Gay marriage

[Steve H]

Ok, ok, I surrender. Having thought about it a lot recently, and having rejected my own argument based on anatomy as breaking Hume's law (in the bible bigotry thread, q.v., op cit, ibid, idem, ad nauseam, etc.), I find myself without a logical leg to stand on, and since the thought of agreeing with anyone as vile as Andrew Pierce is anathema, I remove my objection to gay marriage. It was never very strong, anyway: I'd never have dreamed of campaignong against it. I confess to a continuing mild revulsion to the idea of two chaps getting their end away*, but as long as such a revulsion is recognised for the instinctive, illogical gut-feeling that it is, and dismissed, it isn't homophobia. My argument that it is changing the age-old definition of marriage failed when I realised that I have always firmly believed in women's ordination, which was a radical re-definition of the priesthood, and realised how much my "radical redefinition" argument resembled the hate-fueld bilge spouted against women priests by "Backward In Bigotry".
So I now approve of gay marriage, and hope that church gay weddings will eventually take place. Perhaps Really Sanctimonious** could finally stop accunsing me of "twee homophobia" in every post in which he mentions me at all, and nobody ever asgain, and one poster in particular, could suggest that I never change my mind or am impervious to reason.
*but not two chapettes, curiously. It has been noted by others that instinctive revulsion to homosexuality is stronger towards people of the same sex as the person revolted, than towards people of the opposite sex. I don't feel any revulsion about Lesbians.
**and if RS had not been so sanctimonious for so long, I might have got here sooner.

[Nearly Sane]

Ok, ok, I surrender. Having thought about it a lot recently, and having rejected my own argument based on anatomy as breaking Hume's law (in the bible bigotry thread, q.v., op cit, ibid, idem, ad nauseam, etc.), I find myself without a logical leg to stand on, and since the thought of agreeing with anyone as vile as Andrew Pierce is anathema, I remove my objection to gay marriage. It was never very strong, anyway: I'd never have dreamed of campaignong against it. I confess to a continuing mild revulsion to the idea of two chaps getting their end away*, but as long as such a revulsion is recognised for the instinctive, illogical gut-feeling that it is, and dismissed, it isn't homophobia. My argument that it is changing the age-old definition of marriage failed when I realised that I have always firmly believed in women's ordination, which was a radical re-definition of the priesthood, and realised how much my "radical redefinition" argument resembled the hate-fueld bilge spouted against women priests by "Backward In Bigotry".
So I now approve of gay marriage, and hope that church gay weddings will eventually take place. Perhaps Really Sanctimonious** could finally stop accunsing me of "twee homophobia" in every post in which he mentions me at all, and nobody ever asgain, and one poster in particular, could suggest that I never change my mind or am impervious to reason.
*but not two chapettes, curiously. It has been noted by others that instinctive revulsion to homosexuality is stronger towards people of the same sex as the person revolted, than towards people of the opposite sex. I don't feel any revulsion about Lesbians.
**and if RS had not been so sanctimonious for so long, I might have got here sooner.

well done. But now that you have agreed you were being homophobic, why do you think it was sanctimonious to point that out?

[Steve H]

well done. But now that you have agreed you were being homophobic, why do you think it was sanctimonious to point that out?

Because you banged on about it ad fucking nauseam at every opportunity.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ok, ok, I surrender. Having thought about it a lot recently, and having rejected my own argument based on anatomy as breaking Hume's law (in the bible bigotry thread, q.v., op cit, ibid, idem, ad nauseam, etc.), I find myself without a logical leg to stand on, and since the thought of agreeing with anyone as vile as Andrew Pierce is anathema, I remove my objection to gay marriage. It was never very strong, anyway: I'd never have dreamed of campaignong against it. I confess to a continuing mild revulsion to the idea of two chaps getting their end away*, but as long as such a revulsion is recognised for the instinctive, illogical gut-feeling that it is, and dismissed, it isn't homophobia. My argument that it is changing the age-old definition of marriage failed when I realised that I have always firmly believed in women's ordination, which was a radical re-definition of the priesthood, and realised how much my "radical redefinition" argument resembled the hate-fueld bilge spouted against women priests by "Backward In Bigotry".
So I now approve of gay marriage, and hope that church gay weddings will eventually take place. Perhaps Really Sanctimonious** could finally stop accunsing me of "twee homophobia" in every post in which he mentions me at all, and nobody ever asgain, and one poster in particular, could suggest that I never change my mind or am impervious to reason.
*but not two chapettes, curiously. It has been noted by others that instinctive revulsion to homosexuality is stronger towards people of the same sex as the person revolted, than towards people of the opposite sex. I don't feel any revulsion about Lesbians.
**and if RS had not been so sanctimonious for so long, I might have got here sooner.

Steve - I appreciate your candour and honesty here, and trust it is genuine.

I think many of us have prejudices that are deep seated gut reactions against things that we cannot quite understand but feel. That is where challenge of those views sometimes has value. It makes people think more deeply about a subject and sometimes, just sometimes, those people come to realise that their gut feelings are just wrong and they need to learn to accept them as wrong or to try to overcome them. Perhaps this is one of those, sadly too rare, moments.

I think it is pretty rare for the comments on this MB to change anyone's mind (or certainly if it does few people admit to it) but this may be one of those times - and if so that is a genuinely good thing.

[Roses]

Well I suppose Steve must take some credit for admitting he is homophobic.

[Steve H]

Well I suppose Steve must take some credit for admitting he is homophobic.

Trust you to get it completely arsey-versey. 

[Roses]

Trust you to get it completely arsey-versey. 

I was congratulating you. BTW, you need to sort out your spellchecker.

[Nearly Sane]

Because you banged on about it ad fucking nauseam at every opportunity.

Because you kept up the homophobia. If someone was being racist is it sanctimonious to point it out continually?

[ippy]

I'm not sure if not wanting to watch anything on T V or film with  anything of a gay theme/nature to it is homophobic, it's just not entertainment to me.

At the same time I'm 100% all for gay rights it's just get on with it and don't put in front of me, I can use the switch or channel changer on my T V and can chose the films or plays I go to see.

ippy 

[Aruntraveller]

It has been noted by others that instinctive revulsion to homosexuality is stronger towards people of the same sex as the person revolted, than towards people of the opposite sex. I don't feel any revulsion about Lesbians.

My advice. Don't think about it. I never think about heterosexuals doing it. It's a bit like your parents, you know they had sex, but you would much rather not think about it.

Mind you I did sit through all of "Normal People" without feeling too much revulsion. But he was a handsome lad;-)

[Robbie]

People do change opinions over time, it's inevitable if they have open minds. Unfortunately not everyone does. Well done Jedediah-Hercules.

What Trent says about not thinking of other people's sexual activities is right & it's something we usually outgrow. I know gay people in relationships and never give a thought to the details, really doesn't interest me but when I was at school I often wondered what went on.

[Steve H]

Because you kept up the homophobia. If someone was being racist is it sanctimonious to point it out continually?

Yes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes.

I agree. A will and a rush to hang around people you consider morally worse than yourself is virtue signalling and making one’s self look saintly.

[Owlswing]

I agree. A will and a rush to hang around people you consider morally worse than yourself is virtue signalling and making one’s self look saintly.

It is amazing the excuses that homophobes and racists can think up to justify their prejudices!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is amazing the excuses that homophobes and racists can think up to justify their prejudices!

My own theory 'Swing is that for many antitheists homosexual rights in the issue of Gay marriage comes second to sticking one on the church and the opportunity for a choice bit of linguistic imperialism.

And talking of coming second to those aims some antitheists are willing to sacrifice their theories on morality as well to become honorary moral realists. In my very, very humble opinion.

[Roses]

My own theory 'Swing is that for many antitheists homosexual rights in the issue of Gay marriage comes second to sticking one on the church and the opportunity for a choice bit of linguistic imperialism.

And talking of coming second to those aims some antitheists are willing to sacrifice their theories on morality as well to become honorary moral realists. In my very, very humble opinion.

You might like to translate that into English!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You might like to translate that into English!

Don't need to....The problem is yours. I can recommend the Janet and John series of books as a good starting point for the alleviation of your difficulties.

[Gordon]

My own theory 'Swing is that for many antitheists homosexual rights in the issue of Gay marriage comes second to sticking one on the church and the opportunity for a choice bit of linguistic imperialism.

Or might it be that some of us (I'm not sure if I qualify as an 'antitheist', since that status seems to be at your discretion) think that some elements within organised religion (but not all) are acting in a discriminatory manner.

And talking of coming second to those aims some antitheists are willing to sacrifice their theories on morality as well to become honorary moral realists. In my very, very humble opinion.

So, and again presuming I qualify as an 'antitheist', what theories of morality do you imagine I had subscribed to and have now 'sacrificed'?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Or might it be that some of us (I'm not sure if I qualify as an 'antitheist', since that status seems to be at your discretion) think that some elements within organised religion (but not all) are acting in a discriminatory manner.

So, and again presuming I qualify as an 'antitheist', what theories of morality do you imagine I had subscribed to and have now 'sacrificed'?

Not sure what you are after here Gordon. You seem to be saying. ''I am not one of the some or many you talk about(OK), now explain how I am.''

[Udayana]

I agree. A will and a rush to hang around people you consider morally worse than yourself is virtue signalling and making one’s self look saintly.

Isn't that the Christian way? And well practiced?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Isn't that the Christian way? And well practiced?

I thought that when I was pretty ignorant about Christianity.

[ProfessorDavey]

Isn't that the Christian way? And well practiced?

Indeed - and always to make people know that you are doing that 'good' thing and make it clear in no uncertain terms that you are doing the 'good' thing because you are a christian.

Christianity is second to none in using virtue signalling as a marketing tool.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Indeed - and always to make people know that you are doing that 'good' thing and make it clear in no uncertain terms that you are doing the 'good' thing because you are a christian.

Christianity is second to none in using virtue signalling as a marketing tool.

I thought that when I was pretty ignorant about Christianity.

[Gordon]

Not sure what you are after here Gordon. You seem to be saying. ''I am not one of the some or many you talk about(OK), now explain how I am.''

No I'm not: I'm asking you if I qualify as an 'antitheist' and, if so, what theories of morality you think I have 'sacrificed' en route to becoming an honorary 'moral realist'.

In other words - I'm asking you to explain what you meant.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No I'm not: I'm asking you if I qualify as an 'antitheist' and, if so, what theories of morality you think I have 'sacrificed' en route to becoming an honorary 'moral realist'.

In other words - I'm asking you to explain what you meant.

OK Some Antitheists do not have an absolute morality or do not see morals as having reality. Therefore logically there is no moral arbitration, merely an exercise in the expression of personal preference which is then actually and logically not applicable outside that personal preference. In the case of homosexuality, what some antitheists would believe is actually personal preference suddenly becomes a binding absolute moral arbitration on everyone and so moral realism is expressed.