being/doing 'blue-eyed' and on the other hand the 'doing' involved when the blue-eyed person consciously chooses to carry out an action - whether that action is commonly considered 'good' or commonly considered 'evil' . And precisely because the former is trivial I'm assuming that lilbuddha means the conscious doing thing rather than the 'being is something you do' thing.
    And lilbuddha is far from alone on the Ship in thinking that way.

    I doubt there are many people here who believe that homosexuality is something characterised simply by what you "do" rather than what you "are", other than you.

    Like I said, I'm rather querying the 'characterisation' here. See, I fully accept the text in 2 Samuel where David refers to the love between himself and Jonathan as 'greater than the love of women', and I don't see that as a problem. If however the 'characterisation' of 'homosexuality' is taken to include the sexual - or more accurately pseudo-sexual - acts, then hey, that is definitely something that is done and, barring some kind of insanity plea, chosen. And as far as I can tell (from, inter alia, around 400 responses on a thread on the old Ship about 'being and doing', most on the Ship would, it seems, want that doing of sex to be at least potentially included.
    But it is rather the point that if it involves 'doing' it can't be in the category of simply 'being' that is typically claimed by the pro-gay lobby. And if it is in the category of doing/behaviour then it has to be open to challenge and critique in ways that are not the case with things people really simply 'are' like being, say, red-haired or blue-eyed.

    Steve, listen to me: two men who are married to each other are not necessarily actively "doing" anything other than loving each other at any given moment.
    Just like my wife and I are not characterised simply by what we do less than 1% of the time.

    And, I'm sorry to break it to you, but there are couples of all kinds who have zero genital contact at all. Including some homosexuals.

    Not by a long way breaking news, mate. I may not have the brain the size of a planet or library bigger than many universities or something similar which you just suggested over in Hell, but in general you're probably a lot safer assuming I do know such things than sneeringly suggesting I don't. I was a late 1960s university student and among other things approved the decriminalisation of homosexuality - remember too that I'm a basically Anabaptist believer in the notion of a plural society (more on that later).
    Because being homosexual is not all about what you do with your genitals.

    Yebbut - and see the next bit - the problem is about the 'sex'. No real problem about the rest.
    It is true that in certain world-views being and doing are effectively the same thing; but those may not be the only world-views permissible in a plural society that allows - or is supposed to allow - that people can disagree about world-views.

    No Steve. Almost every sensible person realises that people are many faceted and do not simply fit within the characterisations of others. Being gay is not just about sex. You can like it or lump it, but it is a fact.

    Wasn't quite sure of best place for this break in the flow of argument - I think here works. Take two possible different world-views here (there may be others...). In one, everything basically just happens for no particular purpose. In a universe believed to be like that, there would appear to be no reason to do sex any particular way - indeed in some versions of that view, even consent wouldn't matter. On the other hand suppose a view that there is a purpose and a Creator; and suppose there is design involved and it is in fact 'heterosexual' design, as Jesus seems to be saying in Mark 10 - in that situation there surely is a case for following the Creator's pattern. It's not so much that 'Being gay is not just about sex' but rather that same-sex love without sex is in that view totally natural anyway, but doing sex contrary to the Creator's pattern is going to be questionable....

    Do note that I emphatically advocate same-sex love, and also equality for those who interpret themselves as 'gay'. Trouble is that if there is a category error here, then it may well be that more than equality is being demanded, which could be a considerable civil liberties problem.

    Mate, you are getting in a lather for no reason.

    If a man loves and wants to live with another man, why it how they choose to live is of no concern of yours.

    And critically of no concern of the state either.

    If I believe the proposition suggested above, of divinely purposeful sexuality which is denied and disrespected by certain acts, yeah, it's my concern both to follow that myself and surely encourage others to follow the Creator's will. It shouldn't be the state's concern; and very importantly it shouldn't be the concern of a Christian state because the state shouldn't be Christian anyway. This is in Christian terms a voluntary choice for those who choose the life of faith.
    You can deny all kinds of things. You can claim all colours are shades of pink and that all people with blue hats are computer generated.

    It makes not the slightest bit of difference.

    Which is enough for now - of course I have more to say ultimately....
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Picking up where we left off….
    Why?

    Trivially because 'picking up where you left off is often the obvious thing to do. Less trivially because like NT Wright in posts on this topic on that Youtube thingy, I'd like to see the matter properly discussed rather than just a 'politically correct soundbites' shouting match. (Paraphrasing rather than quoting Wright, but I don't think he'd feel I was wrong putting it that way - if you want I'll find the links so you can judge for yourselves)
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    But it is rather the point that if it involves 'doing' it can't be in the category of simply 'being' that is typically claimed by the pro-gay lobby.

    <snip>

    Do note that I emphatically advocate same-sex love . . .

    Given that you claim to "advocate" (i.e. lobby for) "same-sex love", doesn't that make you part of the "pro-gay lobby"?

    See above where I comment on David and Jonathan's mutual love; and realise that in the category/characterisation I'm suggesting, it would be the sexual expression of the love that is problematic.
    Trouble is that if there is a category error here, then it may well be that more than equality is being demanded, which could be a considerable civil liberties problem.

    Sorry, I'm not getting how this constitutes "a considerable civil liberties problem". Most societies with broad protections of civil liberties include things you would consider "doing" rather than "being", like religion and religious practice. Religion seems a lot more amenable to change than sexual orientation, given how easily people seem to change religions compared with the difficulties encountered by those trying to change their sexual orientations. Yet protections for the free exercise of religion is rarely considered "a considerable civil liberties problem" by the same people who consider homosexuality to be so.

    Precisely because religion is in a 'doing/chosen' area rather than a 'made that way' area it doesn't get the same protections as 'simply being' things like racial difference. And that's the point I'm making - if it is a 'being' thing, homosexuality is actually entitled to a higher level of protection and effectively a higher level of how they are allowed to variously sue, prosecute, and legally restrict those who disagree with them. And that can be a significant civil liberties issue, not to mention being an inequality biased towards homosexuals.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited March 26
    Trivially "being anything is something you do". However there is a rather significant difference between on the one hand being/doing 'blue-eyed' and on the other hand the 'doing' involved when the blue-eyed person consciously chooses to carry out an action - whether that action is commonly considered 'good' or commonly considered 'evil' . And precisely because the former is trivial I'm assuming that lilbuddha means the conscious doing thing rather than the 'being is something you do' thing.

    So being left-handed isn't wrong, but preferentially using your left hand is? Something along those lines? That seems an overly close parsing of a distinction without a difference.
    Like I said, I'm rather querying the 'characterisation' here. See, I fully accept the text in 2 Samuel where David refers to the love between himself and Jonathan as 'greater than the love of women', and I don't see that as a problem. If however the 'characterisation' of 'homosexuality' is taken to include the sexual - or more accurately pseudo-sexual - acts, then hey, that is definitely something that is done and, barring some kind of insanity plea, chosen.

    <snip>

    On the other hand suppose a view that there is a purpose and a Creator; and suppose there is design involved and it is in fact 'heterosexual' design, as Jesus seems to be saying in Mark 10 - in that situation there surely is a case for following the Creator's pattern. It's not so much that 'Being gay is not just about sex' but rather that same-sex love without sex is in that view totally natural anyway, but doing sex contrary to the Creator's pattern is going to be questionable....

    Good news then! According to you same-sex couples can't have sex. They have pseudo(false)-sex. Apparently there's a loophole (NSFW) in God's law. Creatively thinking opposite-sex couples can take advantage of this as well. If they carefully confine themselves to acts that same-sex couples can perform it doesn't count in God's eyes.
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Sorry, I'm not getting how this constitutes "a considerable civil liberties problem". Most societies with broad protections of civil liberties include things you would consider "doing" rather than "being", like religion and religious practice. Religion seems a lot more amenable to change than sexual orientation, given how easily people seem to change religions compared with the difficulties encountered by those trying to change their sexual orientations. Yet protections for the free exercise of religion is rarely considered "a considerable civil liberties problem" by the same people who consider homosexuality to be so.

    Precisely because religion is in a 'doing/chosen' area rather than a 'made that way' area it doesn't get the same protections as 'simply being' things like racial difference.

    Yeah, that's simply a falsehood. Virtually every anti-discrimination statute I've ever come across lists religion or creed on the same footing as race, ethnicity, or gender. For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states:
    All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

    Can you provide a couple citations to back up your assertion that religious belief receives inferior legal protection despite its apparent equal footing?
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    What would it matter even if it was true that a formerly despised minority was getting a "civil liberties" advantage?

    As far as I can see, any anabaptist who believed in their own theology would celebrate. Hurrah, finally a group who is not like us is getting some recognition. Hosanna, freedom for the oppressed. Woopie, the falling of the walls built by the state which oppress and diminish and shame.

    And anyone who actually was feeling goodwill to people they cannot relate to, find abhorrant, and generally consider as sinful something they say is a fundamental part of themselves would either (a) find ways to express themselves that are accepted not to be offensive or (b) shut up and keep ones thoughts to oneself whilst doing ones best to love and support them in any possible way.

    You cannot claim to be a follower of radical anabaptist theology and keep saying things that the people you say you love find deeply painful.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Picking up where we left off….
    Why?

    Trivially because 'picking up where you left off is often the obvious thing to do.

    Not nearly as obvious as just leaving a weeks-old thread, on which nothing has been decided and about which you have nothing new to say since last time, stay dormant.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Trivially "being anything is something you do". However there is a rather significant difference between on the one hand being/doing 'blue-eyed' and on the other hand the 'doing' involved when the blue-eyed person consciously chooses to carry out an action - whether that action is commonly considered 'good' or commonly considered 'evil' . And precisely because the former is trivial I'm assuming that lilbuddha means the conscious doing thing rather than the 'being is something you do' thing.

    So being left-handed isn't wrong, but preferentially using your left hand is? Something along those lines? That seems an overly close parsing of a distinction without a difference.

    IF - which isn't the case - preferentially using your left hand was sinful in itself.... See where you're trying to go here, but....

    Back to what I actually said, which concerned the general distinction of being and doing. Sure, at a trivial level "being anything is something you do". In the sense that in a morally neutral way you 'live it out'. There is still a massive difference between the doing involved in just 'being' blue-eyed, and the 'doing', good or ill, when the blue-eyed person makes a conscious decision to do things that, unlike being blue-eyed, they can definitely choose not to do. And if the thing chosen to be done is wrong....
    Like I said, I'm rather querying the 'characterisation' here. See, I fully accept the text in 2 Samuel where David refers to the love between himself and Jonathan as 'greater than the love of women', and I don't see that as a problem. If however the 'characterisation' of 'homosexuality' is taken to include the sexual - or more accurately pseudo-sexual - acts, then hey, that is definitely something that is done and, barring some kind of insanity plea, chosen.

    <snip>

    On the other hand suppose a view that there is a purpose and a Creator; and suppose there is design involved and it is in fact 'heterosexual' design, as Jesus seems to be saying in Mark 10 - in that situation there surely is a case for following the Creator's pattern. It's not so much that 'Being gay is not just about sex' but rather that same-sex love without sex is in that view totally natural anyway, but doing sex contrary to the Creator's pattern is going to be questionable....

    Good news then! According to you same-sex couples can't have sex. They have pseudo(false)-sex. Apparently there's a loophole (NSFW) in God's law. Creatively thinking opposite-sex couples can take advantage of this as well. If they carefully confine themselves to acts that same-sex couples can perform it doesn't count in God's eyes.

    Suggest you go back over that and rethink it a bit more rigorously....
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Sorry, I'm not getting how this constitutes "a considerable civil liberties problem". Most societies with broad protections of civil liberties include things you would consider "doing" rather than "being", like religion and religious practice. Religion seems a lot more amenable to change than sexual orientation, given how easily people seem to change religions compared with the difficulties encountered by those trying to change their sexual orientations. Yet protections for the free exercise of religion is rarely considered "a considerable civil liberties problem" by the same people who consider homosexuality to be so.

    Precisely because religion is in a 'doing/chosen' area rather than a 'made that way' area it doesn't get the same protections as 'simply being' things like racial difference.

    Yeah, that's simply a falsehood. Virtually every anti-discrimination statute I've ever come across lists religion or creed on the same footing as race, ethnicity, or gender. For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states:
    All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

    Can you provide a couple citations to back up your assertion that religious belief receives inferior legal protection despite its apparent equal footing?

    Please expand a bit further on the exact meaning of that phrase "any place of public accomodation". But it seems to me there is one area where religion must get different treatment, namely that religious beliefs are open to criticism by those who disagree with them. 'Being', through no deliberate choice, of a different ' race, color... or national origin' can't be subject to that kind of critique. But by an arguable/disputable claim of 'just being', those who claim to be gay effectively get put on a pedestal above and beyond criticism, even allowed to bring penalties upon those who criticise. I'll need to expand on this point, but not now; it's getting late and I've still someone else's point to at least begin to answer.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    What would it matter even if it was true that a formerly despised minority was getting a "civil liberties" advantage?

    Like I said, if they were getting the equality which they deserve in a plural society where people are allowed to disagree, I'm cheering. If they are getting undeserved inequality in their favour and using it to actually mistreat those who disagree with them, I might well feel that such a state of affairs is morally and spiritually bad for them even if it has material advantages.
    As far as I can see, any anabaptist who believed in their own theology would celebrate. Hurrah, finally a group who is not like us is getting some recognition. Hosanna, freedom for the oppressed. Woopie, the falling of the walls built by the state which oppress and diminish and shame.

    And anyone who actually was feeling goodwill to people they cannot relate to, find abhorrant, and generally consider as sinful something they say is a fundamental part of themselves would either (a) find ways to express themselves that are accepted not to be offensive or (b) shut up and keep ones thoughts to oneself whilst doing ones best to love and support them in any possible way.

    As I've recently expressed to a pastor I know, 'doing ones best to love and support (people) in any possible way' does include being faithful about what is wrong and should not be done. I don't think you'd regard me as 'loving and supporting' someone if I told them it was OK to lie or steal. And can I break it to you that there are a lot of people you'd regard as sinful who basically regard their sinful desires and urges as 'a fundamental part of themselves'; this is actually a more subjective point than you're trying to suggest.
    You cannot claim to be a follower of radical anabaptist theology and keep saying things that the people you say you love find deeply painful.

    I know what I say next is one of the extreme examples but by its extremity it does make the more general and widely applicable point; sometimes love has to say the painful things. I would presume that someone like Hitler would consider it 'love' if people supported his ideas and actions; indeed we pretty much know that's how he saw it. Yet someone who truly loved Hitler would massively criticise his ideas and actions, and as far as we can tell he would not only see that as painful and unloving, he'd actually get quite nasty about it. No sinner likes to be challenged about their sin; but it's definitely part of 'radical anabaptist theology' to do just that. I do not by a very very long way consider 'gay sex' as the same level of sin as Hitler's ideas and acts; but the general principle does apply.

    There are, mind, several aspects of this which I haven't yet got round to and which would significantly balance what I'm saying - perhaps you could bear with me as I bring the points out.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Picking up where we left off….
    Why?

    Trivially because 'picking up where you left off is often the obvious thing to do. Less trivially because like NT Wright in posts on this topic on that Youtube thingy, I'd like to see the matter properly discussed rather than just a 'politically correct soundbites' shouting match. (Paraphrasing rather than quoting Wright, but I don't think he'd feel I was wrong putting it that way - if you want I'll find the links so you can judge for yourselves)
    It a rhetorical question, Steve Langton. This was a thread that really didn’t need to be picked up where it was left off—especially not with an essay.
    There are, mind, several aspects of this which I haven't yet got round to and which would significantly balance what I'm saying - perhaps you could bear with me as I bring the points out.
    You might have better success getting your point across if you didn’t constantly make that argument through a wall of text, followed by the promise of more walls of words. Seriously Steve Langton—there are just too many words. And they all seems to say the same thing over and over and over and over.

    Learning to present your points much more concisely would be a good thing. As it is, you ask way to much of the reader.

    Mind you, I’m not saying more concise posts will be more convincing. That I’m doubting. But at least they might get read.


  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    edited March 27
    hosting
    @SteveLangton Your post on your reappearance on this thread is arguing with an Admin post made by an admin in their official capacity. This absolutely does not belong here and can I ask others not to engage with it. Steve you need to take your disagreement with Alan's post to the Styx or drop it entirely. Please do not attempt to continue it here.

    Edited to add that I've drawn this to the attention of the Admins.

    Louise
    Dead Horses Host

    hosting off
  • OK Louise - to the Styx we will go. But likely not till Friday as today and Thursday are my most hectic days of the week.
  • admin mode/
    OK Louise - to the Styx we will go. But likely not till Friday as today and Thursday are my most hectic days of the week.

    @Steve Langton, the Ship does not sail according to your personal schedule, and you are not the only busy person here.

    In view of the above, your next post is expected to be in the Styx, and nowhere else, or it is likely to be your last.

    /admin mode
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    So being left-handed isn't wrong, but preferentially using your left hand is? Something along those lines? That seems an overly close parsing of a distinction without a difference.

    IF - which isn't the case - preferentially using your left hand was sinful in itself.... See where you're trying to go here, but....

    You may not consider it sinful, but that opinion not unknown. There's a scriptural basis as well. Being at "the right hand of the Father" is auspicious, ergo being at the left hand is not. You definitely don't want to be at God's left hand. Some even consider it a form of sacrilege to perform the sign of the cross with the left hand (for those belonging to a denomination where performing the sign of the cross is a thing). The sinister reputation of the left handed (couldn't resist) has infiltrated religious belief in a number of ways.
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Precisely because religion is in a 'doing/chosen' area rather than a 'made that way' area it doesn't get the same protections as 'simply being' things like racial difference.

    Yeah, that's simply a falsehood. Virtually every anti-discrimination statute I've ever come across lists religion or creed on the same footing as race, ethnicity, or gender. For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states:
    All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

    Can you provide a couple citations to back up your assertion that religious belief receives inferior legal protection despite its apparent equal footing?

    Please expand a bit further on the exact meaning of that phrase "any place of public accom[m]odation".

    A "public accommodation" is a legal term of art meaning any facility available for use by the public, even if privately owned. Typical examples include retail shops, lunch counters, and hotels. It does not include private clubs or churches, which are seen as existing to serve their own membership rather than the general public. There, I saved you the trouble of resorting to Google or clicking the link I provided.
    But it seems to me there is one area where religion must get different treatment, namely that religious beliefs are open to criticism by those who disagree with them. 'Being', through no deliberate choice, of a different ' race, color... or national origin' can't be subject to that kind of critique.

    That's a particularly rare and fragrant grade of bullshit. There's no special "freedom from criticism" enshrined in law especially for race or national origin. This conversation is taking place online, so I know you've got access to the internet. Racism exists, and there usually aren't any legal penalties for publicly expressing it. Someone can publish a book claiming black people are inherently stupid with as little fear of legal sanction as someone who prints a book claiming that Jews are bent on world domination. A president* of the United States can (allegedly) denigrate people by their nation of origin and not face any legal penalty. Likewise a man testifying before a legislative committee can assert that women are unfit public office and also face no legal penalty for his claims. I'm really having trouble taking seriously your claim that a "freedom from criticism" is enshrined in law somewhere and that it covers race and gender but not religion.
    But by an arguable/disputable claim of 'just being', those who claim to be gay effectively get put on a pedestal above and beyond criticism, even allowed to bring penalties upon those who criticise. I'll need to expand on this point, but not now; it's getting late and I've still someone else's point to at least begin to answer.

    Yeah, expanding this point might be useful since it seems like unsupported nonsense. The legal regimes I'm familiar with either don't provide any protection from criticism in their anti-discrimination laws or include religion on equal footing with race, gender, and other protected characteristics in whatever restrictions it has against denigrating others. An example of what you're actually talking about would be useful.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited March 27
    I suspect that a contrast is being suggested about the things that one is "allowed" so say about Christianity compared to what one is "allowed" to say about homosexuality.

    With respect to the H&A here, I'm going to hold fire discussing this idea any further until they say so.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    I suspect that a contrast is being suggested about the things that one is "allowed" so say about Christianity compared to what one is "allowed" to say about homosexuality.

    "Allowed" by whom? Remember that we live in a world where the Westboro Baptist Church operates freely, so any complaints about what you're not "allowed" to say about homosexuals and homosexuality would seem to imply that one wants to say even more libelously hateful things about gay people than the WBC routinely does.
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    I suspect that a contrast is being suggested about the things that one is "allowed" so say about Christianity compared to what one is "allowed" to say about homosexuality.

    "Allowed" by whom? Remember that we live in a world where the Westboro Baptist Church operates freely, so any complaints about what you're not "allowed" to say about homosexuals and homosexuality would seem to imply that one wants to say even more libelously hateful things about gay people than the WBC routinely does.

    Mate, leave it until the Hosts and Admins have finished a discussion in Styx.

    I'm in no way saying that the above was my view.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited April 4
    MPaul wrote: »
    Abortion, homosexuality, transgerderism and terrorism are evil curses allowed by God on Western society for our rejection of him and his word.

    This was posted on another Dead Horse thread and I thought it might be worth discussion this one. Click that little "»" to read the whole thing if you want.

    Are homosexuals literally accursed by God (or by some other entity God has "allowed" to curse them)? This would seem to imply that you can "cure" homosexuality by having them convert to Christianity*. Real, true Christianity, of course. Not any of those "apostate" sects but the real deal that @MPaul believes in. We discussed this at some length at the Old Ship, if anyone wants to review the archives.

    The Pray the Gay Away approach taken by most forms of conversion therapy has a notable failure rate and an even more notable rate of "recidivism". Of course this can be explained away by the usual faith healer's excuse that the recipient of his attentions isn't really and sincerely a believer. Interestingly this puts homosexuals by definition outside of God's love, since if God truly loved them they wouldn't be homosexuals any more.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    Crœsos, I've referred that post to the Admins since as a host I can't pronounce on Commandment 1 issues, but it might be best to leave it alone until we have a ruling - can others also leave it alone?
    Thanks,
    Louise
    Dead Horses Host
  • EutychusEutychus Admin
    edited April 5
    admin note/

    Thanks, @Louise. Ruling here. Do carry on.

    /admin note
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    Ooooops...but GREAT NEWS indeed!
  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate

    Were there bishops who switched votes from one synod to the other, or did the composition of the House of Bishops change?
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    I separated from the Anglican Church of Canada in January. If the vote is not reconsidered before the end of General Synod tomorrow, I will most likely be filing for divorce.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    To clear up Steve Langton's confusion, Be Homo, but don't do Homo refers to the position of some Christian churches. It means they think God loves homosexuals just as they are, as long as they do not have sex with each other and/or are not involved in homosexual relationships. Which puts homosexuality in the paedophilia region, but by a more "loving" back door.
  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    To clear up Steve Langton's confusion, Be Homo, but don't do Homo refers to the position of some Christian churches. It means they think God loves homosexuals just as they are, as long as they do not have sex with each other and/or are not involved in homosexual relationships. Which puts homosexuality in the paedophilia region, but by a more "loving" back door.

    I agree that it's not a very good set of ideas, but I think that the comparison the holders of such beliefs would rather like to make would be to a congenital predisposition to alcoholism or other addiction/behavioral disorder rather than pedophilia. Although there certainly are those out there who compare it to pedophilia.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    It's just another version of objectively disordered.
  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    It's just another version of objectively disordered.

    Right, and like saying that people with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" or "experiencing same sex attraction" should not endure "unjust discrimination."

  • Were there bishops who switched votes from one synod to the other, or did the composition of the House of Bishops change?

    There's a considerable amount of frustration (understatement!) that the Diocese of the Arctic (small and very "conservative") consecrated three additional bishops in the last year. Every bishop has a vote in General Synod, so this has had the effect of swinging the House of Bishops sufficiently.

    In reality, the vote actually changes very little. Dioceses that were allowing same sex marriage can continue to do so.
  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate

    Were there bishops who switched votes from one synod to the other, or did the composition of the House of Bishops change?

    There's a considerable amount of frustration (understatement!) that the Diocese of the Arctic (small and very "conservative") consecrated three additional bishops in the last year. Every bishop has a vote in General Synod, so this has had the effect of swinging the House of Bishops sufficiently.

    In reality, the vote actually changes very little. Dioceses that were allowing same sex marriage can continue to do so.

    Do these dioceses already have official permission to? What effect would have the vote had had it passed?

    Does the Diocese of the Arctic have a very large, if not majority, indigenous population among its members? If so, doesn't it complicate the frustration of members of the more liberal, I would assume whiter, dioceses at the conservatives from the Diocese of the Arctic who voted against the measure?
  • On a different tangent, how many homosexuals do you reckon there are? Some years ago I tried to read up on the relevant research and the figure that came up regularly, in different situations, was 10% of the population. However, from my own perspective, this seems far too high. My own observation would suggest 1% is more likely - and I'm an openly gay man, so I know a reasonable number of other homosexuals.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    The usual figure given here is around 5%. It's near impossible to obtain figures for transgender people, even on support threads, or sites placed by support organisations. I suspect that the numbers are very small, well under .05%. Around here, I know of a young waiter at a café we frequent who is in the process of transitioning. I often saw a woman on the same train I caught but from another station, always on her own. When I started work, he was always on his own also. Sadly, it looked as if her subsequent surgery had not been successful. Who knows how many you walk past any day who have transitioned successfully and are therefore "hidden"?
  • ECraigRECraigR Shipmate
    I usually come across the 10% number too. Now, I can believe that but I live in a very gay friendly city. I myself am queer, and openly so, and I’ve been given to understand that millennials such as myself and the younger generation are even more queer.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    10% was certainly the number bruited about in the 90s when I was in epidemiology. Lately I've heard more people saying 5% but I have no idea what their evidence is.
  • I think the 10% figure is from Kinsey and reflects a skew in his sample as much as anything. I've no idea the true figure, given the number of people likely still closeted and where you draw the line between different degrees of bisexuality and either end of the spectrum. As for trans folk, I have three among my friends who either have or are transitioning, and the incomprehension tending towards hostility they experience, even from close family in some cases, would make anyone think twice.
  • Even 5% seems high to me. While I would love to think there are lots of gays out there, I don't see that in practice. All of this is based on my own observation, rather than proper research, I freely admit.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    I think the 10% figure is from Kinsey and reflects a skew in his sample as much as anything.
    The value in Kinsey is in broadening the conversation, his methodology was shite.

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Even 5% seems high to me. While I would love to think there are lots of gays out there, I don't see that in practice. All of this is based on my own observation, rather than proper research, I freely admit.
    Personal observations are highly subjective.
    However, finding a perfect number is problematic anywhere.

    Nowhere is acceptance universal both legally and socially. Certain parts of certain cities notwithstanding
    Sexuality is not as binary as often presented.
    People still marry for convenience rather than love.

    On a thread here in DH, there were two people who came into their sexuality late. One was bi and didn't know it until after she was married and another didn't know she was gay until late teens (IIRC)
    In the right set of conditions, they might have never discovered this.
  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    Are we talking about how many people are out of the closet enough to be willing to say so on a survey and are exclusively or almost exclusively attracted to the same sex or gender? I would say maybe 3-5% in countries with liberal societies and laws, and of course higher in particularly gay-friendly parts of big cities. But as people become more comfortable with the idea of sexual orientation as being fluid, the number of people who in the past would have identified as exclusively straight or gay will probably decrease in liberal areas, and the number of people identifying as bi, pansexual, queer, or who reject labels altogether will increase. How will you count the number of "gay" people then?

    Of course, in areas with more conservative (or outright repressive) laws and social mores, counting gay people and all kinds of LGBT+ people is more difficult and the self-reported numbers will be much lower.

    The truth probably is that although there are a small percentage of people who are exclusively attracted to the same sex or gender, there is a much bigger and more diverse group of people who through their behavior, their attractions, and their identity, hidden or not, do not neatly fit the term "straight."

    This threatens the (very successful) argument for gay rights that people are born with a sexual orientation that you not only cannot force to change (this is true) but that does not change at all - and that this orientation is clear and unambiguous to an adult who is not internally repressed by the signals they get from society.

    This argument will need to change to one that people should be able to love and/or sleep with regardless of whether it is their cosmic destiny to do so. This will be difficult because it will be harder to convince social moderates who were swayed by the idea that gay people could fit neatly into the mold of what was expected of straight people but, poor them, they can't help but be attracted to the same sex so we have to make accommodations for that - but otherwise the norms of society remain unchanged.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Fucked, isn't it?
  • Pangolin GuerrePangolin Guerre Shipmate
    edited July 23
    Speaking as someone with a dog (sporting a rather fetching collar) in the fight, I've always thought 10% was overly optimistic. That said, I wouldn't guess at the percentage. Self-identification is or can be a moving target, largely depending on the environment. I've lived in rural, small town, and very urban environments, and in the first ("Um... I'm not queer, you know" - Yeah? And what were we just doing?) the self-identification is denial, whereas in the third he might be snapping his fingers and calling me 'girlfriend'. I adhere to fluidity - just because I've slept with women, and enjoyed it, that doesn't make me straight.

    I attended an all-male college, and there was more going on than anyone admitted. They are mostly now married with children, and not living a lie. Context and fluidity.

    And, as lilbuddha stated above, Kinsey's methodology was dodgey. He did at least start the conversation in the anglosphere, though Magnus Hirschfeld was early out of the gate.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    There are numbers available for the United States that are more recent and more reliable than Kinsey's. Gallup has polled this every year since 2012, and in 2017 they found that 4.5% of Americans identified as LGBT. The really interesting thing to me is the growth in the perceptage of Millennials identifying as LGBT: it was 5.8% in 2012 and 8.2% in 2017. So it's not unreasonable to think that the real number in the U.S. might be 10% of the population, given that some older people may remain closeted their whole lives and given that there are still plenty of places that are hostile environments.

  • Were there bishops who switched votes from one synod to the other, or did the composition of the House of Bishops change?

    There's a considerable amount of frustration (understatement!) that the Diocese of the Arctic (small and very "conservative") consecrated three additional bishops in the last year. Every bishop has a vote in General Synod, so this has had the effect of swinging the House of Bishops sufficiently.

    In reality, the vote actually changes very little. Dioceses that were allowing same sex marriage can continue to do so.

    Thanks for this clarification of how it occurred. I was looking for answer for several days and feeling quite confused as to what had happened.
  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    Ruth wrote: »
    There are numbers available for the United States that are more recent and more reliable than Kinsey's. Gallup has polled this every year since 2012, and in 2017 they found that 4.5% of Americans identified as LGBT. The really interesting thing to me is the growth in the perceptage of Millennials identifying as LGBT: it was 5.8% in 2012 and 8.2% in 2017. So it's not unreasonable to think that the real number in the U.S. might be 10% of the population, given that some older people may remain closeted their whole lives and given that there are still plenty of places that are hostile environments.

    That poll is very interesting. The results show Hispanics (coming in first) and non-Hispanic African-Americans as most likely to identify as LGBT, and I would have expected non-Hispanic whites to be most likely.

    People with lower incomes and lower education levels are also more likely to identify as LGBT than people with higher incomes and education levels, respectively.

    This is all directly contrary to what I would have expected, and this perhaps reveals my inner biases and preconceptions. African-American and Latino cultures are stereotyped as being more characterized by machismo than white non-Hispanic culture. I see that women were more likely to identify as LGBT than men, but what is the gender breakdown for the different races and ethnicities?

    I also would have thought that socially liberal attitudes would be more common among the wealthy and especially among the more well educated, given the culture of college campuses. Maybe poorer and less educated people are more familiar with nontraditional families, given the higher rates of single parents, unmarried parents, children raised by grandparents, half-and step-siblings, etc, among them. Also, poorer and less educated people might be more willing to undergo the risk to their career, housing, and other prospects of coming out as LGBT (because of discrimination) because they feel they have less to lose.
  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Sadly, it looked as if her subsequent surgery had not been successful. Who knows how many you walk past any day who have transitioned successfully and are therefore "hidden"?

    I know that you probably did not mean it in a negative way, but it's best not to talk about the "success" of someone's transitioning or surgery in terms of how well a transgender individual can pass as their identified gender. Of course most trans people yearn desperately to be able to pass and hopes that hormones or surgery, should a trans person and their doctor decide on that course of treatment, will facilitate passing. But passing should not be the primary goal of such treatment. There are many trans people who do not pass very well (or even if they somewhat pass, do not conform to social stereotypes of attractiveness for their identified gender) but who are much more at peace with themselves and their bodies than trans people who pass very well. The success of someone's transition is not up to any outside observer of their physical appearance to speculate on. At least that's my opinion! Full disclosure: I am not trans, so I'm also not entirely qualified to talk about the experience of transitioning.
Sign In or Register to comment.