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, well, from experience, I can tell you that religious faith involves love. The Bible certainly talks a lot about love. I'm not sure about sexuality in the absence of any love at all - not something I know very much about. Can you be genuinely attracted to someone you have no love for at all? However, regarding this thread, in which marriage is the main subject I would have thought love was integral to that.

If I choose to love I could choose not to.

so you say you could choose to turn your love for your partner of 20 years off instantaneously and walk away,

then that’s likely the root of the disagreement.

most people can’t do that

I can understand that if you’re able to switch your emotional responses on and off like that then it makes understanding with, and empathising towards the views of others a challenge for you.

Can you be genuinely attracted to someone you have no love for at all?

Definitely! Is that more out-there than believing people can change their sexuality at will? (Again not being sarcastic, just asking)

"so you say you could choose to turn your love for your partner of 20 years off instantaneously and walk away,

then that’s likely the root of the disagreement.

most people can’t do that

I can understand that if you’re able to switch your emotional responses on and off like that then it makes understanding with, and empathising towards the views of others a challenge for you."

@MeganTheeScallion, well, thinking about it, I probably couldn't, once I have loved. Maybe it's possible to choose to love but that decision is permanent?

That's not my post you've quoted but do think that love isn't always permanent.

"Definitely! Is that more out-there than believing people can change their sexuality at will? (Again not being sarcastic, just asking)"

@MeganTheeScallion is that attraction or a kind of need for possession/the overpowering/ownership of someone?

Sorry @MeganTheeScallion that post was directed @FurAndFeathers.

@MeganTheeScallion, is it genuine love if it is not permanent? Maybe it's possible for a person to think they love another person but they simply love their idea of them which isn't true? So when something happens to shatter the idea they discover they didn't love that person after all.

@echoesacrosstheether from my own experience, it is in no way about ownership or power. I find that suggestion quite troubling in the sense that it speaks to what is, in my view, a very unhealthy, warped view of sexuality. If someone truly viewed it in that way (not saying you do!) then I would wonder about a trauma history or abuse background.

@echoesacrosstheether i think love can be temporary or permanent and no more or less true one way or the other.

If love is a choice then one can change one's love state.

And if it's not a choice then we can't control if it waxes or wanes. Much. I think. 😆

Just exploring ideas @MeganTheeScallion.

"from my own experience, it is in no way about ownership or power. I find that suggestion quite troubling in the sense that it speaks to what is, in my view, a very unhealthy, warped view of sexuality. If someone truly viewed it in that way (not saying you do!) then I would wonder about a trauma history or abuse background."

I find the idea of sexual attraction with the complete absence of love for the object of attraction (ie absolutely no regard for them/their welfare) deeply troubling. Thus I likened this (attraction with no love/regard) to seeking possession/ ownership/ overpowering. I don't think that is indicative of an abusive/traumatic background. Just a logical step in terms of my thinking.

"If love is a choice then one can change one's love state."

I revised my thinking in terms of it being a choice but a permanent one. There are other choices which are permanent so this wouldn't surprise me.

"And if it's not a choice then we can't control if it waxes or wanes. Much. I think. 😆"

@MeganTheeScallion
Is it love that waxes or wanes? Or maybe the object of love wasn't permanent. The thing that you loved about someone in the first place was temporary or an illusion. Maybe it is just unconditional love which is permanent and true because it is rare to know someone absolutely entirely and completely?

So do you mean love in the Freudian sense? I don't think we are working with the same definitions. I'm not sure exactly what mine are but I don't experience what I think of as love very often but I do care deeply about many people. Hmm.

I'm still tired so apologies if my posts are garbled 😆

@MeganTheeScallion, well, when I talked about possession, ownership etc I was reminded of 'Wuthering Heights', and some men who simply use and discard women / want a ( in some cases) literally transactionary relationship.

Well yes it happens of course, with any gender, and maybe a lot, but it's not, in my experience, a norm.

So shifting goalposts then

if it’s a choice and you have free will then you choose - on or off.

You can’t choose to turn love off - because the emotion is driven by the same cocktail of oxytocin, serotonin etc that switched it ‘on’. It’s pretty straightforward biology, there’s a whole section of your brain neurobiology dedicated to it.

You’re choosing to believe you have some control over who you’re attracted to but you don’t really. It all happens regardless of choice. The aspect you can choose, is whether to act on those feelings.

And because love is a result of neurochemical and evolved behaviours then it’s not a choice.
And that applies to homosexual love/attraction as well as heterosexual love.

@FurAndFeathers

"So shifting goalposts then"

It's what happens with growth and learning.

"And because love is a result of neurochemical and evolved behaviours"

Our brains are plastic and our thoughts effect the neurophysiology. Our choices can also affect evolution within the mechanisms of 'natural' selection.

@FurAndFeathers I've been reading the last few days of this thread with my eyebrows sitting somewhere on the back of my head from the ever shifting word salad mess coming from @echoesacrosstheether . It's all bullshit and it's all just a subtle way of saying that people who are gay choose to be that way. There's no evidence that is the case, plenty of evidence to the contrary and give me the neurobiological explanation any day of the week.

@pointythings be fair, I am talking about a potential possibility. Not a universal actuality.

(More word salad for you!😉)

Our choices can also affect evolution within the mechanisms of 'natural' selection.

well if that’s your understanding of natural selection and evolution then I’m not surprised you have acquired such a random collection of beliefs.

once again I urge you to engage in some self-education, and perhaps reflect on the need for honesty and humility, because you seem extremely confident about subjects that it’s very clear you have almost no knowledge of, and you’re using that misplaced confidence to shore up bigoted and inaccurate beliefs about homosexuality.

give Dunning & Kruger’s work a read too.

@FurAndFeathers

How is exploring possibilities misplaced confidence in anything? Do you actually think how we think doesn't affect brain physiology at all? How do talking therapies work? How do you think natural selection is affected by culture?

Do you actually believe we have no agency or free will? If so why are you so scathing of me? Surely you should sympathise if I'm a victim of my biology?

I actually think both biology and self agency are powerful motivators. But the less agency a person thinks they have the less incentive they feel over using it.

How is exploring possibilities misplaced confidence in anything?

because the possibilities you explore are unsupported by any evidence.
you’re free to explore them of course. But you insist on doing so without any application of existing knowledge, because as you’ve made evident, you don’t actually know very much.

What you’re doing us basically along the lines of exploring whether the earth is flat or the moon is made of cheese, except you’re doing it to support prejudice against gay people. Which is unkind, in addition to being ignorant and unsupported by evidence.

feel free to crack on if you enjoy nonsensical and futile thought exercises that spread misinformation and prejudice.

You’re certainly choosing to tell us all about the type of person you are choosing to be.

@FurAndFeathers in terms of exploring the possibility of choosing to love or not, I include everyone of all sexualities and none in that. No discrimination there.

Regarding the thread, marriage in church includes vows, promises. Which are inappropriate if there is no free will or agency involved in the selection of who we love. Since a person cannot make a promise if they are entirely driven by biology.

For this reason I would have thought presuming choice was present in the selection of a life partner for all sexualities (rather than simply biological urges) is necessary to affording people the option of marriage in church.

@FurAndFeathers in terms of exploring the possibility of choosing to love or not, I include everyone of all sexualities and none in that. No discrimination there.

if you do not see the inherent bigotry in arguing that gay people are choosing persecution by ‘choosing love’ when they live in regimes that punish them then I cannot help you.

if you believe that an entirely patriarchal construct such as marriage is grounded in free choice of women, you’re even more uniformed than I thought.