Anti-Gay Bishop appointed to School of Divinity

[Archie]

Does anyone know exactly what it is about homosexuality to which the Bishop objects?

Is it two people of the same gender loving each other or is it the physical sex act?

If it is merely the physical sexual union that offends him has he ever stated his views on those ordained heterosexuals who are quite happy to sodomize their wives?

Is buggery only offensive when it is between two men or is it an anathema to him no matter the gender of the hosting bottom?

What about homosexual men who eschew sexual relationships? Does the Bishop extend his views on ordination to them as well?

[Haunted]

...been concerned at this tendency on the part of some on the left to regard certain classes of opinion as disqualifiers of those who hold them from discussion.

Yes and this is a good thing. No point wasting time with people who think another persons country of origin or sexual orientation is an indicator of inferiority/superiority. Or people who think that bronze age goat herders had a deeper understanding of physics, chemistry, biology or medicine than modern doctors and researchers or professional bodies like, say, the Royal Society. There is no need to engage to people, they can be dismissed instantly.

The correct response to an argument or person we disagree with is to attempt to convince them otherwise, until we reach the point of agreeing politely to disagree; only in the most severe of cases, such as incitement to violence, can it be appropriate to dismiss them entirely.

No, some people are just simply wrong. You don't politely disagree with someone who thinks 2 + 2 = 5.

This is the same fallacy the left often commits when it comes to legislation: people decide, for example, that they don't like certain drugs, and conclude, in spite of all evidence that the policy of prohibition has failed and necessarily always will, that it must be maintained lest it appear that society approves of their use. Such a view is irrational and harmful enough when applied to activities, without extending it to matters of thought and conscience - that could be positively calamitous.

Not really what I came here to say, but presumably when you say 'Left' you don't mean liberal but conservative? Because unless I am in backwards land, prohibiting drugs has always been a conservative hallmark. Liberal parties tend to favour the decriminalisation or even legalisation of previously prohibited substances.

[RedCelt69]

Not really what I came here to say, but presumably when you say 'Left' you don't mean liberal but conservative? Because unless I am in backwards land, prohibiting drugs has always been a conservative hallmark. Liberal parties tend to favour the decriminalisation or even legalisation of previously prohibited substances.

You're operating in Bean Land; a place where facts are arbitrary and temporary.

[Cain]

Not really what I came here to say, but presumably when you say 'Left' you don't mean liberal but conservative? Because unless I am in backwards land, prohibiting drugs has always been a conservative hallmark. Liberal parties tend to favour the decriminalisation or even legalisation of previously prohibited substances.

You're operating in Bean Land; a place where facts are arbitrary and temporary.

I thought that he was using "left" as being "not-libertarian", where libertarian means "It's my body, if I want to inject heroin, smoke tobacco, snort snuff or put fibreglass insulation up my bum, you don't have the right to stop me"

[Humphrey]

If it is merely the physical sexual union that offends him has he ever stated his views on those ordained heterosexuals who are quite happy to sodomize their wives?

Awesome; since you are in the know, which clergy are quite happy to sodomise their wives? My best guess is that the Archbishop himself occasionally lobs one in the bunker. Maybe it's the eyebrows.

[David Bean]

Yes and this is a good thing. No point wasting time with people who think another persons country of origin or sexual orientation is an indicator of inferiority/superiority. Or people who think that bronze age goat herders had a deeper understanding of physics, chemistry, biology or medicine than modern doctors and researchers or professional bodies like, say, the Royal Society. There is no need to engage to people, they can be dismissed instantly.

None of those examples is analogous to the position we are talking about, for reasons I've already explained. Nevertheless in your determination to view certain classes of opinion as fundamentally inferior to others, you would render yourself in my eyes worthy of the same treatment - but look, here I am anyway, and more fool at least one of us.

Not really what I came here to say, but presumably when you say 'Left' you don't mean liberal but conservative? Because unless I am in backwards land, prohibiting drugs has always been a conservative hallmark. Liberal parties tend to favour the decriminalisation or even legalisation of previously prohibited substances.

Well, first of all if you think 'liberal' means 'left-wing' they we're going to have a problem continuing this discussion, since yes, it looks as though you are. I am a liberal, and today, in the real world of British politics, most of the others are with me on the centre-right, particularly among the young. I object to this co-option of the word and concept of liberalism by those committed to a political agenda of growing the power and role of the state; a liberal wishes to shear it back, and return to people the freedom they were born with. This applies as much in conscience as in action. We'll have none of your witch-hunts.

RedCelt, I find your extended discussion of morality, and the golden rule of it, on another thread to be bitterly hilarious given your sustained ad hominem viciousness towards me on this forum over a period of years (including on that very thread). By your own actions you show yourself to be not moral, but moralistic. If you wish to interact with me, do so civilly, or cease it.

Cain, your casual use of the word 'you' in that summation of my view demonstrates my point exactly: you seem to be unable to distinguish between what the state, using the power of law, may or may not enforce upon people, with what controls they may voluntarily submit themselves to from their fellow beings. These are decisions only the individual can make for himself.

[Humphrey]

On the original topic, it's generally a bad idea to start excluding people from academic posts because they happen to hold loony opinions. I guess a good example would be James Watson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D._Watson who is a genius but also an absolute tool. Similarly, on the subject of creationsim, Thomas Nagel is a giant in philosophy of mind but he also recently decided to praise the excretable 'Signature in the Cell' and name it one of the top books of the year. I don't know what NT Wright's views are but he is a towering figure in NT studies. Roger Scruton is a bit of a wanker and his 'Short History of Modern Philosophy' is pretty unreadable (to me anyway) but he has a brain the size of a planet. St Andrews is lucky to have them.

[Senethro]

I'm not sure we'd tolerate a bishop espousing derogatory views or opposition to some other biologically determined trait, so that arguments are being made that this can be ok is indicative that there remains latent homophobia in our society. The kindest interpretation of this is that is the last gasp of historical views that are thankfully on the decline.

Whilst I disagree with religious criticism of homosexual practice, I don't see reason in the assumption that all such patterns of belief are motivated by fear of homosexuals, which is, after all, what a term ending in '-phobic' denotes. I've long thought 'homophobic' is at best an inaccurate word to use as a blanket term for feelings or expressions prejudicial to homosexuality and homosexuals, but have only recently been exposed to the argument that there may be motive in the inaccuracy, an attempt to portray such views as other than they necessarily are, assigning to them the automatic characteristic of irrationality. The notion that all such views are motivated by irrational fear would seem to be a contentions one at the very least. The argument, for instance, that sexual congress is only appropriate between a man and a woman who are married and thus that homosexual practice can never be justified, whilst one I disagree with, seems nevertheless to be a rational and coherent one that cannot be passed off as a fear reaction.

Summary: I'm more right than you are because I've decided words mean and language works the way I want and am going to spend a paragraph about how right I am. Also a jab at those working against prejudice by implying they are trying to control the debate via language control.

Why is it you blame others for words not meaning what would be convenient for you, as with liberal mentioned in your subsequent post?

The only arguments I've heard from defenders of the blanket use of the term have been laughably superficial - they say that prejudicial views of homosexuality is what the word has come to mean, and there an end to it. That might just about work if you believe language is so flexible as to allow a word to mean anything we like so long as enough people are vocal in its usage, but to my mind we must be conservative in assigning meanings to words that fly completely in the face of their etymologies. A person shouldn't have to know the history of the usage of a certain word to divine its meaning, when to all outward appearance it means something else entirely.

So superficial in fact that you're going to dismiss them equally superficially with what essentially comes across as claiming of common sense as being on yoru side?

Moreover, I too agree with the Wendy Kaminer quotation, and have long been concerned at this tendency on the part of some on the left to regard certain classes of opinion as disqualifiers of those who hold them from discussion. The correct response to an argument or person we disagree with is to attempt to convince them otherwise, until we reach the point of agreeing politely to disagree; only in the most severe of cases, such as incitement to violence, can it be appropriate to dismiss them entirely. Your statement that arguments are being made that this can be ok seems to be confusing agreement with an argument with permitting it to be made. This is the same fallacy the left often commits when it comes to legislation: people decide, for example, that they don't like certain drugs, and conclude, in spite of all evidence that the policy of prohibition has failed and necessarily always will, that it must be maintained lest it appear that society approves of their use. Such a view is irrational and harmful enough when applied to activities, without extending it to matters of thought and conscience - that could be positively calamitous.

Agreeing with something and refraining from suppressing it are not the same thing!

And back to what you really want to do, jabs at those leftists at every opportunity.

Holding certain opinions can disqualify you from discussions when those opinions are necessarily contrary to evidence or include rejecting scientific methods and standards of evidence. To take an example that won't offend anybody, Flat Earthers have nothing to contribute regarding the shape of our planet. A Flat Earther shouldn't hold a public administrative or policy position unless they are able to compartmentalize their thoughts to the extent they can make good decisions in the favour of the public without, say, trying to get alternative geography textbooks onto a school curriculum. In academia, debating a flat earther is a waste of time because they can look at all the evidence and draw the incorrect conclusion. Until the evidence changes one way or the other, its just wasted effort.

And to finish off, is that an attempt to pass off a certain policy as being the work and fault of that monolithic entity, the left when prohibitions have been advocated and attempted by a wide range of politicians?

Bean, if your posts were less self-indulgent, more brief and saving of your revulsion of everything vaguely leftist for when its relevant or appropriate, they would be more pleasant to read.

[Haunted]

None of those examples is analogous to the position we are talking about, for reasons I've already explained.

Not on this thread, as far as I am aware, you haven't.
The claim that homosexuals are, say, inferior, is a testable factual claim. Unless of course, you are defining 'inferior'
as someone you just don't like. In which case you are co-opting the word inferior for an ulterior motive. The claim that drug legalisation would lead to increased crime is also a factual claim, which has been tested in several developed nations now.
More often that not, when someone claims "well that's just my opinion" they are making an excuse for subscribing to a demonstrably false claim.

Nevertheless in your determination to view certain classes of opinion as fundamentally inferior to others, you would render yourself in my eyes worthy of the same treatment - but look, here I am anyway, and more fool at least one of us.

Yes, people who are wrong are inferior to people who are correct. I am, of course, wrong quite often on a range of things and I am genuinely happy when proven so. People who think the Earth is 6,000 years old are either ignorant (which can be a defence) or malicious, which I would argue, are inferior traits. Again, the same can be said for someone who truly believes homosexuals are evil/inferior/amoral. It's either ignorance or malice.

Well, first of all if you think 'liberal' means 'left-wing' they we're going to have a problem continuing this discussion, since yes, it looks as though you are.

OK, I have up until this moment always defined 'left-wing' as political outlook which seeks to remove inequality and increase the personal freedoms of the individual where those freedoms do not impact on the happiness of others. It seems you are describing classical liberalism with perhaps more interest on the economic part and not the social part. I am admittedly ignorant of all the ins and outs of the different social philosophies that have emerged throughout history.

a political agenda of growing the power and role of the state; a liberal wishes to shear it back, and return to people the freedom they were born with.

Again, I am ignorant of political science, but genuinely interested. Are you talking about anarchy? How do you prevent a descent into tribalism and aristocracy without a state to ensure everyone is given equal opportunity and equal rights?

[RedCelt69]

RedCelt, I find your extended discussion of morality, and the golden rule of it, on another thread to be bitterly hilarious given your sustained ad hominem viciousness towards me on this forum over a period of years (including on that very thread). By your own actions you show yourself to be not moral, but moralistic. If you wish to interact with me, do so civilly, or cease it.

Hmmm. Yes. Well. I believe that the technical term (coined by Wild Quinine) for you is "dick". Now... go read that thread again and you will better understand (if you can better understand anything) why I am so pleasant* towards you.


* By the word "pleasant", I mean the Beanesque version - whereby words are designed to mean what the person wants to say - rather than, y'know, the actual definition. One instance of which is your continued ignorance wrt the phrase ad hominem.

[Archie]

If it is merely the physical sexual union that offends him has he ever stated his views on those ordained heterosexuals who are quite happy to sodomize their wives?

Awesome; since you are in the know, which clergy are quite happy to sodomise their wives? My best guess is that the Archbishop himself occasionally lobs one in the bunker. Maybe it's the eyebrows.

The clergy who number amongst the approximately 40% to 50% (depending on which sources one accepts) of heterosexuals who have at some point experienced anal sex.

Naming names would be wrong and unfair on those who don't wish to have their personal bedroom habits made public.

It's always the eyebrows.

If the heteros in question were both ordained it would give a whole new meaning to the phrase entering the priesthood.

[malcolm166]

"Does anyone know exactly what it is about homosexuality to which the Bishop objects?"

The Church of England is a global church with representation in the US, South America, Africa, the Middle East and South East Asia. It's not simply confined to UK. And over recent years has been embroiled in a range of "political" debates at international Synods and the like.

As far as I can make out, the Bishop at some point in the past few years, argued that it might be "impolitic" or insensitive to force on the entire organisation the idea of the ordination of gay Bishops. Largely because across the world, it is less well received than it might be here on account of cultural differences and social perceptions in other countries.

That was about it - just a view to go softly on the issue so as not to create so much division that might be against the unity of the Church as a whole. Nothing more than that - no tirade against gays no personal views expressed at all - just a suggestion that "now" might not be the right time to force the issue.

Which has to come as something of a disappointment who rise up Pavlovian like and batter the guy for being a raging homophobe when he seems to be nothing resembling that whatsoever.

[elyettoner]

I'm not sure, as Haunted has suggested, that anyone on this thread has suggested that homosexuals are evil. Not agreeing with gay marriage isn't the same thing as suggesting this. I think the usual Christian approach to homosexuality nowadays is that it's wrong, but that everyone is wrong in some aspect of their behaviour or attitude and thus we have no right to condemn (he who is without sin, etc, etc).

I'm also intrigued by the holy than thou approach of many on this thread. Don't tell me that there is anyone who isn't prejudiced against some particular group, I refuse to believe it.

[RedCelt69]

I'm also intrigued by the holy than thou approach of many on this thread. Don't tell me that there is anyone who isn't prejudiced against some particular group, I refuse to believe it.

As a Humanist, every human being has equal validity - regardless of race, gender, sexual proclivities and any other trait with which they were born. Good luck finding prejudices with me... and on this, I am very far from being unique.

Even if I was prejudiced towards a group of people, in what way does that matter? As it's the thread subject, let's suppose that I took the Griffinesque approach to finding it creepy when gay people kissed. Pretend that I feel uncomfortable around gay people and that I strongly disapproved of their lifestyle. I have no right whatsoever to expect gay people to be treated any differently from non-gay people. My dislikes are for me and me alone. Demanding (or expecting) that society treat gay people differently just because I don't like them is a nonsense too far.

[Senethro]

I'm not sure, as Haunted has suggested, that anyone on this thread has suggested that homosexuals are evil. Not agreeing with gay marriage isn't the same thing as suggesting this. I think the usual Christian approach to homosexuality nowadays is that it's wrong, but that everyone is wrong in some aspect of their behaviour or attitude and thus we have no right to condemn (he who is without sin, etc, etc).

They shouldn't get excused just because they presume to judge many aspects aspects of human nature, not just this one. The Mormon church dropped certain aspects of scripture related to the sons of Ham being the origin of black people (I may have some details confused here). When a traditional belief isn't compatible with modernity then it needs to be changed or forgotten.

[LonelyPilgrim]

Now, when I read this:

Whilst I disagree with religious criticism of homosexual practice, I don't see reason in the assumption that all such patterns of belief are motivated by fear of homosexuals, which is, after all, what a term ending in '-phobic' denotes. I've long thought 'homophobic' is at best an inaccurate word to use as a blanket term for feelings or expressions prejudicial to homosexuality and homosexuals...

[bulk redacted for brevity, you all know the post I'm quoting, I assume]

...A person shouldn't have to know the history of the usage of a certain word to divine its meaning, when to all outward appearance it means something else entirely.

What comes across to me is the argument that any word ending in -phobia etymologically denotes an irrational fear of something whereas it may be quite possible to take a rational anti-homosexual stance without fear. Or even an irrational anti-homosexual stance without fear, for that matter. Consider for example that I do not like SPAM (the meat product, not the frivolous e-mail, although that would work for this example, too)... yet I am not afraid of it. I just don't like it. I think it tastes bad and looks worse. Yet you would not say "LonelyPilgrim is SPAMophobic!" You would rather say, "LonelyPilgrim does not like SPAM." What Bean is saying is that there may well be an agenda in attaching 'homophobia' as a label to all and sundry who oppose homosexuality regardless of if they do so from a position of irrational fear... in order to make them seem irrational and to trivialize their arguments in order to dismiss their views as a mere psychological quirk.

All of which seems like a perfectly valid comment to make and question to raise to me. Especially as I live in America, where changing the meanings of bad words to attach them to people you don't like in order to justify dismissing them out of hand has become something of a political artform. So I frankly do not understand the callous and negative responses, including ad hominems being levelled at Bean. They don't make sense and are unbecoming of educated persons.

[RedCelt69]

any word ending in -phobia etymologically denotes an irrational fear of something

Phobia: A strong fear, dislike, or aversion.

So I frankly do not understand the callous and negative responses, including ad hominems being levelled at Bean.

Ad Hominem: To attack the person rather than their position.

David Bean: A = B, B = C, therefore A != C

Ad Hominem Man: A must be equal to C. Because you're a dick.

Non Ad Hominem Man: A must be equal to C. Because B is equal to both. Oh, and you're a dick.

They don't make sense and are unbecoming of educated persons.

It would be awfully nice if those aforementioned educated persons could further their education (even if only a little) by learning what ad hominem actually means, then.

[LonelyPilgrim]

Yes, people who are wrong are inferior to people who are correct. I am, of course, wrong quite often on a range of things and I am genuinely happy when proven so. People who think the Earth is 6,000 years old are either ignorant (which can be a defence) or malicious, which I would argue, are inferior traits. Again, the same can be said for someone who truly believes homosexuals are evil/inferior/amoral. It's either ignorance or malice.

I find this troubling. People who are wrong are not inferior: they are mistaken. How would you even begin to quantify superiority or inferiority of knowledge? Sure, you can do it on any given topic, but in total? And how do you value knowledge? The value of any given piece of knowledge or perception is highly contextual. You may very well know more about particle physics than I do, but if we were stuck out somewhere in the North American wilderness the fact that I know which red berries to eat and which will kill you as well as what poison oak, sumac, and ivy look like is probably more important at just at moment.

This is more than just a folksy example. What I understood Bean to be initially arguing was that there are elements within society (he identifies the Left, but since I'm not terribly up on British politics I can't comment on the verity of that) that use certain views as a sort of anti-shibboleth... for example, if you're an Old Earth Creationist then we shouldn't listen to anything you have to say about anything and you certainly couldn't possibly be right about climate change... just to draw an example from American politics of the last couple of years. Which is patently ridiculous, and yet... not at all how things seem to work anymore. Here in the US it's been running both ways, and the list of views and opinions one is not allowed to have if one wants to avoid being sidelined has been getting longer. It's practically at the point that being known to believe anything is politically damaging.

Fundamentally, society here has gotten to the point that if you are 'wrong' about anything then you must be a BAD person, and since you are BAD person, nothing you say or do can avoid being tainted by your BADness, so you should just curl up somewhere and never dare to show your BAD face again. A moment's thought will show you that it's very hard to have intelligent public discourse if everyone who has a position that someone finds distasteful (on any issue, not just the one at hand) is automatically excluded from the conversation. It's already happened in this thread... RedCelt has already dismissed Bean's comments out of hand because of, by his own admission, a disagreement they have over another issue entirely in another thread.

This trend, particularly here in America, more than anything else is why I am rather apprehensive about the future. It's rendering our political system almost incapable of rational functioning... but that's another topic for another day.

[RedCelt69]

It's already happened in this thread... RedCelt has already dismissed Bean's comments out of hand because of, by his own admission, a disagreement they have over another issue entirely in another thread.

This is all I've said (concerning Bean) in this thread:-

You're operating in Bean Land; a place where facts are arbitrary and temporary.

Which isn't due to a disagreement in another thread. The thread Bean mentioned wasn't a disagreement between us; it was Bean's (usual) misunderstanding of a (moral) concept.

[LonelyPilgrim]

Ad Hominem: To attack the person rather than their position.

David Bean: A = B, B = C, therefore A != C

Ad Hominem Man: A must be equal to C. Because you're a dick.

Non Ad Hominem Man: A must be equal to C. Because B is equal to both. Oh, and you're a dick.

This...:

You're operating in Bean Land; a place where facts are arbitrary and temporary.

...coming without any direct refutation of his point, constitutes an ad hominem or at least strongly implies one. Seeing as it calls for the dismissal of Bean's point because it comes from Bean (and what else can can saying one is operating in "Bean Land" possibly mean?) it seems to be a classic example of type, in fact.

But if you'd prefer me to say you're just being gratuitously abusive, I'd be happy to oblige.

Also...

From the dictionary at my side:

"-phobia combining form an exaggerated and persistent dread of or aversion to."

Rather exceeds mere dislike or disagreement with, no?

But since its an old dictionary and from a less than top tier maker, let's try a different one...

From Merriam-Webster:

"-phobia noun combining form

1. exaggerated fear of
2. intolerance or aversion for

Well, 1. is more or less the same as the dictionary above. 2. is more interesting, but one can quite easily be tolerant of something and un-avoidant (indeed, in order to tolerate something, one has to not avoid it, I would think) of something and still dislike or disagree with it (again, tolerating something presupposes disliking it).

I'd go to the OED if I had one handy, but I don't, so I'm just going to assume that MW's doesn't differ too markedly.

We're not arguing that there isn't intolerance, irrational exaggerated fear, and all of that other wonderful stuff out there being directed at homosexuals. We're just saying that tarring everyone who disagrees with homosexuality with the 'homophobia' label is a. incorrect and b. possibly motivated by a desire to de-legitimise them and their views. At least initially, when the term started being widely applied... now it's just the go-to word, I expect - which means it's down its job. I, at least, am not even saying that their views shouldn't be de-legitimised, just that I think this is an under-handed and cheap way of going about it.