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.

@MeganTheeScallion I'm expressing myself the best I can. I view most things as intricate and complex and find this life affirming. So I look for it. Unfortunately complexity is difficult to express.

"Please also can you state what I think is unpalatable? Because I'm not sure even I know...!"

Whatever you think it is that is 'abhorrent' (your word).

"I just don't like how circular some posts can be, and some of the language chosen appears to be employed to obfuscate. In my opinion."

It's not chosen to obfuscate. However, I do like (metaphorical) circles and look for them.

One of my teachers once said that you don’t really understand a concept unless you can explain it clearly to others.

I think that’s true generally, but very true here specifically

I don't think being gay is a choice. I think we need to give the minority of people with this orientation a route to living fully and partaking in all aspects of society and a fulfilling life.

But I don't think that means the church has to view homosexual relationships as equivalent to traditional marriage. Traditional marriage has a biblical and moral basis as the foundation for creating families.

I'm ok with this being a distinct category within the church. I'm not sure why gay couples want their unions to be viewed as the same by the church. They're not.

That doesn't mean they should not live their life in the way they decide is moral for them and their needs whilst still being a Christian, and given the full protection of the civil law.

The church recognising traditional marriage as distinct from gay marriage is not an insult, it's just a recognition of the reality that it's a different thing.

"One of my teachers once said that you don’t really understand a concept unless you can explain it clearly to others."

@FurAndFeathers, Socrates said,

"Wisdom is knowing how little we know".

So I can happily accept that I don't really understand a concept. 🙂

He didn’t actually - Plato suggests that Socrates said “all I know is that I know nothing,”

you are perhaps confusing him with Descartes:
“wisest is he who knows he does not know” (or words to that effect in Greek)

there’s clearly a lot that you don’t know but you’re still espousing your ignorance. And if you know you know nothing why keep unpleasantly challenging others?

you aren’t exactly demonstrating Socratic wisdom

@FurAndFeathers so you are allowed to post because you think you know?

Maybe posting means understanding can be worked through with others? A learning process? A sounding board in a relatively safe space.

Not everybody views these boards as simply an opportunity to impart their own wisdom...

@echoesacrosstheether massive apologies, I've completely mixed my threads up!! The post I was thinking about was on a different thread entirely...I don't find anything you've said abhorrent. I disagree with several things and I dislike some of the articulation, as discussed, but that's it.

It's good you like your style of writing but it's not conducive to clarity on here, I don't think. But who the heck am I to talk when I get threads and posters mixed up?!
I'm away for a lie down
....!!

@MeganTheeScallion, no worries.

🤣😅🤣 So @echoesacrosstheether is not displaying socratic wisdom as they've admitted they are ignorant so they should now stop posting according to you?
But you are wise so can continue to post?

I don't think you've understood Socrates, even if you can quote him 🤣🤣

You do like putting words in people’s mouths don’t you?

no, you’re perfectly at liberty to post anything you like, even when it’s inexplicable word salad.

and the rest of us are at liberty to challenge that, discuss it and even judge it as ill informed nonsense if we wish.

You really can't understand why a gay Christian would want to get married in their church?

Umm… please point out where I said anyone should stop posting?

And if you know you know nothing why keep unpleasantly challenging others?
@FurAndFeathers your words your mouth.

Why do you keep unpleasantly challenging others? Because you know best?

I challenge the idea that love is a choice and that people can ‘choose’ to not love others of the same sex because it’s unscientific homophobic twaddle.

you are of course perfectly at liberty to cling to your beliefs regardless

I can of course.

But I think it's acceptable for a church to say no. And I think Christian gay couples could accept this without viewing it as a slight on them.

@FurAndFeathers, I like salad. Fresh, aromatic, colourful and nutritious. But you do have to chew it over in order digest it. Unfortunately some people wouldn't even get as far as tasting it and simply leave it on the plate...

Ah yes very socratic.

I argue because I'm certain I'm right and must point out where everyone else is wrong bad and stupid.

Yes I think that's exactly what that Socrates quote meant 🤣🤣

where did I claim to be any kind of Socratic disciple?

Or called anyone wrong, bad or stupid?

is it in the same post where you claim I said others should not post?

I guess you can keep imagining things I’ve not said if it makes you feel better.

it’s a bit weird though.

@FurAndFeathers

"I challenge the idea that love is a choice and that people can ‘choose’ to not love others of the same sex because it’s unscientific homophobic twaddle."

I mooted the possibility that love could possibly be a choice for some. That sexuality could possibly develop and progress over time in some people. This possibility was explored in the discussion upthread.

Where is the science on this subject? Is mooting possibilities unscientific? I thought science was concerned with testing possibilities?

Why is saying there is a possibility someone might choose to be gay homophobic? Is it so bad no one could possibly want to make that choice? Usually people would want to have ownership over a choice they felt was valid. Sorry, for thinking there is a possibility some might have a choice over their sexuality and be self defining...NB: I think of choice as a good thing.

"Romantic ‘Love’ a biological reaction comprised of a range of hormonal, neurochemical and pheromonal reactions, supported by behaviours that are evolutionarily driven to support survival through enhanced social bonds. "

@FurAndFeathers, how very reductive.

So why would someone wake up one morning and think "today, even though it could lead to the death penalty, I think I'm going to be gay, and fall in love with that man"? What possible motivation could they have?

Sneer all you like.

It’s not exactly the compelling counter-argument you seem to think it is

Why is saying there is a possibility someone might choose to be gay homophobic? Is it so bad no one could possibly want to make that choice?

Well given that homophobia is a thing, yeah.

So you think people living under regimes that kill people for being gay are ‘choosing’ to put themselves at risk and that them making that ‘choice’ is a good thing?

to quote a Socratic scholar, “how very reductive”

Where is the science on this subject?

Peer reviewed journals, universities, libraries, the internet.

knock yourself out - there’s a lot of choices