The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

Delirium

MrPudding wrote: »

Off the top of you head, do you know how many of the 33000 branches allow it? Of the remaining that don't, what do they say about those that do?

MrP

I would guess it's probably quite small, probably around 50. Majority of those that don't would most likely view a same-sex marriage as a sin.

BMMachine wrote: »

ok, that still doesn't make the extreme mass of them not bigoted. You also don't mention how a load of those branches actively seek out second class rights for homosexual people.

Because it a response as to why this thread is named "the gay megathread".

You guys are going to have to face up to the massive bigotry and prejudice someday and dancing around the subject and performing patented mental gymnastics won't stop that. Like the tide, the church will be eroded away to its rotten core for all to see, you cannot stop that.

But in the mean time lets just make life hell for everyone else cos ya know, reasons

"You guys"? I'm neither opposed to same-sex couples or Christian.

K4t wrote: »

Both imply the same thing, no matter how you wish to disguise it. Why is it so hard to be honest in acknowledging a core belief of Christianity which is that homosexuality is a sin?

It's not hard to say that the majority of Christian churches view homosexuality as a sin. I've already said as much above.

But that doesn't mean homosexuality and Christianity can only be discussed within the parameters of "prejudice against gay people" as another poster suggested.

Peregrinus

BMMachine wrote: »

Having a conversation with someone and am looking as to why Homosexual sex isn't allowed. Not a blanket statement, but an actual reason . . . .

I've read through this:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-f018.html

and this:

http://www.gotquestions.org/gay-marriage.html

and couldn't find an actual reason. It just very vaguely says no, or just kind of says "men and women should be together" but nothing else.

Is there something I'm missing? Why does God not like homosexual sex? Like, what are the problems with it? And for Brucie Bonus points, where does it say this?

Why would you expect to find this in the Bible? Serious question.

There are lots of ethical rules offered in the Bible. “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and all your soul, and all your strength.” “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” “Thou shalt not kill.” “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Sometimes these are offered along with a reason (“You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you yourselves were strangers in the land of Egypt”) but mostly not and, even where reasons are given they’re often quite brief and not entirely satisfactory. (If we haven’t had the experience of being exiles ourselves, is it OK for us to kick the living sh1t out of the foreigners we meet?) Sometimes it’s not difficult to work out the reasons behind some prohibitions - e.g. we can all think up credible accounts of why killing people or committing adultery is a bad thing - but sometimes it’s not so obvious.

The fact is that none of the biblical texts pretend to be ethical treatises. Some of them do offer moral rules, and sometimes give stories to contextualise them, or examples to reinforce them, but at no point is there any attempt to construct a comprehensive morality from stated fundamental principles. (If anything, the interpretive tradition takes the reverse approach; deducing fundamental values and principles from the moral rules that are stated.) You might be disappointed that the scriptures aren’t ethical treatises of this kind, but it’s unreasonable to criticise them for not being what they do not claim to be. You might just as well criticise the writings of Richard Dawkins for not being sufficiently poetic.

Despite some people’s preoccupation with it, homosexuality doesn’t attract a huge amount of attention in the bible. For every biblical reference to homosexuality, there are at least ten dealing with moral obligations towards the foreigner among you, and at least twenty dealing with moral obligations towards widows and orphans. (We might speculate why, in our time, the preoccupations of both believers and unbelievers alike focus on homosexuality and on matters of sex generally, but that probably tells you more about modernity than it does about religion.) The scriptural texts, however, are not modern and, unsurprisingly, the occasional references to homosexuality are not among the few which get any kind of detailed analysis.

That’s not to say that the religious traditions which value these scriptures - principally Judaism and Christianity - haven’t grappled with the question. And, while the traditions are diverse and offer a variety of answers, a lot of them come down to something like this; the human person is valued in the Judeo-Christian tradition not simply for what (s)he is, but for what (s)he is capable of; what (s)he can grow into; what (s)he can become. And one of the things the human person is capable of is procreation. And this is seen as of immense significance, since it’s one of the ways in which the human person images God. God, remember, at the start of the Book of Genesis, creates men and women; humans themselves participate in the divine act of creation through procreation. And this is seen as one of the glories of humanity, and as the principal goodness of sex.

It’s a short hop from there to the conclusion that sex - indeed, not an individual sex act but an entire sexuality - which is not capable of or directed towards procreation falls short of the mark, and so is lacking in a fundamental respect. Homosexuality is bad, therefore, in the sense that it’s not good enough; it’s not what sexuality could and should be.

This is not an unchallenged view, even within the religious traditions. Our understanding of human sexuality has changed radically in the last hundred years or so (thanks, Sigmund!) and we’re just beginning to take the consequences of that on board. It isn’t just the religious traditions which are only part-way through this process; broader social and legal attitudes are also being reconsidered, changed and developed. There are challenges within Christianity and Judaism (and other religions) to the traditional mainstream condemnation of homosexuality; how these will play our remains to be seen.

MrPudding

SW wrote: »

I would guess it's probably quite small, probably around 50. Majority of those that don't would most likely view a same-sex marriage as a sin.

Not quite what I meant... I meant how would the majority of branches that don't support it view the tiny majority that do... And my guess would be they would view them as wrong.

As certain as one side is that SSM is ok, the other side is equally certain it isn't. I struggle, then, when christians try to impose their particular belief on a group that does not share that belief when they can't even agree amongst themselves.

And I am sorry, but refusing to accept that one might be wrong, when people professing to be 'of the same religion' disagree, wanting to impose discrimination and inequality on a section of society on the basis of this belief, is just wrong.

We have a word for when people choose to discriminate against a class of people with no rational basis. Why does that word not apply here?

SW wrote: »

But that doesn't mean homosexuality and Christianity can only be discussed within the parameters of "prejudice against gay people" as another poster suggested.

If it walks like a duck...

MrP

Delirium

MrPudding wrote: »

Not quite what I meant... I meant how would the majority of branches that don't support it view the tiny majority that do... And my guess would be they would view them as wrong.

Ah, right. Yeah, that'd be my take also.

As certain as one side is that SSM is ok, the other side is equally certain it isn't. I struggle, then, when christians try to impose their particular belief on a group that does not share that belief when they can't even agree amongst themselves.

And I am sorry, but refusing to accept that one might be wrong, when people professing to be 'of the same religion' disagree, wanting to impose discrimination and inequality on a section of society on the basis of this belief, is just wrong.

We have a word for when people choose to discriminate against a class of people with no rational basis. Why does that word not apply here?

If it walks like a duck...

MrP

I'm only explaining why I wouldn't be changing the title to the "prejudice against gay people". If people wish to discuss "Christian prejudice against gay people" within this thread, they can work away.

MrPudding

SW wrote: »

Ah, right. Yeah, that'd be my take also.


I'm only explaining why I wouldn't be changing the title to the "prejudice against gay people". If people wish to discuss "Christian prejudice against gay people" within this thread, they can work away.

Bugger. My apologises, I missed the bit about the title change. Fully agree with that.

MrP

Delirium

MrPudding wrote: »

Bugger. My apologises, I missed the bit about the title change. Fully agree with that.

MrP

Cool beans

Bannasidhe

This may be of interest to some here. It's a point by point discussion on why the Bible does not forbid same-sex marriage.

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/10/the_bible_backs_same_sex_couples_point_by_point_why_the_haters_are_wrong/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

tommy2bad

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This may be of interest to some here. It's a point by point discussion on why the Bible does not forbid same-sex marriage.

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/10/the_bible_backs_same_sex_couples_point_by_point_why_the_haters_are_wrong/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

I hate salons presentation on my tablet but that's an aside. Important to note that the rcc and other Christian denominations don't base their teaching on strictly biblical teaching. Their concept of a sacramental marriage is that it reflects and embodies the relationship between God and man. Yes it's based on an outmoded version of marriage, one that had a dominant husband and submissive wife but to be fair, pointing out that the bible has no specific prohibition won't get much response as they can fall back on tradition.
More important is to keep emphasizing that this has nothing to do with sacramental marriage, it's about the legal requirements for civil marriage.

Bannasidhe

tommy2bad wrote: »

I hate salons presentation on my tablet but that's an aside. Important to note that the rcc and other Christian denominations don't base their teaching on strictly biblical teaching. Their concept of a sacramental marriage is that it reflects and embodies the relationship between God and man. Yes it's based on an outmoded version of marriage, one that had a dominant husband and submissive wife but to be fair, pointing out that the bible has no specific prohibition won't get much response as they can fall back on tradition.
More important is to keep emphasizing that this has nothing to do with sacramental marriage, it's about the legal requirements for civil marriage.

I agree. Religion should not impact on Civil legislation or define the rights of all citizens, however, some opponents do use the Bible as justification for their stance so I thought this point by point discussion of Biblical anti arguments makes interesting reading.

tommy2bad

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I agree. Religion should not impact on Civil legislation or define the rights of all citizens, however, some opponents do use the Bible as justification for their stance so I thought this point by point discussion of Biblical anti arguments makes interesting reading.

Indeed it is interesting, an argument going on among different denominations as it is. I suspect the biblical argument carries weight even among non religious people so no harm having an alternative view to answer it. Tbh, I think a lot of unthinking assumptions are due to the huge influence the bible has had on our culture. It's jus a pity more people doing read it and check exactly what it says. They might be surprised how little sex it contains.

MrPudding

tommy2bad wrote: »

I suspect the biblical argument carries weight even among non religious people so no harm having an alternative view to answer it.

This is where the main problem is, actually, I think. If one is trying to impose restrictions on, or discriminate against a particular class of person, then one must provide a justification that those people who will be impacted can understand, relate to and see as reasonable. No one like to be discriminated against, but if one can actually see and understand the underpinning reasons, then there is the possibility for the imposition to be, perhaps grudgingly, accepted.

To give a couple of examples. There is a scheme in the UK to help (ex)servicemen and women to buy houses. Military personnel can have difficulty in securing a mortgage due things like moving around a lot. This scheme is like the civilian 'Help to Buy' scheme, but the benefits are greater. Now, this scheme is only available to serving or ex members of the armed forces. This is clearly discriminating against those members of society that aren't or have not been in the armed forces. Speaking as someone that would love to avail of this scheme I can see and understand why I can't use it. The reasons why I can't use it are clear to me, and I can understand the rational behind them, as a result, I can and do accept this particular discrimination.

Society is full of examples like this. Where we begin to have a problem is where discrimination is based on something that is not as obviously or rationally justifiable to the person impacted by the policy. To give an example of this her is a fairly basic thought example. Imagine for a moment that you have woken up and find yourself in Ireland where, somehow, a political party has risen to power and enacted some laws. For example, girls are not allowed to attend school and books, with the exception of one particular holy book are banned. Justification for these new policies are given as passages for the holy book. I appreciate that is is a fairly extreme and unlikely scenario, but it is a though experiment, but how would you feel about these policies? Would you be happy to accept then. I know I wouldn't, because I am unlikely to follow that particular holy book, and therefore I would not see it as adequate or valid justification for discrimination.

This is the problem with using holy books as basis for justification for laws and restrictions. Arguments around religious beliefs are very difficult to resolve. Where there has been a revealed 'truth' adherents are extremely unlikely to budge in matters relating to that 'truth', compromise is unlikely. Where the justification is not based on a holy book, where it is based on reason and other non-religious ideas or justifications then negotiation is possible, there is flexibility between the parties, those being discriminated against can be more accepting of the reasons why they are being discriminated against. They may still not be happy about it, but they might grudgingly accept it.

Conversely, where the justification is based on something seen as irrational, or something the those being discriminated against simply cannot relate to, then we have a problem. Using biblical justifications for for civil laws is not really acceptable in this day and age, there are many people that don't believe the bible, and as a result will have difficulty accepting laws that are based on it.

Of course there is an argument that most of our laws do have some kind of basis in religions, or biblical principles, and this may well have been the case hundreds of years ago, but it is no reason to continue that principle, if it ever was a principle. The simple fact of the matter is the laws we have are easily justifiable with non-religious, rational easily accessible to all reasons.

This is not to say a person, a politician for example, can't be informed by his religious belief, but when it comes to justifying his actions, he or she needs to use something other than that religious belief to justify any laws that will impact other people, particularly those that don't follow those beliefs. Time for a John Rawls quote, I think:

John Rawls wrote:

Reasonable comprehensive doctrines, religious or non-religious, may be introduced in public political discussion at any time, provided that in due course proper political reasons – and not reasons given solely by comprehensive doctrines – are presented that are sufficient to support whatever the comprehensive doctrines are said to support.

MrP

macyard

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This may be of interest to some here. It's a point by point discussion on why the Bible does not forbid same-sex marriage.

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/10/the_bible_backs_same_sex_couples_point_by_point_why_the_haters_are_wrong/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

Does it forbid a man having sex with another man, are you saying we should make gay sex illegal but allow them to marry.

I can't see why they would need to ban the marriage if the act itself was against their beliefs

Bannasidhe

macyard wrote: »

Does it forbid a man having sex with another man, are you saying we should make gay sex illegal but allow them to marry.

I can't see why they would need to ban the marriage if the act itself was against their beliefs

I'm saying oh look... here is a link where someone has taken the time to study the Bible with a view to determining it's position on same-sex marriage that might be of interest to members of this forum as I know Christian position on the subject is divided.

macyard

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm saying oh look... here is a link where someone has taken the time to study the Bible with a view to determining it's position on same-sex marriage that might be of interest to members of this forum as I know Christian position on the subject is divided.

But why would it have part banning gay marriage if being gay was a sin and forbidden in the first place.

It's a strawman that the bible don't say gay marriage is not allowed, when it says being gay is not allowed.

Bannasidhe

macyard wrote: »

But why would it have part banning gay marriage if being gay was a sin and forbidden in the first place.

It's a strawman that the bible don't say gay marriage is not allowed, when it says being gay is not allowed.

Why do you keep asking me questions when I made it clear I was simply posting a link on a topic that may interest members of this forum?

If you wish to debate Christian theology you need to address your questions to Christians.

macyard

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Why do you keep asking me questions when I made it clear I was simply posting a link on a topic that may interest members of this forum?

If you wish to debate Christian theology you need to address your questions to Christians.

I thought backing up your posts was a part of boards I can question the faulty logic of the article you endorse.

If you didn't want to talk about it why post it?

silverharp

using an analogy if we were talking about a golf club not allowing women to join, you might say fair enough their club their rules, if the same club started trying to stop women play any sport they would be laughed off the stage. Christians seem to have hung themselves by their own petard on this one.
Shouldnt they just back away from the issue as far as civil society is concerned and let everyone else get on with their lives. When it comes down to it Christians cant have a reasoned debate on this this as whatever way you cut it it will come down to whats written in a dusty old book. If the old book said something different, they would have a different view

macyard

silverharp wrote: »

using an analogy if we were talking about a golf club not allowing women to join, you might say fair enough their club their rules, if the same club started trying to stop women play any sport they would be laughed off the stage. Christians seem to have hung themselves by their own petard on this one.
Shouldnt they just back away from the issue as far as civil society is concerned and let everyone else get on with their lives. When it comes down to it Christians cant have a reasoned debate on this this as whatever way you cut it it will come down to whats written in a dusty old book. If the old book said something different, they would have a different view

That's a better outlook

A the book doesn't say gays can't get married you have to allowed won't convince Christians to vote yes if they follow that book they already think the gays are sinfull and going to hell.

A strawman won't override that the book already says gay is wrong

Bannasidhe

macyard wrote: »

I thought backing up your posts was a part of boards I can question the faulty logic of the article you endorse.

If you didn't want to talk about it why post it?

Please provide evidence that I endorsed the contents of this article.

Please provide evidence that I stated I either agreed or disagreed with the article.

Please provide evidence that at any point I stated that I, personally, wished to discuss the contents.

Please provide evidence that my opinion of this article is anything other than 'interesting'.

The article is question can be accessed by following the link I supplied in my original post.

Bye Now.

silverharp

macyard wrote: »

That's a better outlook

A the book doesn't say gays can't get married you have to allowed won't convince Christians to vote yes if they follow that book they already think the gays are sinfull and going to hell.

A strawman won't override that the book already says gay is wrong

here is the thing though its possible to be against something but vote in a way that acknowledges that you are not in a position to dictate how other people live their lives. For instance someone could have the view that alcohol is "evil" but still vote to keep it legal on the basis that you are not really being asked what your personal view of it is, your are being asked do you want to curb the rights of people that have different views.

macyard

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Please provide evidence that I endorsed the contents of this article.

Please provide evidence that I stated I either agreed or disagreed with the article.

Please provide evidence that at any point I stated that I, personally, wished to discuss the contents.

Please provide evidence that my opinion of this article is anything other than 'interesting'.

The article is question can be accessed by following the link I supplied in my original post.

Bye Now.

Posting the article is endorsing it, and why post it if not to talk about it.

marienbad

Why are ye still pandering to this poster ?

macyard

marienbad wrote: »

Why are ye still pandering to this poster ?

He posted an article with faulty logic, so I think he should stay by the article he posted, I don't think that is pandering to him

macyard

This might of be some interest here

May be, but Regerenus' study is remarkably tainted, wrong and has been rebutted at length several times.

Here's a very comprehensive view of the study

silverharp

when it comes down to it financial resources and the parents being of "good character" will be the biggest drivers. I know one lesbian couple in Dublin , kids go to a private school, live in a nice part of South Dublin both parents university educated. The kids are great and will have better outcomes then the vast majority of kids being raised in working class parts of Dublin. I cant imagine many sane people and themselves more importantly wishing they didnt exist

tommy2bad

I've been thinking about this and it seems to me theirs a confusion between marriage in a religious context and marriage in a civil or legal context. We know roughly the basis for religious marriage and the arguments for it remaining as it is. That's not what this change is about, it's about the civil context.
What business has the state in marriage at all? It strikes me it's little more than the regulation of property rights, inheritance and succession. But theirs more to it than that. Society should encourage 'the Good ' , we see a good in marriage, it forms family units, the basis of society. The place we learn to live as part of a community, with all the compromise, coopcooperation and mutual support that engenders.
We have seen the privatization of marriage increase in the last 30 years, people from family units without the inclusion of the government or society in the contract.
As more people reject marriage as an outmoded patriarchal institute, it's ironically the lgbt community that's defending the traditional version of marriage in raising again the importance of society's role in recognising and supporting the formation of family units.
Religious marriage is not about property rights, it's not about society's art in marriage, it's about gods part. That isn't up for debate by society as a whole, it's for each denomination and creed to define for themselves. However marriage as a civil institute is! If we think marriage is a good thing, something society should encourage and support then we must accept that it's something that must be available to every adult, the right to marry the person of your choice is a a basic human right. To deny this right to some and not others is to limit the support for the instituteinstitute itself!
It looks to me as if it's the anti same sex marriage side is the one attacking marriage not the pro side.

Doctor DooM

Deleted User wrote: »

May be, but Regerenus' study is remarkably tainted, wrong and has been rebutted at length several times.

Here's a very comprehensive view of the study

Now that he's banned, I actually told him that before he started posting "facts".

MrPudding

tommy2bad wrote: »

I've been thinking about this and it seems to me theirs a confusion between marriage in a religious context and marriage in a civil or legal context. We know roughly the basis for religious marriage and the arguments for it remaining as it is. That's not what this change is about, it's about the civil context.
What business has the state in marriage at all? It strikes me it's little more than the regulation of property rights, inheritance and succession. But theirs more to it than that. Society should encourage 'the Good ' , we see a good in marriage, it forms family units, the basis of society. The place we learn to live as part of a community, with all the compromise, coopcooperation and mutual support that engenders.
We have seen the privatization of marriage increase in the last 30 years, people from family units without the inclusion of the government or society in the contract.
As more people reject marriage as an outmoded patriarchal institute, it's ironically the lgbt community that's defending the traditional version of marriage in raising again the importance of society's role in recognising and supporting the formation of family units.
Religious marriage is not about property rights, it's not about society's art in marriage, it's about gods part. That isn't up for debate by society as a whole, it's for each denomination and creed to define for themselves. However marriage as a civil institute is! If we think marriage is a good thing, something society should encourage and support then we must accept that it's something that must be available to every adult, the right to marry the person of your choice is a a basic human right. To deny this right to some and not others is to limit the support for the instituteinstitute itself!
It looks to me as if it's the anti same sex marriage side is the one attacking marriage not the pro side.

There are quite a few people out there that suggest it is time for marriage, as we know it, to go completely, that the state should not be in the marriage business at all. But i think there are justifiable reasons for the state to remain in the marriage business, moreover, be in the business and making it as equal as possible, without detriment to the citizens.

Study after study has shown the the best type of relationship for the raising of children is where the family is headed by a married, loving couple. Studies also show, beyond reasonable or rational dispute, that the sex of the married parents is irrelevant. What is important is the loving and supportive environment. The state has an interest in the continuation of itself, if the best method of that is a family unit with a married couple at the head, then it has an interest in promoting that ideal. Equality makes people happy. Happy people are better members of society. In the absence of any reason for marriage not to be equal, then it should be equal. The state has a basic interest in the establishment and support of marriage, as an institution, the details of what that is, so long as there is no harm in a particular form of it, should be of no interest to the state.

Additional justifications for the existence of marriage might be things like it is something that the people want, and that in itself go some way to justifying its existence. Marriage is seen at the ultimate display of one's love for one's partner. This is a fairly strong justification.

As you mention, a big part of marriage related to property rights and inheritance. This is indeed correct, and this leads to another, less romantic reason for marriage, and why the state is and should be involved. Relationship break down, this is a fact of life. The state being in marriage plays an important role in the dissolution of relationships, specifically marriage. The institution of marriage provide some protection for the weaker partner int he relationship. it also has rules on how to deal with property and children. It might be far from perfect, but it is better than nothing.

Could all this stuff be done another way? Well, yes, most of it probably could. A large part of it is just legal stuff, and that could be dealt with in another way. But the thing is, marriage is special to a lot of people. it come back to this ultimate display of one's love. That is very important to a lot of people, as is the ceremony (still not talking about religious marriage here) and pomp. There is not a lot of romance involved in visiting a solicitor and working out a contract for forming and dissolving a relationship.

TL:DR, I think it is possible to justify the existence of marriage, and the states involvement in it. This justification includes the simple fact that it is wanted as well as the institution is, in and of itself, good for society. And whilst it does exist, the state should, in the absence of a [rational, reasonable, not based on religious doctrine] reason not too, make that institution as equal and accessible to all as possible.

MrP

silverharp

Can I ask a question as a parent. I'm guessing the average age of posters here is 20s. At some stage you are likely going to become parents. Statistically one in ten or less of you will have a child that will be gay.
Will your beliefs affect how you relate or support your child? Will it be a taboo subject ,will you distance yourself from them when they become adults.