I'd like to reply to this, Steve, even though I know it will probably spark more disagreement.
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".
OK, I get your point about women's ordination, and it's logical but may not be the whole story because it is an issue for the Church only, whereas marriage is a universal issue. Unlike 'priest', 'marriage' is not defined on the basis of what people believe about creation, but on the basis of an 'is' (see Hume's Law): Again, this is my view, but as I understand it, there is a 'thing' where a man and a woman who love each other commit themselves to being faithful to each other and have children whose parents are solidly identified and available to raise them. Children are not always produced, but the pattern is the same in that it is the sort that would have the potential to produce them in the right circumstances. As I understand it, that 'thing' is worthy of its own name, and marriage is the name that was given to it. Same sex couples simply do not qualify - and there is no moral reasoning there - although they need some form of recognition for various reasons. There may be a similar line of thought for ordination, but that might be for a separate discussion.
So I now approve of gay marriage, and hope that church gay weddings will eventually take place.
Since the Bible says explicitly that this is morally wrong, but not that women's ordination is wrong, the comparison isn't a good one.
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.
Homophobia is defined as "having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people." But aren't these two different things? The way the word is usually used on this forum implies prejudice (I would have thought a literal meaning of the word would only refer to revulsion or fear?). I don't think the distaste you describe or the view I've set out here is prejudiced.
