Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

aloyisious · 17-04-2014 7:35pm

I wonder if this latest from David is coincidental to the TV3 Series Irish Lives: My Transgender Journey, kicking off last night. Maybe he check up on what's on other TV stations besides RTE.

PopePalpatine · 17-04-2014 8:31pm

Well, he did appear on Vincent Browne once. I was saddened not to see Vincent rip into him as if he were a Government backbencher.

Brian Shanahan · 17-04-2014 11:28pm

Nodin wrote: »

Quinn has decided to give the ghey the day off......now its the transsexual community that get ranted it....
http://www.irishcatholic.ie/article/%E2%80%98gender-bending%E2%80%99-comes-your-local-primary-school

I'll open the bidding with "shitehawk".

If you give me to morning, I'll invent some, and dredge up some old favourites.

Brian Shanahan · 17-04-2014 11:31pm

Penn wrote: »

I know we all throw about a few digs and insults at him, but in all honesty and sincerity, and being as respectful towards him as possible, he seriously lacks any empathy.

Of course he doesn't, he's filled with religiosity. Remember the more strident a person is about how great the stuff the voices in their head tells them, the less ability they have to contemplate what it feels like for their fellow man and woman.

Edit: Where is Sarky? I miss him/her/it.

aloyisious · 18-04-2014 1:23am

T'is remarkable how so few think so many have lost the plot lately. First it was John Waters, now it's David Quinn. Is plot the new black in media circles? I had been wondering if they were in a competition to martyrize themselves by making outrageous statemnts, but thought again... they couldn't be so bold as to try something like that at Easter-time, it would be so un-P.C.

aloyisious · 20-04-2014 1:20pm

Some religious persons of different faiths in the US are forming a Pro SSM group. There is mention that at least one of the leaders see's no biblical justification for opposing SSM. http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/04/19/us-colorado-faith-leaders-form-coalition-to-back-same-sex-marriage/

oldrnwisr · 21-04-2014 4:28pm

aloyisious wrote: »

Some religious persons of different faiths in the US are forming a Pro SSM group. There is mention that at least one of the leaders seem's no biblical justification for opposing SSM. http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/04/19/us-colorado-faith-leaders-form-coalition-to-back-same-sex-marriage/

Well, there isn't a biblical justification for opposing SSM. Or to be correct, there is no biblical justification for opposing SSM which won't leave you looking like a complete hypocrite and douchebag.

There are only a finite number of references to homosexuality in the Bible and even combined, they don't add up to an argument against gay marriage.

Obviously the most oft-quoted passage in the Bible concerning gay marriage is Leviticus 18:22, and by extension Leviticus 20:13. However, two things are already apparent.
Firstly, Leviticus is a penal code listing offences and their accompanying sentences. The two can't really be divorced from each other. So if you're going to advocate homosexuality as bad on the basis of 18:22, then you should also advocate the punishment in 20:13, otherwise you're just a hypocritical douchebag.
Secondly, there are other offences and punishments in Leviticus which the overwhelming majority of Christians completely ignore while loudly shouting about 18:22, prohibitions against planting two different crops side by side (19:19), divination (19:26), eating pork (11:7), eating shellfish (11:12), eating blood (17:10), tattoos (19:28).
Also, while we're on the subject of Leviticus, just how bad exactly can homosexuality be? After all, only two verses in the entire book are devoted to it. Mould is obviously far more dangerous and offensive to God's sensibilities since a whopping 36 verses are devoted to dealing with it.

For the moment we'll move to the New Testament but we'll get back to it in a bit.
So what prohibitions are in the NT against homosexuality. Well, unsurprisingly most of the noise against homosexuality. Unsurprising not only because of Paul's significant contribution to the NT in terms of volume but also because of Paul's pretty warped sense of morality.
He outlines his stance in several verses but particularly:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
Romans 1:26-27

"But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust."
1 Timothy 8:11

Of course, just like Leviticus above, most people don't put a lot of stock in what Paul has to say about morality. After all, how many Christians really follow Pauline doctrines like:

" A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."
1 Timothy 2:11-12

"Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."
Ephesians 5:22-24

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in every respect, not only when they are watching – like those who are strictly people-pleasers – but with a sincere heart, fearing the Lord."
Colossians 3:22

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."
1 Corinthians 14:34-35

So again, by all means shout about how the NT opposes SSM. But be prepared to look like a complete hypocritical douchebag.

Now, to turn to the one story which is referenced in both the New and Old Testaments as a commentary against homosexuality: the sin of Sodom. Many modern Christians interpret the sin of Sodom as homosexuality. However, this is not explicitly stated in the story. Moreover, we have passages like this:

"Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."
Ezekiel 16:49-50

and this:

"The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this outrageous thing. Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But as for this man, don’t do such an outrageous thing.”
Judges 19:23-24

show that the authors of the OT meant to describe inhospitality and rudeness to guests as the sin of Sodom and not homosexuality. Indeed the passage from Judges above is a close parallel of Genesis 19.

After all, this there doesn't seem to be much of a solid justification for opposing SSM in the bible. But wait there's more. We also have to consider the inherently contradictory nature of the Bible. Take this passage for example:

"And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. "
1 Samuel 18:1

or this:

"I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."
2 Samuel 1:26

The story of David and Johnathan is widely regarded (or at least was by early Jewish oral tradition) as a homosexual relationship, one which seemed to find some degree of acceptance within the society of the time. It is commented in the Mishnah:

“Whenever love depends on some selfish end, when the end passes away, the love passes away; but if it does not depend on some selfish end, it will never pass away. Which love depended on a selfish end? This was the love of Amnon and Tamar. And which did not depend on a selfish end? This was the love of David and Jonathan."

So, is there a solid justification for opposing SSM in the bible? Well as I said no unless you wish to come across as a hypocrite. But then that doesn't stop some Christians.

aloyisious · 21-04-2014 6:54pm

Big C or small c?

Edited mine above, didn't mean to put an M in the see's word before no biblical justification....

MrPudding · 21-04-2014 7:14pm

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Well, there isn't a biblical justification for opposing SSM. Or to be correct, there is no biblical justification for opposing SSM which won't leave you looking like a complete hypocrite and douchebag.

There are only a finite number of references to homosexuality in the Bible and even combined, they don't add up to an argument against gay marriage.

Obviously the most oft-quoted passage in the Bible concerning gay marriage is Leviticus 18:22, and by extension Leviticus 20:13. However, two things are already apparent.
Firstly, Leviticus is a penal code listing offences and their accompanying sentences. The two can't really be divorced from each other. So if you're going to advocate homosexuality as bad on the basis of 18:22, then you should also advocate the punishment in 20:13, otherwise you're just a hypocritical douchebag.
Secondly, there are other offences and punishments in Leviticus which the overwhelming majority of Christians completely ignore while loudly shouting about 18:22, prohibitions against planting two different crops side by side (19:19), divination (19:26), eating pork (11:7), eating shellfish (11:12), eating blood (17:10), tattoos (19:28).
Also, while we're on the subject of Leviticus, just how bad exactly can homosexuality be? After all, only two verses in the entire book are devoted to it. Mould is obviously far more dangerous and offensive to God's sensibilities since a whopping 36 verses are devoted to dealing with it.

For the moment we'll move to the New Testament but we'll get back to it in a bit.
So what prohibitions are in the NT against homosexuality. Well, unsurprisingly most of the noise against homosexuality. Unsurprising not only because of Paul's significant contribution to the NT in terms of volume but also because of Paul's pretty warped sense of morality.
He outlines his stance in several verses but particularly:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
Romans 1:26-27

"But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust."
1 Timothy 8:11

Of course, just like Leviticus above, most people don't put a lot of stock in what Paul has to say about morality. After all, how many Christians really follow Pauline doctrines like:

" A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."
1 Timothy 2:11-12

"Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."
Ephesians 5:22-24

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in every respect, not only when they are watching – like those who are strictly people-pleasers – but with a sincere heart, fearing the Lord."
Colossians 3:22

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."
1 Corinthians 14:34-35

So again, by all means shout about how the NT opposes SSM. But be prepared to look like a complete hypocritical douchebag.

Now, to turn to the one story which is referenced in both the New and Old Testaments as a commentary against homosexuality: the sin of Sodom. Many modern Christians interpret the sin of Sodom as homosexuality. However, this is not explicitly stated in the story. Moreover, we have passages like this:

"Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."
Ezekiel 16:49-50

and this:

"The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this outrageous thing. Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But as for this man, don’t do such an outrageous thing.”
Judges 19:23-24

show that the authors of the OT meant to describe inhospitality and rudeness to guests as the sin of Sodom and not homosexuality. Indeed the passage from Judges above is a close parallel of Genesis 19.

After all, this there doesn't seem to be much of a solid justification for opposing SSM in the bible. But wait there's more. We also have to consider the inherently contradictory nature of the Bible. Take this passage for example:

"And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. "
1 Samuel 18:1

or this:

"I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."
2 Samuel 1:26

The story of David and Johnathan is widely regarded (or at least was by early Jewish oral tradition) as a homosexual relationship, one which seemed to find some degree of acceptance within the society of the time. It is commented in the Mishnah:

“Whenever love depends on some selfish end, when the end passes away, the love passes away; but if it does not depend on some selfish end, it will never pass away. Which love depended on a selfish end? This was the love of Amnon and Tamar. And which did not depend on a selfish end? This was the love of David and Jonathan."

So, is there a solid justification for opposing SSM in the bible? Well as I said no unless you wish to come across as a hypocrite. But then that doesn't stop some Christians.

Hopefully Jimmi will return soon and explain how you have it completely wrong. I expect it has something to do with either context or reading with eyes instead of blood pumping organ.

MrP

old hippy · 22-04-2014 12:56pm

lazygal wrote: »

The more Quinn, O'Brien and gang write, the more they demonstrate their total lack of empathy for anyone who isn't Just Like Them. What would Jesus think of you, David?

I'd love if there was evidence to prove that Jesus was gay or bi. Wouldn't that just melt their heads?:D

pauldla · 22-04-2014 1:18pm

old hippy wrote: »

I'd love if there was evidence to prove that Jesus was gay or bi. Wouldn't that just melt their heads?:D

It's not hard to find passages in the NT to build a case. Lots of kissing and disciples Jesus loved and so on. And what could they make of 'Love one another as I have loved you'?

Obliq · 22-04-2014 5:58pm

old hippy wrote: »

I'd love if there was evidence to prove that Jesus was gay or bi. Wouldn't that just melt their heads?:D

I tell you what though, I'd place big money on there being at least twice the normal percentage of gay men (per capita) in the clergy. I reckon that an awful lot of them have been in denial from a very early age, and it's possibly part of their massive hang ups about sexuality (particularly homosexuality). There's a giant elephant in the all the rooms of the Vatican, and it's one thing they'd never ever be dragged to address, I'm thinking.

Out of the 3 fellas I know who left their training for the priesthood, 2 of them are comfortably gay. Here's a link to an interesting priest's blog site who would agree with my theory I'd say....http://wisecatholic.blogspot.ie/2014/01/an-email-from-vatican-pope-francis.html

aloyisious · 22-04-2014 6:55pm

I got to talking with some other people and wondered if the next breakout, after sports, would be priests coming out. Patsy McGarry of the Irish Times did this interview with a priest who's comfortable with been homosexual...
https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fsocial-affairs%2Freligion-and-beliefs%2Fcomfortable-being-gay-a-priest-speaks-1.1651119&ei=06xWU7rFBJSQ7Abyt4GQDw&usg=AFQjCNGJBYUJHzmTfMw4TFMLK3jVP-vwvA&bvm=bv.65177938,d.ZGU

Obliq · 22-04-2014 7:09pm

This bit in it is very interesting:

"He feels he was lucky being an order priest when it came to formation. There was “none of the narrow-mindedness” he associated with the seminary in Maynooth. He and fellow students had “more freedom within the self. There was never a negative message. It was very broad-minded.” Leads me to believe that it was acknowledged that some among them were attracted to their own sex.

I wouldn't say there was much acknowledgement of being gay in Maynooth, or any kind of message about sexuality that wasn't negative tbh. The priest who wrote that article would be more inspirational (but out of a job) if he wasn't anonymous, but I'm sure he's still a help to others just by being comfortable with his own orientation.

robindch · 23-04-2014 11:36am

The Boy Scouts of the USA fire a church because the church won't fire a gay Scout Leader.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/21/us/washington-boy-scouts-revoke-charter-gay-scoutmaster/

CNN wrote:

CNN) -- The Boy Scouts of America has revoked the charter of a Seattle church that refused to fire its pack's gay scoutmaster, according to a letter written by the organization's general counsel and provided to CNN by the church. Pack and Troop 98 is composed of about 15 boys, and according to attorney Steven McGowan's letter, they will have an opportunity to transfer to another troop. "As you are aware the policy of the Boy Scouts of America does not allow open or avowed homosexuals to serve as volunteer adult leaders," read McGowan's letter to an attorney representing Rainier Beach United Methodist Church.

The church received its charter in November and selected Geoff McGrath, a 49-year-old Eagle Scout, to lead the troop. The Rev. Monica Corsaro said she knew McGrath was gay, and she wasn't trying to make any political statement by selecting him. "We were not hiding," she said. "We are talking about real people that are being effected by a policy of discrimination ... by a policy that BSA teaches, so we are just calling it out." She further said all the boys in the troop were aware of McGrath's sexuality and that his selection was in line with the church's philosophy of being "open to all people." Corsaro has even performed same-sex marriages at the church, she said.

McGrath could not be reached for comment because he is out of the country, celebrating an anniversary with his partner of 20 years, Corsaro said. But he provided a statement to Scouts for Equality, a group that aims to end the BSA ban on gay scout leaders. "I'm stunned and disappointed to hear the news," he told Scouts for Equality. "Pastor Corsaro specifically sought out someone with my Scouting background to help get these units off the ground, and her church is now being told to violate their religious convictions. It's unconscionable and irreverent." According to Scouts for Equality, BSA questioned McGrath's sexuality after an NBC News report last month.

"McGrath, abiding by the Scout's commitment to trustworthiness, acknowledged his sexual orientation to the BSA, which in turn, responded by revoking McGrath's status as Scoutmaster," the group said on its website. Corsaro refused to remove McGrath from his post, resulting in last week's letter from McGowan stating, "As a result of this refusal to comply with the policies, guidelines, rules and regulations of the Boy Scouts of America, Rainier Beach United Methodist Church is hereby advised that it is no longer an authorized chartered organization and may no longer use the Scouting program or any of its registered marks or brands." BSA spokesman Deron Smith added in a statement to CNN, "We are saddened by this development, but remain committed to providing all youth with the best possible Scouting experience where the Scouting program is the main focus."

In May, the group's 1,400-member national council voted to allow gay scouts into its troops, saying no youth would be denied membership "based on sexual orientation or preference alone." The group maintained its ban on gay scout leaders, however. Because of that ban, Disney announced last month it would end a program allowing its employees to steer corporate donations to the Boy Scouts. Lockheed Martin, Caterpillar, Major League Soccer, Merck, Intel, UPS, Alcoa and AT&T have also ended partnerships with the Scouts because of its policy, according to Scouts for Equality and the Human Rights Campaign.

In a Monday statement to CNN, the BSA said it doesn't believe "the topic of sexual orientation has a role in Scouting and it is not discussed unless it is deliberately injected into Scouting." The organization also said it "does not have an agenda on the matter of sexual orientation; we remain focused on working together to deliver the nation's foremost youth program of character development and values-based leadership training." The United Methodist Church is the BSA's second-largest chartered organization, accounting for more than 10,700 units and almost 350,000 members, according to the Boy Scouts website.

gaynorvader · 23-04-2014 11:48am

robindch wrote: »

The Boy Scouts of the USA fire a church because the church won't fire a gay Scout Leader.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/21/us/washington-boy-scouts-revoke-charter-gay-scoutmaster/

Not surprising. They are owned by the Mormon church and have been discriminating for years now, despite using public properties and services gratis. I think Penn & Teller did a show on it actually.

Brian Shanahan · 23-04-2014 3:39pm

Boy Scouts of America wrote:

[BSA] does not have an agenda on the matter of sexual orientation; we remain focused on working together to deliver the nation's foremost youth program of character development and values-based leadership training.

Prove that you don't boys, end the ban on gay scout leaders and apologise to and beg for the return of all the gay scout leaders ye got rid of down the years.

Because banning somebody from your secret handshake club (yes, yes, I know the scouts do more than that) just because they worship the penis is most definitely an anti-gay agenda.

aloyisious · 28-04-2014 10:51am

The Bishops are appealing to the N.I. Legislative Assembly NOT TO legalize SSM. It's another "Save Ulster" campaign.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/bishops-call-on-ni-politicians-to-reject-marriage-equality-motion-628957.html

Links234 · 28-04-2014 12:00pm

If this just doesn't want to make you rage... http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/04/baby-dies-in-teens-custody-after-taken-from-lesbian-couple-days-before-adoption/

:mad:

eviltwin · 28-04-2014 12:32pm

Links234 wrote: »

If this just doesn't want to make you rage... http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/04/baby-dies-in-teens-custody-after-taken-from-lesbian-couple-days-before-adoption/

:mad:

Don't see this as a gay issue tbh, the mother has the right to change her mind.

freyners · 28-04-2014 4:05pm

Links234 wrote: »

If this just doesn't want to make you rage... http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/04/baby-dies-in-teens-custody-after-taken-from-lesbian-couple-days-before-adoption/

:mad:

Gotta agree with eviltwin, maybe im not reading it right but it doesn't say anywhere that she changed her mind because they were a gay couple. Angry at the fathers actions

Penn · 28-04-2014 4:34pm

While I agree that it's not really an issue relating to marriage equality etc, it is somewhat important to note that "biological parents" =/= "good parents".

Links234 · 29-04-2014 12:35am

old hippy · 29-04-2014 9:34am

meanwhile, Ulster says "no"?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-27188588

Bellatori · 29-04-2014 10:30am

old hippy wrote: »

meanwhile, Ulster says "no"?

I found this wonderfully ironic. The DUP, as big a bunch of intolerant catholic haters as you will meet find themselves agreeing with the Cardinal of 'all' Ireland representing an equally intolerant group. These two groups who despise one another I am sure, find that they now share a common hate. Isn't it nice to see disparate people getting along.

Pass me the bucket!?

aloyisious · 29-04-2014 11:53am

Amnesty International (NI branch) say's it's inevitable that Gay couples will take a legal challenge against the refusal to legislate for SSM. SF seem to be slowly changing it's position on NI SSM from opposition to it, to a "toe in the water - don't lose any votes" stance. I don't see how it's move (reported on last few lines of the Examiner story) can have any chance of success, given that the Minister is in the DUP. A class case of having your cake and eating it (cute hoor move of blame the O/P "DUP" when the move fails - and if it get's by somehow, take the praise for instituting the move).

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/gay-couples-will-challenge-same-sex-marriage-law-in-the-north-629094.html

old hippy · 29-04-2014 12:18pm

A nasty intolerant little statelet, altogether. Both the Republic and the UK would be better without it.

SebBerkovich · 29-04-2014 12:37pm

Remember when we used to read about the North and say "Why can't they all just get along?"

Little did i know what a terrifying prospect Homophobes and bigots banding together would be. I miss when they used to disagree on everything.

old hippy · 29-04-2014 12:39pm

SebBerkovich wrote: »

Remember when we used to read about the North and say "Why can't they all just get along?"

Little did i know what a terrifying prospect Homophobes and bigots banding together would be. I miss when they used to disagree on everything.

To think I once thought a united Ireland would be a good idea. I realise now, we are the Republic and that's united enough, IMHO. Let them smite amongst themselves up there.

Bellatori · 29-04-2014 12:42pm

old hippy wrote: »

A nasty intolerant little statelet, altogether. Both the Republic and the UK would be better without it.

Back in the early 90s I wrote a letter to the then President of Eire, Mary Robinson, suggesting that we could resolve the NI situation by forming the Federated States of North- western Europe. England Scotland Wales Ireland Channel Isles... ask Iceland if they wanted to join. and a few other things

I did receive a polite "Thank you for your letter!"

Who actually wants NI? Does Eire? They are going to be nothing but trouble. Does the UK? I don't know about anyone else but I would give them away for free...!

Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

Comments