Why is Sandi Toksvig so interested in the C of E?

[Sausagenbacon]

and why does Justin Welby bother with her?

www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/26/sandi-toksvig-laments-untenable-church-of-england-stance-on-gay-marriage

She's not a christian, but feels entitled to have a chummy chat with the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is wet enough to indulge her.

I'm not particularly invested in the subject, and I am an Anglican, but I do think there is something frankly, pitiful about it.

I expect an article in next week's Guardian with a sad-faced Sandy talking about how the local Mosque/Synagogue won't marry her and her partner, and how 'unsafe' she now feels. Or not.

@pointythings,

'But you have to accept that most of that danger has religion as a root cause.'

I don't see that unless you are viewing the culture of organised structured religion and individual living faith in action as something separate.

But I am interested in what the atheist perspective of what religion boils down too. Surely that would just be a social construct too. So essentially people would be at the root of that too?

'On the trans issue I sit somewhere in the middle: I think the whole 'there are only two genders' thing is a nonsense because there are living cultures right here in this world where this is not the case. '

I get this point of view. Culture is powerful. And our physiology is pretty plastic. Environment can have very marked effects upon it. There is biological interaction with our surroundings and internal foreign organisms (containing more cells than our own). Diversity is to be expected. Where do we as individuals begin and end?

Because if people created religion then religion is culture..

Religion and culture are intertwined, that's pretty much a certainty. I'm of the opinion that man makes god in his own image, so you can't get away from that.

None of that means that any culture of religion should be considered exempt from scrutiny, criticism and change.

'None of that means that any culture of religion should be considered exempt from scrutiny, criticism and change.'

@pointythings

Indeed and it is evident that it isn't exempt either. From within the church or outside it.

But then how do we deal with those who have a different culture from our own?

Because, in essence, division does create further diversity. If we are to accept diversity we have to accept that people will have (sometimes vastly) different world views to our own at either ends of the spectrum. And in a diverse society we must live alongside them.

There isn't an easy answer because some people (I would argue unpleasant ones) enjoy feeling superior to others and oppressing them. We either leave them alone (and offer refuge to those escaping them), hoping that in time they will grow and adapt, or we do things like making international aid conditional to an extent on human rights improvements, which would be a colonialist/imperialist way of handling things and also not acceptable.

Sheri Tepper wrote a very good book called Sideshow about the sort of thing option one might lead to, I recommend it.

My instincts would be to take an approach that expresses a measure of disapproval by not allowing countries that persecute because of sexuality, ethnicity, allowing the death penalty etc. to host major international sporting events and to have a coordinated international policy for accepting and supporting refugees who flee places like that, but it will always be imperfect.

@HandyLady Are you in the UK?

Do you actually believe that's possible?

@ShodanLives she does genuinely believe that. She also believes that anyone who disagrees with her must be possessed by demonic spirits. I have embraced my demonic spirit.

@pointythings what's your demonic spirit called? Mine's called Dave.

Mine's called Tortellini. She lives in the form of a small black cat. She is beautiful and loves to be petted when she is snoozing in her basket. I'd call her my familiar, only she's too reserved for that.

@pointythings she sounds fab! Dave is a bit rubbish tbh but has a heart of gold, a bit like Rodney 'Dave' Trotter.

I'm sure Dave is great. Tortellini has 3 lackeys to serve her - Fettucine, Rigatoni and Cannelloni, who also all live in cat form. One could say they are her familiars. It works very well.

@pointythings & @MeganTheeScallion & @ShodanLives

So do you think sexuality is an unchanging characteristic? I've always thought there is the possibility of change as people grow and develop and respond to the environment around them. Not that I think people should try and force/coerce someone towards any particular change - pointless and abusive.

@echoesacrosstheether I do think sexuality is unchanging. However, I do not believe sexuality is a black and white binary thing - it's a spectrum. I have a cousin who is bisexual. She has dated both men and women. She is now married to a man. She is still bisexual and finds both men and women attractive. She has not changed.

If you go through life sleeping with/dating partners of both sexes but end up in a happy opposite sex marriage, that does not mean you have 'become straight'. Your choice of an opposite sex partner is indeed environmental (because you were in an environment where you met that person), but your underlying potential for attraction is the same. Basically it means that if you're watching a film you may go 'phwoarr' over characters of both sexes, whereas I (very straight) would only drool over the male ones. (Oh Thor, why don't you love me).

@pointythings interesting, don't know how someone could prove it though. But again I still think changing because simply on a micro (rather than macro ie sex of someone we are attracted to) the qualities of someone we are attracted to changes IME. I don't see why it couldn't change on a more macro level too.

@echoesacrosstheether I dunno tbh. I change my mind on it quite a bit but mainly i suppose i think of it as a spectrum per PP above. It doesn't bother me either way, really. What I object to is if sexuality is weaponised and used as a tool to oppress people, to tell consenting adults who aren't hurting anyone that they are sick or wrong or evil, or could & should be just like everyone else.

@echoesacrosstheether my cousin hasn't changed. She still finds women attractive. She just doesn't act on that attraction because she loves her husband and is faithful.

IMO someone who has gone through life thinking of themselves as gay and then falls in love with someone of the opposite sex was never gay in the first place - they were bisexual all along.

Only acting on opposite sex attraction when one is bi because of religion is fine, it's a choice. It makes me sad that some people feel they 'aren't allowed' to love someone they are attracted to because their religion tells them so, but freedom of religion and all that.

Forcing oneself into a straight relationship when one does not feel genuine attraction just because of religion is wrong, however. It's unfair and dishonest to both people involved.

@MeganTheeScallion,

'I dunno tbh. I change my mind on it quite a bit but mainly i suppose i think of it as a spectrum per PP above. It doesn't bother me either way, really. What I object to is if sexuality is weaponised and used as a tool to oppress people, to tell consenting adults who aren't hurting anyone that they are sick or wrong or evil, or could & should be just like everyone else.'

@MeganTheeScallion

Indeed that kind of judgment can be incredibly hurtful and destructive. So maybe it is more attractive as an idea that sexuality is unchanging as a kind of protection against this kind of judgement. It shows the judgment up as doubly unfair if it concerns something that someone has no power over. But that doesn't mean sexuality is actually unchanging and doesn't evolve and develop as we do throughout our lives.

@echoesacrosstheether maybe you're right. However, it's still sad that people, influenced by religion, feel the need to be proud of their evolved sexuality and look upon their previous attractions as 'bad' and 'sinful'. I don't think that's a healthy mindset at all.

@pointythings, I don't know anyone like that personally. I've not got a handle on where they'd be coming from, I don't think.

But then thinking about it...If you look at the sexist, misogynistic TV in the 70s where grown men used to parade the Lolita idea about. Plenty of themes where middle aged men would go after adolescent school girls. Has society evolved from that?

I certainly hope so.

Naturally over time maybe, not through conversion therapy or prayer as the video @HandyLady posted was claiming.

@echoesacrosstheether I absolutely think society has evolved from that, though (some) men have not. I don't think that's a fair comparison though - let's be honest here, there was never a drive to condemn that kind of thing from the religious establishment. And it still happens in parts of the US (Christian) where child marriage has still not been made illegal, and in other parts of the world where Hinduism and Islam hold sway. The hypocrisy is astonishing.

@ShodanLives, understandable position. The idea that someone should be forced to change is uncomfortable for good reason. But this doesn't mean people can't develop and change.

@pointythings, I think it's a fair comparison concerning the changing nature of human attraction and sexuality. Albeit, yes, the context is different. And yes, I agree with you regarding the hypocrisy there.