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

PDN

NuMarvel wrote: »

I mentioned this in a previous thread, but according to the Bible (Mark 10), anyone who divorces and remarries isn't just living in sin. They're committing adultery and therefore breaking one of the Ten Commandments.

Can those who are using the Bible to oppose same sex civil marriage can confirm they are equally as fervent about stopping civil marriages involving divorced men or women? Because, in 2009 alone, 2,056 civil marriages involved at least one divorced person (CSO).

Is their a point to this? Has anyone in this thread actually claimed that nothing that is deemed sinful by the Church should be permitted under civil law?

Bannasidhe

PDN wrote: »

Thankfully on this Forum we discuss Christianity, not the stuff that might run through the disordered heads of 'some people'.

Again we are back to the fact that there are so many,many forms of Christianity that the word itself defies a precise meaning- perhaps it's time the word is redefined as it seems to me to be a pretty broad term which encompasses a wide variety of often very conflicting viewpoints.

PDN = Christian.
Fred Phelps =Christian.
Benedict XVI = Christian.
Rowan Williams = Christian.
Ian Paisley Snr = Christian.
Iris Robinson = Christian.
David Norris = Christian.
Bartholomew I = Christian.
Shenouda III = Christian.
Anders Wejryd = Christian.

For someone who is so annoyed when people are not precise in their use of terminology it seems strange that you employ a term to describe yourself that is open to such a wide interpretation.

PDN

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Again we are back to the fact that there are so many,many forms of Christianity that the word itself defies a precise meaning- perhaps it's time the word is redefined as it seems to me to be a pretty broad term which encompasses a wide variety of often very conflicting viewpoints.

PDN = Christian.
Fred Phelps =Christian.
Benedict XVI = Christian.
Rowan Williams = Christian.
Ian Paisley Snr = Christian.
Iris Robinson = Christian.
David Norris = Christian.
Bartholomew I = Christian.
Shenouda III = Christian.
Anders Wejryd = Christian.

For someone who is so annoyed when people are not precise in their use of terminology it seems strange that you employ a term to describe yourself that is open to such a wide interpretation.

So, you think I should abandon using any word that people might choose to use in more than one way?

You are a reasonable chappie aren't you?

None of that, of course alters the fact that many Christians have demonstrated love in very real ways. So your comment about Christian love being an oxymoron is just old fashioned trolling.

NuMarvel

PDN wrote: »

Is their a point to this? Has anyone in this thread actually claimed that nothing that is deemed sinful by the Church should be permitted under civil law?

We're on the Christianity forum, so I think it's fair to believe that anyone objecting to same sex marriage rights is doing so because of the Bible unless they specifically say otherwise (as you have done).

If I'm wrong and the Bible isn't of relevance to the thread, then I'm not sure why it's is in the Christianity forum in the first place. It would be better served somewhere else.

PDN

NuMarvel wrote: »

We're on the Christianity forum, so I think it's fair to believe that anyone objecting to same sex marriage rights is doing so because of the Bible unless they specifically say otherwise (as you have done).

If I'm wrong and the Bible isn't of relevance to the thread, then I'm not sure why it's is in the Christianity forum in the first place. It would be better served somewhere else.

I'm asking you again, Has anyone in this thread actually claimed that nothing that is deemed sinful by the Church should be permitted under civil law?

Bannasidhe

PDN wrote: »

So, you think I should abandon using any word that people might choose to use in more than one way?

You are a reasonable chappie aren't you?

None of that, of course alters the fact that many Christians have demonstrated love in very real ways. So your comment about Christian love being an oxymoron is just old fashioned trolling.

I'm not a chappie at all. But yes, on the whole I am a reasonable person - I've even thanked some of your posts on the grounds that I agree with them . (tongue in cheek light hearted comment!)

As for - 'you think I should abandon using any word that people might choose to use in more than one way?' Correct me if I am wrong, but arn't you arguing that the term marriage should not be used for same-sex unions because you do not agree with that usage?

My Christian love comment wasn't trolling actually - it was a query re: meaning of words. I would not for a second deny that many Christians have displayed love in the conventional meaning of the word, and many have expressed love in a 'love thy neighbour way' which takes in all of humanity. I admire, applaud and and am in awe of these people.

What cannot be denied is the some Christians have acted in a way that is the antithesis of the conventional meaning of 'love' while still using the word as justification for their actions. A bizarre Jesus Loves Me so I hate Fags philosophy.

As the definition of 'Christian' is so open it can be hard to tell the difference sometimes....

PDN

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm not a chappie at all. But yes, on the whole I am a reasonable person - I've even thanked some of your posts on the grounds that I agree with them . (tongue in cheek light hearted comment!)

As for - 'you think I should abandon using any word that people might choose to use in more than one way?' Correct me if I am wrong, but arn't you arguing that the term marriage should not be used for same-sex unions because you do not agree with that usage?

My Christian love comment wasn't trolling actually - it was a query re: meaning of words. I would not for a second deny that many Christians have displayed love in the conventional meaning of the word, and many have expressed love in a 'love thy neighbour way' which takes in all of humanity. I admire, applaud and and am in awe of these people.

What cannot be denied is the some Christians have acted in a way that is the antithesis of the conventional meaning of 'love' while still using the word as justification for their actions. A bizarre Jesus Loves Me so I hate Fags philosophy.

As the definition of 'Christian' is so open it can be hard to tell the difference sometimes....

Quite how this 'point' relates to this thread is a mystery.

I believe that the word 'marriage' has a distinct meaning. One that has been agreed for many years and is contained in most dictionaries that I have consulted. You disagree, as you are entitled to do so.

The word 'Christian' is used in different ways. these include:
a) Somebody brought up in a society where the culture has been influenced by Christianity. (It is in this sense that Richard Dawkins has called himself a cultural Christian).
b) Someone who belongs to a Christian church or denomination.
c) Someone who self-identifies as a Christian.
d) Someone who is a committed follower of Jesus Christ and seeks to live by His teachings.
e) Someone who has experienced a personal conversion known as being 'born again.'

Since all of these apply to myself, I fail to see the issue with calling myself a Christian. Or what that has to do with homosexuality.

IT-Guy

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's my understanding that PDN isn't denying anyone the rights to enter into unions. I gather the bone of contention is the use of the word marriage - which in the context of Christianity, Islam, Judaism and other worldviews has a very specific meaning.

And it's meaning will not change for couples marrying in any of those religions. The move to rename marriage simply because it can or will apply to same-sex couples is the logical equivalent of moving house because a same-sex couple moved in next door.

NuMarvel

PDN wrote: »

I'm asking you again, Has anyone in this thread actually claimed that nothing that is deemed sinful by the Church should be permitted under civil law?

Just to be clear, I didn't make that claim. I refer only to civil marriages because that is the topic currently being discussed. There's nothing in my previous post that suggests the breadth of what you're claiming.

And in relation to civil marriages, yes posters on this thread have used the Bible as a reason for not allowing it. I'm posting from a phone so I can't link to anything, but there's a post on the first page where a poster says not to forget the Bible after the topic of same sex marriage is brought up.

PDN

NuMarvel wrote: »

Just to be clear, I didn't make that claim. I refer only to civil marriages because that is the topic currently being discussed. There's nothing in my previous post that suggests the breadth of what you're claiming.

And in relation to civil marriages, yes posters on this thread have used the Bible as a reason for not allowing it. I'm posting from a phone so I can't link to anything, but there's a post on the first page where a poster says not to forget the Bible after the topic of same sex marriage is brought up.

The thread is about homosexuality and Christianity. And in the first page there is a post which, without mentioning marriage at all, says "Let's remember the Bible in this discussion". It then goes on to draw a distinction between homosexual acts and homosexuality as an orientation, which would rather indicate that marriage is not being referred to, wouldn't it?

Bannasidhe

PDN wrote: »

Quite how this 'point' relates to this thread is a mystery.

I believe that the word 'marriage' has a distinct meaning. One that has been agreed for many years and is contained in most dictionaries that I have consulted. You disagree, as you are entitled to do so.

The word 'Christian' is used in different ways. these include:
a) Somebody brought up in a society where the culture has been influenced by Christianity. (It is in this sense that Richard Dawkins has called himself a cultural Christian).
b) Someone who belongs to a Christian church or denomination.
c) Someone who self-identifies as a Christian.
d) Someone who is a committed follower of Jesus Christ and seeks to live by His teachings.
e) Someone who has experienced a personal conversion known as being 'born again.'

Since all of these apply to myself, I fail to see the issue with calling myself a Christian. Or what that has to do with homosexuality.

Because - and I am amazed that I actually have to spell this out - we keep reading statements which contain the words 'as a Christian I believe' in connection with homosexuality/gay marriage/ Gay 'lifestyle' (whatever that is) but all Christians do not believe the same things. There is no precise meaning of the term 'Christian' which indicates what one actually believes. There are many conflicting definitions.

List of Christian denominations here :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

Don't have the time or inclination to count them all so lets say there are lots. Certainly several hundred most of whom would claim to be following the 'true' Christian path and claim that all the others are wrong. They believe conflicting things - so how can the statement 'as I Christian I believe' have any meaning?


Marriage means when two (or more) adults enter into a legally binding, committed, life partnership recognised by the civil state which grants them legal kin-ship and specific rights and responsibilities.

Marriage can also mean when two (or more) adults engage in a symbolic religious ritual where they formalise their relationship and announce their intention to live a as committed, life partners. This ritual has no standing in law.

How many definitions is that? 2? 3? 4?

Certainly not the several hundred (thousands?) definitions that can be applied to a term you and others use to describe a belief system- yet you quibble about what 'marriage' means.

PDN

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Don't have the time or inclination to count them all so lets say there are lots. Certainly several hundred most of whom would claim to be following the 'true' Christian path and claim that all the others are wrong.

Just to point out, this erroneous claim is often blundered into by non-Christian posters here. Most Christian denominations do not claim that all others are wrong. Do your homework before you troll.

so how can the statement 'as I Christian I believe' have any meaning?

Quite easily. The context usually makes it pretty clear.

Certainly not the several hundred (thousands?) definitions that can be applied to a term you and others use to describe a belief system

Oops! That's twice you've committed that particular schoolboy howler. Thousands of different denominations happily share a common definition of what constitutes a Christian.

Anyway, it's interesting that you've abandoned any rational attempt to engage with Christian beliefs about homosexuality.

Marriage means when two (or more) adults enter into a legally binding, committed, life partnership recognised by the civil state which grants them legal kin-ship and specific rights and responsibilities.

Marriage can also mean when two (or more) adults engage in a symbolic religious ritual where they formalise their relationship and announce their intention to live a as committed, life partners. This ritual has no standing in law.

How many definitions is that? 2? 3? 4?

It can be as many definitions as you want if you are happy to make words mean whatever you want them to mean.

'Marriage' is another word for a teapot, if that makes you happy.

I don't get that you don't get it
christian can involve different things to different people
marriage can involve different things to different people
getting hung up on "marriage" being one man and woman only or one man and several women only seems strange

she's making a simple substitute to demonstrate her point

Bannasidhe

PDN wrote: »

Just to point out, this erroneous claim is often blundered into by non-Christian posters here. Most Christian denominations do not claim that all others are wrong. Do your homework before you troll.


Quite easily. The context usually makes it pretty clear.

Oops! That's twice you've committed that particular schoolboy howler. Thousands of different denominations happily share a common definition of what constitutes a Christian.

Anyway, it's interesting that you've abandoned any rational attempt to engage with Christian beliefs about homosexuality.



It can be as many definitions as you want if you are happy to make words mean whatever you want them to mean.

'Marriage' is another word for a teapot, if that makes you happy.

'Schoolboy error', 'Troll' - oh dear, oh dear. Would that be resorting to ridicule PDN?
But if it makes you feel better you can call me intolerant again if you wish. I don't mind. It makes me chuckle.


I am trying to engage with Christian beliefs about homosexuality and have no choice but to express my confusion as to what those beliefs actually are as even a cursory bit of research makes it clear that ye all can't seem to agree. Since ye all can't agree it makes it gosh darned hard to engage with them.

Could you please provide me with a definitive statement re:homosexuality that every, single Christian would agree with and I promise to engage with it. OR if that is not possible, how about a definitive statement re:homosexuality that every, single Christian denomination will agree with?

PDN

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't get that you don't get it
christian can involve different things to different people
marriage can involve different things to different people
getting hung up on "marriage" being one man and woman only or one man and several women only seems strange

Who's hung up on it? I've simply observed that I would prefer that the word 'marriage' should retain the meaning defined in most dictionaries and recognised by law.

A number of posters seem to very unhappy that my opinion doesn't coincide with theirs. So unhappy (or intolerant) that want to devote a lot of time trying to argue with me. And I've defended my right to hold a different opinion.

If you choose to have a different opinion then I don't really give a rat's ass. I don't feel a compulsion to keep trying to make you see it my way. Do you see me posting continually in A&A trying to convert people to my way of thinking?

If the legal definition of marriage is changed, then I've said I'll go along with that. I would, in that case, prefer to use a different word to refer to what was previously known as 'marriage'.

Don't really see what all the fuss is about, to be honest. Live and let live.

PDN

Bannasidhe wrote: »

'Schoolboy error', 'Troll' - oh dear, oh dear. Would that be resorting to ridicule PDN?
But if it makes you feel better you can call me intolerant again if you wish. I don't mind. It makes me chuckle.

Well it also makes you keep posting on the Christianity Forum, trying to change my mind to comply with you.

I am trying to engage with Christian beliefs about homosexuality and have no choice but to express my confusion as to what those beliefs actually are as even a cursory bit of research makes it clear that ye all can't seem to agree. Since ye all can't agree it makes it gosh darned hard to engage with them.

I'm sorry that you find it hard to engage with anyone who doesn't share an all-inclusive groupthink.

Different Christians have different views about homosexuality. If that is an insurmountable problem for you then I'm afraid I can't do much to help you.

Could you please provide me with a definitive statement re:homosexuality that every, single Christian would agree with and I promise to engage with it. OR if that is not possible, how about a definitive statement re:homosexuality that every, single Christian denomination will agree with?

Sorry, I can't reply to such an asinine request without resorting to ridicule.

Who in this thread has ever claimed that such agreement existed?

PDN

PDN wrote: »

Who's hung up on it? I've simply observed that I would prefer that the word 'marriage' should retain the meaning defined in most dictionaries and recognised by law.

A number of posters seem to very unhappy that my opinion doesn't coincide with theirs. So unhappy (or intolerant) that want to devote a lot of time trying to argue with me. And I've defended my right to hold a different opinion.

If you choose to have a different opinion then I don't really give a rat's ass. I don't feel a compulsion to keep trying to make you see it my way. Do you see me posting continually in A&A trying to convert people to my way of thinking?

If the legal definition of marriage is changed, then I've said I'll go along with that. I would, in that case, prefer to use a different word to refer to what was previously known as 'marriage'.

Don't really see what all the fuss is about, to be honest. Live and let live.

This is a discussion forum, PDN. We're here to discuss things. Some of which affect us quite directly.
Telling us all you "don't give a rat's ass" after yelling about schoolboy howlers, trolling, and then finally not having an answer to simple logic? really?
If you care so little let someone else reply to her, the discussion is hardly that personalised

PDN

bluewolf wrote: »

This is a discussion forum, PDN. We're here to discuss things. Some of which affect us quite directly.
Telling us all you "don't give a rat's ass" after yelling about schoolboy howlers, trolling, and then finally not having an answer to simple logic? really?

Yes, really. I honestly don't mind that you choose to define 'marriage' differently.

But, to make false claims about 'thousands of denominations all claiming that they are right and all others are wrong' is absolute nnonsense. To falsely claim that each Christian denomination has different definitions of what it means to be a Christian is ignorance - pure and simple. To throw in silly digs that Christian love is an oxymoron serves no purpose other than to try to anatgonise the natives in this Forum - and that, by definition, is trolling.

And all because someone is upset that I don't agree with them.

Bannasidhe

PDN wrote: »

Well it also makes you keep posting on the Christianity Forum, trying to change my mind to comply with you.


I'm sorry that you find it hard to engage with anyone who doesn't share an all-inclusive groupthink.

Different Christians have different views about homosexuality. If that is an insurmountable problem for you then I'm afraid I can't do much to help you.


Sorry, I can't reply to such an asinine request without resorting to ridicule.

Who in this thread has ever claimed that such agreement existed?

So there is no basis upon which a poster can correctly say 'As a Christian I believe homosexuality is....' but would be more correct in saying 'My interpretation of Christianity leads me to believe that...'

Grand.

My interpretation of marriage is that it is a legally binding, civil contract of life partnership between two consenting adults.

I would be quite content to stay out of the Christianity forum when Christians stop making statements that I am not entitled to the legal same rights as heterosexuals and use their religion as justification.

Stay out of my business and I'll stay out of yours ('yours' as plural - not singular). See how reasonable I am.

Penn

Just in case this was skipped over:

Penn wrote: »

Let me modify my earlier question: Is redefining the word marriage to include same sex marriage, more important than equal human rights regardless of sexual orientation? What's the difference between me, and someone who is attracted to a person of their own sex? Heterosexual people don't all act one way. Homosexual people don't all act one way. We are all individuals with our own differences. Some people are just attracted to people of their own sex. Should they be refused rights such as marriage (in a non religious context) simply for that reason? Is same-sex love between two consenting adults really such a big deal?

PDN

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So there is no basis upon which a poster can correctly say 'As a Christian I believe homosexuality is....' but would be more correct in saying 'My interpretation of Christianity leads me to believe that...'

Grand.

As with any other word you might insert there (gay/straight person/atheist/ scientist/Arsenal fan) etc.

When people say, "As an X, I believe" - they are simply saying that their identification as an X is one of the factors that shapes their opinion. It certainly doesn't imply that all people who identify as an X have identical opinions.

Bannasidhe

PDN wrote: »

As with any other word you might insert there (gay/straight person/atheist/ scientist/Arsenal fan) etc.

When people say, "As an X, I believe" - they are simply saying that their identification as an X is one of the factors that shapes their opinion. It certainly doesn't imply that all people who identify as an X have identical opinions.

Interesting analogy - would be accurate if they were lots of different teams named 'Arsenal'.

BTW - Atheist's can give a definitive statement of shared belief :
'I do not believe there is a God.'

PDN

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Interesting analogy - would be accurate if they were lots of different teams named 'Arsenal'.

BTW - Atheist's can give a definitive statement of shared belief :
'I do not believe there is a God.'

So you think the term 'Arsenal fan' means the same thing to everyone? So how come fans who attend away matches refer to those who only attend home matches as not being proper fans? And then both sets deride those who only watch Arsenal on TV as not being real fans. Heck, my brother tells me I'm not a real arsenal fan because I only started supporting them after they won the double in 1971!

As for atheists, don't get me started! In this Forum we've had atheists give many different definitions. Apparently, you can believe in spirits and 'life-forces' but still be an atheist if you don't believe in the Christian God!

Now, apart from demonstrating that we will argue about anything just for the sake of it - are you really insisting that everytime someone makes the statement (as happens umpteen times a day on multiple Fora on boards.ie) "As an X I believe this ..." that they are claiming that all X's hold exactly the same views on that particular subject?

doctoremma

PDN wrote: »

So you think the term 'Arsenal fan' means the same thing to everyone? So how come fans who attend away matches refer to those who only attend home matches as not being proper fans? And then both sets deride those who only watch Arsenal on TV as not being real fans. Heck, my brother tells me I'm not a real arsenal fan because I only started supporting them after they won the double in 1971!

If you said to all those people "Do you want Arsenal to win the Premier League/Champion's League?", do you think their answer would be unanimous?

Penn

PDN wrote: »

As for atheists, don't get me started! In this Forum we've had atheists give many different definitions. Apparently, you can believe in spirits and 'life-forces' but still be an atheist if you don't believe in the Christian God!

You can. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. That's it. Now, most atheists tend not to believe to in spirits or life forces for the same reasons they don't believe in a god or gods, but some do. The only thing atheism is, is the lack of belief in any god.

Fanny Cradock

IT-Guy wrote: »

And it's meaning will not change for couples marrying in any of those religions. The move to rename marriage simply because it can or will apply to same-sex couples is the logical equivalent of moving house because a same-sex couple moved in next door.

That may well be. But it does not address the point of my post. If some people out there want to imbue a certain word with a certain meaning then that is just fine. But it shouldn't come as a shock people who don't agree with this other meaning object. I'd be making the same point if we talked about any other word.

Fanny Cradock

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Could you please provide me with a definitive statement re:homosexuality that every, single Christian would agree with and I promise to engage with it. OR if that is not possible, how about a definitive statement re:homosexuality that every, single Christian denomination will agree with?

Can you provide me with a statement that every single person agrees with?

PDN

doctoremma wrote: »

If you said to all those people "Do you want Arsenal to win the Premier League/Champion's League?", do you think their answer would be unanimous?

If you said to all Christians, "Do you believe Jesus is Lord?" do you think their answer would be unanimous?

Fanny Cradock

doctoremma wrote: »

If you said to all those people "Do you want Arsenal to win the Premier League/Champion's League?", do you think their answer would be unanimous?

If we take the totality of all Arsenal fans? No, I don't think so.

Also, and this is in relation to another poster, I don't think it is fair to compare what atheists believe (or lack belief in :pac:) with Christianity. The opposite of atheism is not Christianity, Islam, Buddhism or whatever else. The opposite of atheism is theism.

nickcave

Most dictionaries actually recognise the same-sex context of the word 'marriage. Oxford, Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster etc. all include that meaning of the word. The church of course, can do what it wants... But let's leave the re-defining argument out - it doesn't exist.

For what it's worth, I'm an Arsenal fan too. Actually we won the league last year!

But around here, people insist I only get to call myself a 'civil collection of firearms' fan...