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

uck51js9zml2yt

homer911 wrote: »

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/explainer.how.the.bible.splits.christians.on.homosexuality/53031.htm

Interesting article on Christian Today..

What's interesting about it ?

oldrnwisr

Millie Careful Shipwreck wrote: »

Rgarding women in the Church, .let me quote it in full for you from I Corinthians 14 verses 34,35......

" Women[f] should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 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."

In context, Paul was dealing with order in the church. He tells those prophesying to do so one at a time and not to all do it at the same time.

He goes on to tell the women to be silent and to ask their husbands at home about things they want to know more about. In short they were all interrupting proceedings and didn't know how to behave in a public gathering.

It was a bit ingenuous to be taking it out of context

OK, let's get some context back into the discussion then.

1 Corinthians is an epistle to Corinth, a church in Greece who at the time of Paul's epistle wasn't exactly running smoothly. Things had become rather fractious and there was great disorder in the church. People were getting drunk while others were left to go hungry and a number of people were speaking in tongues. However the only apparent transgression that the women appear to be guilty of is of not covering their heads. Therefore, picking on women in 1 Corinthians 14 by admonishing them to be silent when there were a great many at fault is unfair.

Secondly, the context of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is reinforced by 1 Timothy 2:9-15 and also tangentially by Colossians 3:18-19. Paul's message in these passages is clear, that women should be submissive and subservient to their husbands, remain quiet in church and only be educated by asking their husbands. That is not a message that is reflective of someone who is supposed to reflect the will of God.

Millie Careful Shipwreck wrote: »

You mention Paul taking Peter down for his hypocrisy. It seems Peter had no problem with Paul going as later he says concerning Paul and his writings the following.

2 Peter 3:15,16 New International Version (NIV)
"15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

Its interesting that in these verses Peter refers to him as a "dear brother" and defends Pauls writing to others. He also equates Pauls writings with other Scriptures. It suggests that he put Pauls writings on a par with other biblical writings.

There are several problems with your line of argument here.

Firstly, a minor point. Peter is almost certainly not referring to all of Paul's letters in the passage above. Since epistles like Titus and 1 & 2 Timothy were only completed at or after the time of Peter's death, he is unlikely to have been aware of them.

In fact, being aware is something on which your argument hinges. Peter died in 64CE and Galatians was completed sometime between 50-60CE. So it's not a given that Peter would even have been aware of Paul's criticism in Galatians.

Then of course, there's the elephant in the room that 2 Peter is pseudipgraphal, it was not actually writen by Peter. There are several reasons for this.

Firstly, there is evidence from the Bible itself. Acts 4:13, for example describes Peter (and John for that matter) as illiterate. Even in 2 Peter itself, its should be apparent that this was not written by Peter. 2 Peter 3:3-4 talks about people mocking Christians for the apparent failure of Jesus' prophetic claim in Matthew 24:34. If this was written by Peter before his death, say sometime around 60CE, then there wouldn't be much of a reason, yet, to mock Jesus' prophecy. However, the mocking makes more sense when you consider the work as pseudiepigraphal with a composition date (according to scholarly majority) of 100-150CE.

Secondly, 2 Peter quotes and borrows heavily from Jude. This creates two problems. Firstly, someone so ostensibly close to Jesus shouldn't need to borrow from another writer to tell his story. Secondly, even conservative scholars date the composition of Jude to between 66 and 90 CE, a time when Peter when Peter would already be dead. Other more objective scholars place Jude's composition somewhere between 90 and 125CE.

Thirdly, there are several other lesser indicators that this work was not written by Peter. It is written in a very cultured Greek style, something not becoming of a fisherman. It makes references to the Hebrew Bible but only to the Septuagint, something Peter would be unlikely to have used. It contains very little personal anecdotes to connect the author with Jesus, an aberration for a book claimed to be written by Jesus' most trusted confidant. Peter makes reference to Rome as Babylon in 1 Peter 5:13, something that Christians only began to use after the publication of Revelations around 90CE.

In summary, it is unlikely that the person who wrote the passage above in 2 Peter was actually Peter. However, even if Peter had no problem with Paul's criticism, the fact remains that Paul, in criticising Peter in the first place, goes against Jesus' clear teaching.

Millie Careful Shipwreck wrote: »

To quash the idea that I'm equating murders with homosexuals. I never said that. I said from a scriptural perspective. They are the same in relation to both being sin.

Like hell you didn't.

You said:

Millie Careful Shipwreck wrote: »

Do I think any less of homosexuals? The same question can be asked of thieves, liars, murderers. As far as God is concerned sin is sin and needs to be repented of and forsaken.

You mentioned thieves, liars and murderers in the context of how you think of them compared to homosexuals. You clearly equated them. There was no need of that to make your point other than to antagonise.

Millie Careful Shipwreck wrote: »

The physical act is obviously different in that homosexuals don't generally kill people, though I'm sure some have

Again you feel the need to be casually offensive. I invite you, in the spirit of a civil debate to withdraw that remark.

Millie Careful Shipwreck wrote: »

But as you said, there is a whole list. God considers it all sin. As the government hasn't asked us to vote on whether we should have religious idols or not its superfluous to the debate.

So, if a referendum was called to ban all non-Christian religions, or jail all non-Christians, how would you vote?

Oh, and any time you feel like answering my response to your false claim about homosexuality being a choice, let me know.

SireOfSeth

Apologies if this has already been posted/commented on before. I'd never seen it, and really enjoyed it. It's a shame though that this is even up for discussion in this day and age.

aloyisious

Nice photo taken on Liffey Quays today.

Ghost Buster

newmug wrote: »

That was only sneaked in recently, WITHOUT asking the people, by the govt. who is promoting a yes vote. This has to be one of the most farcical referendum campaigns ever carried out in the Republic of Ireland.

It wasnt a constitutional matter and so required no referendum.
The democratically elected Govt acted. Boo hoo if they didnt take your prejudices into account.:D

SireOfSeth

galljga1 wrote: »

At this moment in time, gay people can adopt children, can avail of donor assisted reproduction and surrogacy.

Voting yes or no is not going to change this.

newmug wrote: »

That was only sneaked in recently, WITHOUT asking the people, by the govt. who is promoting a yes vote. This has to be one of the most farcical referendum campaigns ever carried out in the Republic of Ireland.

You make it sound like that wasn't the correct thing for the govt. to introduce. Why would they need to ask the people? Obviously, gay people should be allowed to adopt.

katydid

SireOfSeth wrote: »

You make it sound like that wasn't the correct thing for the govt. to introduce. Why would they need to ask the people? Obviously, gay people should be allowed to adopt.

Not so obvious to everyone, apparently.

homer911

Whether or not the forthcoming referendum is passed, this will be an interesting situation for the churches in Ireland to deal with ..

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/church.refused.baptism.for.son.of.gay.christian.couple/53490.htm

MrPudding

homer911 wrote: »

Whether or not the forthcoming referendum is passed, this will be an interesting situation for the churches in Ireland to deal with ..

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/church.refused.baptism.for.son.of.gay.christian.couple/53490.htm

Meh. I am a supported of SSM and I am also great disliker of religion in general, and I see no issue with this. Churches in Ireland already refuse to baptise children born of parents that aren't married, I don't see why this would be any different. Their club, their rules.

MrP

katydid

homer911 wrote: »

Whether or not the forthcoming referendum is passed, this will be an interesting situation for the churches in Ireland to deal with ..

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/church.refused.baptism.for.son.of.gay.christian.couple/53490.htm

Nothing to do with gay marriage, but yes, interesting.

The story here is really how the priest allowed themselves to be bullied by one member of the congregation...

katydid

MrPudding wrote: »

Meh. I am a supported of SSM and I am also great disliker of religion in general, and I see no issue with this. Churches in Ireland already refuse to baptise children born of parents that aren't married, I don't see why this would be any different. Their club, their rules.

MrP

Yes, but the scandalous thing here is that the couple were more than welcome in the church, and most of the congregation were positive towards them. Apparently one member complained about the baptism, and the priest, instead of telling them politely what pier to jump off, listened to them.

MrPudding

katydid wrote: »

Yes, but the scandalous thing here is that the couple were more than welcome in the church, and most of the congregation were positive towards them. Apparently one member complained about the baptism, and the priest, instead of telling them politely what pier to jump off, listened to them.

I can see how that might be an issue, but as you rightly say, 'merica, and whilst it is a poor form to agree to do something and then to change your mind at short notice, it is still their club and their rules.

MrP

katydid

MrPudding wrote: »

I can see how that might be an issue, but as you rightly say, 'merica, and whilst it is a poor form to agree to do something and then to change your mind at short notice, it is still their club and their rules.

MrP

Yes, but it's an Episcopal church, not a Roman Catholic one. Episcopals/Anglicans are democratic and tolerant, and while the congregation doesn't have the right to dictate religious or liturgical matters to the clergy, they do have a right to have him or her explain and justify their actions, when the majority of the congregation clearly didn't have a problem with this couple.

PopePalpatine

I wouldn't be surprised if the RCC did that. It would have the double whammy of possibly screwing them out of a place in a school a few years down the line, if our politicians are still too cowardly to tackle the issue of school patronage.

Delirium

MOD NOTE

Nick Park wrote: »

It is part of historic Christian belief that the Holy Spirit (who is God) inspired the writings of Paul just as much as He inspired the Gospel writers.

As a non-Christian, you obviously are free to disagree with this doctrine, but don't you think that an atheist arguing the toss about it in this thread, in this forum, will only serve to hijack the thread?

All posters, be they Christian or otherwise, are welcome to post in any thread in the forum as long as they don't breach the charter.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You seem to have missed the parts of my post where I stated I was trying to have a discussion with a particular poster who does not agree that civil law and Christian doctrine should remain separate - quite the opposite in fact.

Rabbits notwithstanding you are not the bunny I am trying to have a discussion with at this time.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I didn't 'attack' as you so dramatically put it. I queried one poster's interpretation for clarification and then you and you rabbits hopped in.

Please refrain from referring to other poster(s) as rabbits/bunnies.

Thanks for your attention.

Greaney

On Friday the 8th of May, in Galway, there was to be a public meeting,
SAME SEX MARRIAGE
YES OR N0
A REASONED APPROACH
BY DR. MICHAEL DAVIDSON
( CORE ISSUES TRUST).

Due to threats etc. directed at the hotel that had taken the booking to host, they called the organisers and cancelled it. The organisers could not find another venue so it had to be held in a private home. Although the Hotel was in breach of contract, the organisers will not be taking any action.

Meanwhile The 'yes campaign will be having a number of events this weekend in the same town, a public march, and a fundraiser.

The meeting did take place eventually, in a private home. Of course, numbers were small (who would attend a 'public meeting' in the home of someone they didn't know?). It was thought at first that it was unfortunate that the meeting was cancelled but it only went to highlight why it's so important to really look at the consequences of voting 'Yes or No' on the 22nd of May.

Delirium

Greaney wrote: »

On Friday the 8th of May, in Galway, there was to be a public meeting,
SAME SEX MARRIAGE
YES OR N0
A REASONED APPROACH
BY DR. MICHAEL DAVIDSON
( CORE ISSUES TRUST).

Due to threats etc. directed at the hotel that had taken the booking to host, they called the organisers and cancelled it. The organisers could not find another venue so it had to be held in a private home. Although the Hotel was in breach of contract, the organisers will not be taking any action.

Meanwhile The 'yes campaign will be having a number of events this weekend in the same town, a public march, and a fundraiser.

The meeting did take place eventually, in a private home. Of course, numbers were small (who would attend a 'public meeting' in the home of someone they didn't know?). It was thought at first that it was unfortunate that the meeting was cancelled but it only went to highlight why it's so important to really look at the consequences of voting 'Yes or No' on the 22nd of May.

Not the story according to theJournal.ie

A GROUP WHICH believes people can change their sexuality through counselling has had a meeting tomorrow cancelled.

Mike Davidson, director of the UK-based Core Issues Trust, had been set to speak at the event which will focus on the upcoming same-sex marriage referendum.

His group describes itself as one that “assists men and women who voluntarily chose to understand and change their same-sex attraction and expression”.

However, it also says that it respects the rights of individuals who identify as gay and do not want to change.

Bill Hamilton, who had organised the ’Yes or No, a Faith Perspective on Issues Concerning Same-Sex Marriage’ event, said that the hotel had withdrawn the use of its facilities after being contacted by media.

Link

In addition, the group offer conversion therapy which is extremely damaging to any homosexuals that avail of it.

There's even talk that the White House is looking into banning it in the US.

EDIT: @Greaney

From the charter.

If you are quoting from other sources, please provide a link or mention the source

So it would be appreciated if you could link to the source of your text.

Greaney

It is a story, to Christians. In fairness, this is a Christian thread/forum.

I don't understand what you meant by quoting sources from other sources? I'm not, I'm posting my post, from the information I know, because I personally spoke to the hotel on the phone.

silverharp

From the Independant


http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/as-a-man-of-faith-and-a-proud-dad-to-a-gay-son-i-urge-all-catholics-to-do-the-right-thing-and-vote-yes-31208271.html

As a man of faith and a proud dad to a gay son, I urge all Catholics to do the right thing – and vote ‘Yes’
Since my youngest boy came out, I have been on a journey that showed me being a Christian is about loving all equally, writes Tom Curran

The end result of Finnian's serial coming-out was a family pulling together in a generational way. The younger ones just absorbed it and moved on. Noeleen and I had always known that the greatest love you have is for your own, and we learned you measure it by doing things for them. Which is why I'm jettisoning the privacy, the anonymity of a lifetime to publicly affirm my son, and more importantly, to affirm his equality as a citizen of Ireland and a member of a loving family.
I've come on a journey, in terms of my belief, and I feel comfortable in urging all people of faith to consider the equal marriage referendum seriously and to vote yes. In my view, it's the right thing - the moral thing - to do.
Tom Curran is Fine Gael general secretary. He has been involved in the establishment of Association of Catholics of Ireland and has facilitated a number of workshops for Association of Catholic Priests. He is also involved in his local parish of Enfield/Rathmolyon, Diocese of Meath.

Delirium

Greaney wrote: »

It is a story, to Christians. In fairness, this is a Christian thread/forum.

I don't understand what you meant by quoting sources from other sources? I'm not, I'm posting my post, from the information I know, because I personally spoke to the hotel on the phone.

apologies, I thought you'd quoted it from another website. Didn't realise it you phoned the hotel.

Though it is strange that the organisers stated that it was due to media contacting them, rather than threats to the hotel.

And I never said it isn't a story of interest to Christians, rather that one of the guests/speakers contradicts what you poster yourself. Hence why I asked for the origin of your claims in your post.

Benny_Cake

I saw bits and pieces about that event a week ago on Twitter. I don't doubt that people did contact the hotel to ask if they were aware of the nature of the group that were using it for the event, I don't see anything sinister in that of itself. Conversion "therapy" is a controversial and extreme practice that I'd imagine even most No campaigners would dismiss.

Even Exodus International, the most high-profile organisation linked with conversion "therapy" has accepted that it simply doesn't work and has apologised to the gay community.

silverharp

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I saw bits and pieces about that event a week ago on Twitter. I don't doubt that people did contact the hotel to ask if they were aware of the nature of the group that were using it for the event, I don't see anything sinister in that of itself. Conversion "therapy" is a controversial and extreme practice that I'd imagine even most No campaigners would dismiss.

Even Exodus International, the most high-profile organisation linked with conversion "therapy" has accepted that it simply doesn't work and has apologised to the gay community.

its led to suicides in the US where "christian" parents have forced their kids down this route, child abuse and its legal

Greaney

silverharp wrote: »

its led to suicides in the US where "christian" parents have forced their kids down this route, child abuse and its legal

Forcing kids? That's very different to what Core Issues say on their website.

'Core is a non-profit Christian ministry supporting men and women with homosexual issues who voluntarily seek change in sexual preference and expression. It respects the rights of individuals who identify as 'gay' who do not seek change, and supports dignity for LGBT persons.'

I also notice the moderators didn't ask you to back up that statement with links and references.

@SW 'Though it is strange that the organizers stated that it was due to media contacting them, rather than threats to the hotel. '

The organizers have used the hotel for years, no problem. The hotel had phoned them to cancel the day before the event and explained that they, the hotel had received threats, not the organizers. I think you got some false info there.

Delirium

Greaney wrote: »

I also notice the moderators didn't ask you to back up that statement with links and references.

I was already aware of cases of homosexual children being forced to conversion therapy in the states. So I felt no need to ask for a link/reference.

You posted uncredited text that contradicted the story in the available news site, so asked you to explain the contradiction.

I hope that clears up the situation for you.

Delirium

Greaney wrote: »

@SW 'Though it is strange that the organizers stated that it was due to media contacting them, rather than threats to the hotel. '

The organizers have used the hotel for years, no problem. The hotel had phoned them to cancel the day before the event and explained that they, the hotel had received threats, not the organizers. I think you got some false info there.

You may take it up with the spokes-person for the group that were to speak at the event and/or theJournal.ie, as that is what he is quoted as saying on theJournal.ie.

Bill Hamilton, who had organised the ’Yes or No, a Faith Perspective on Issues Concerning Same-Sex Marriage’ event, said that the hotel had withdrawn the use of its facilities after being contacted by media.

Link to source

silverharp

Greaney wrote: »

Forcing kids? That's very different to what Core Issues say on their website.

'Core is a non-profit Christian ministry supporting men and women with homosexual issues who voluntarily seek change in sexual preference and expression. It respects the rights of individuals who identify as 'gay' who do not seek change, and supports dignity for LGBT persons.'

Its the "therapy" which sounds completely bogus and has led to deaths in America, it was the story below that stuck in my head

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11320725/US-teenager-refused-permission-to-change-sex-by-Christian-parents-commits-suicide.html

A teenage boy who committed suicide when his devoutly Christian parents rejected his request to become a woman has sparked a fresh debate over how to handle children with gender identity issues.
Leelah Alcorn – who was born “Josh” – threw himself under the wheels of a lorry near his home outside Cincinnati, Ohio at 2.00am last Sunday leaving behind a bitter and impassioned suicide note about his experience.
“I feel like a girl trapped in a boy’s body, and I’ve felt that way ever since I was 4,” the 17-year-old wrote, “I never knew there was a word for that feeling, nor was it possible for a boy to become a girl, so I never told anyone and I just continued to do traditionally “boyish” things to try to fit in."
When he was 14, the teenager recalled, he had “cried with happiness” after he had discovered the existence of other transgender people, but was rejected by his mother, Carla, who said the desire to become a girl was “a phase” and that “God doesn’t make mistakes”.
Even after the suicide, Mrs Alcorn appeared unable to accept that her male child wanted to become female.

“We don't support that, religiously,” she told CNN, her voice cracking. “But we told him that we loved him unconditionally. We loved him no matter what. I loved my son. People need to know that I loved him. He was a good kid, a good boy.”
The 1,000-word suicide note has raised fresh questions about the use of “conversion therapy”, the practice among religious groups of trying to teach gay, lesbian or transgender people to overcome their desires through religious devotion.

Nick Park

silverharp wrote: »

Its the "therapy" which sounds completely bogus and has led to deaths in America, it was the story below that stuck in my head

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11320725/US-teenager-refused-permission-to-change-sex-by-Christian-parents-commits-suicide.html

So, let's get this straight, a hotel in Ireland pulled a meeting by a group on the grounds that they offer a therapy, and solely offer it to adults who request it. This therapy, while perfectly legal in Ireland, has, in another part of the world, been forcibly applied to others, including minors, and a number of suicides have resulted.

I wonder what would happen if a hotel or conference centre cancelled a booking from a 'pro-choice' group on a similar basis. I suspect that the howls of protest would be loud and vocal. After all, abortion, like conversion therapy, has been forcibly applied to others (including minors) in other parts of the world. Indeed, the instances of people committing suicide after being forced to undergo a forced abortion would be considerably more than those connected to conversion therapy. Not only that, but abortion, unlike conversion therapy, is illegal in Ireland.

I am no fan of the group concerned in this case, or of conversion therapy. But the stench of hypocrisy is hard to bear.

Nick Park

SW wrote: »

I was already aware of cases of homosexual children being forced to conversion therapy in the states. So I felt no need to ask for a link/reference.

You posted uncredited text that contradicted the story in the available news site, so asked you to explain the contradiction.

I hope that clears up the situation for you.

This question is purely for clarification, and if I am posting it in the wrong place then please delete.

It appears from the above that the need to provide supporting links for a claim in this forum is governed by the knowledge of a particular moderator. If the moderator believes that they know something to be true, then there is no need to provide links to substantiate a claim.

If, however, the moderator disagrees with a claim, or believes that they lack sufficient knowledge of the claim, then it must be supported by links. Is that the case?

Am I understanding the situation correctly? For future reference I want to make sure that my posts comply with moderating policy.

silverharp

Nick Park wrote: »

So, let's get this straight, a hotel in Ireland pulled a meeting by a group on the grounds that they offer a therapy, and solely offer it to adults who request it. This therapy, while perfectly legal in Ireland, has, in another part of the world, been forcibly applied to others, including minors, and a number of suicides have resulted.

I wonder what would happen if a hotel or conference centre cancelled a booking from a 'pro-choice' group on a similar basis. I suspect that the howls of protest would be loud and vocal. After all, abortion, like conversion therapy, has been forcibly applied to others (including minors) in other parts of the world. Indeed, the instances of people committing suicide after being forced to undergo a forced abortion would be considerably more than those connected to conversion therapy. Not only that, but abortion, unlike conversion therapy, is illegal in Ireland.

I am no fan of the group concerned in this case, or of conversion therapy. But the stench of hypocrisy is hard to bear.

I'm total free speech , no event should ever be bullied into not happening. I was just giving some details on why its controversial. we are not talking about Homeopathy which at its worst will not work , but has a high risk of psychologically damaging people , or worse still selling snake oil to christian parents which will damage their kids.

Delirium

Nick Park wrote: »

This question is purely for clarification, and if I am posting it in the wrong place then please delete.

It appears from the above that the need to provide supporting links for a claim in this forum is governed by the knowledge of a particular moderator. If the moderator believes that they know something to be true, then there is no need to provide links to substantiate a claim.

If, however, the moderator disagrees with a claim, or believes that they lack sufficient knowledge of the claim, then it must be supported by links. Is that the case?

Am I understanding the situation correctly? For future reference I want to make sure that my posts comply with moderating policy.

I'll answer it and hoping that'll clear it up for people.

Greaney posted the following:

Greaney wrote: »

On Friday the 8th of May, in Galway, there was to be a public meeting,
SAME SEX MARRIAGE
YES OR N0
A REASONED APPROACH
BY DR. MICHAEL DAVIDSON
( CORE ISSUES TRUST).

Due to threats etc. directed at the hotel that had taken the booking to host, they called the organisers and cancelled it. The organisers could not find another venue so it had to be held in a private home. Although the Hotel was in breach of contract, the organisers will not be taking any action.

Meanwhile The 'yes campaign will be having a number of events this weekend in the same town, a public march, and a fundraiser.

The meeting did take place eventually, in a private home. Of course, numbers were small (who would attend a 'public meeting' in the home of someone they didn't know?). It was thought at first that it was unfortunate that the meeting was cancelled but it only went to highlight why it's so important to really look at the consequences of voting 'Yes or No' on the 22nd of May.

Which to my eye looked like a copy and paste of a press relase. So I quoted the charter, which states:

If you are quoting from other sources, please provide a link or mention the source

So, Greaney was asked for a link because it seemed as though the post breached the charter.

Now, compare with the post Greaney was unhappy with due to lack of request for links.

silverharp wrote: »

its led to suicides in the US where "christian" parents have forced their kids down this route, child abuse and its legal

Certainly doesn't read like it's anything other than the posters own words. Definitely doesn't read as a cut and paste from another site, so it doesn't breach the charter.

In hindsight, I should have probably stated that to avoid this confusion, but what's done is done.

TLDR? Moderating is guided by the charter, as it always has been. One post potentially breached it, one did not.

Hope that clears it up for everyone.