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

Delirium

MOD NOTE

It would be appreciated if people could drop the tangent about marrying animals.

Thanks for your attention.

Absolam

tommy2bad wrote: »

We were when I posted that. Yes, you are right, we no longer hold the biblical low standards as the final arbitration.
As I said we have developed a consensus on marriage that is very different, its still justifiable in a biblical sense but would be unrecognisable to the people who wrote the bible. The work of the holy spirit or secularisation?

Actually, we weren't we were looking at the validity of marriages in a Christian sense, remember? Which obviously extends beyond the Bibles selection of valid marriages, because various Churches (notably the Catholic Church) have developed a body of law and definitions that extend beyond that selection, though that's not to say the whatever you think the Biblical standards are are necessarily low, simply not as extensive. Nor do I think you can attribute it to secularisation, if anything it's an extension of and expansion on what would otherwise have been a relatively mundane and uncomplicated secular event.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Well that context is canon law, this is a discussion on a public forum. I'm just pointing out how words carry shades of meaning and inference. You may say the people using natural expect everyone to read it in the legal definition they do but I doubt that. I may be far more cynical than is good for me but I suspect they understood well the implications their words carry.

It's a public forum on Christianity though, so Canon Law is inevitably going to make an appearance. And when the magesterium uses the term 'natural' in reference to marriage it would be foolish to think they're not doing it other than in a legal sense. Of course they understand the implications of their words, and I have no doubt those implications are deliberate. I'm simply saying that it seems to me they're approaching it from the opposite direction from you; natural isn't used to infer unnatural to any other " marriage" as you seem to think, it's used to demonstrate the lesser nature of other marriages to the supernatural marriage of the Church.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

Actually, we weren't we were looking at the validity of marriages in a Christian sense, remember? Which obviously extends beyond the Bibles selection of valid marriages, because various Churches (notably the Catholic Church) have developed a body of law and definitions that extend beyond that selection, though that's not to say the whatever you think the Biblical standards are are necessarily low, simply not as extensive. Nor do I think you can attribute it to secularisation, if anything it's an extension of and expansion on what would otherwise have been a relatively mundane and uncomplicated secular event.

It's a public forum on Christianity though, so Canon Law is inevitably going to make an appearance. And when the magesterium uses the term 'natural' in reference to marriage it would be foolish to think they're not doing it other than in a legal sense. Of course they understand the implications of their words, and I have no doubt those implications are deliberate. I'm simply saying that it seems to me they're approaching it from the opposite direction from you; natural isn't used to infer unnatural to any other " marriage" as you seem to think, it's used to demonstrate the lesser nature of other marriages to the supernatural marriage of the Church.

I get to better understand your P.O.V. of Marriage in it's two aspects. The Christian definition of marriage, in so far that it's version of marriage comes directly from the word of God, put's it on a different plane from secular marriage, seeing it as variously - [Protestants - Sacred/Holy] AND [the RC Church/Eastern churches - Sacramental or an efficacious sign of grace, instituted by Christ]. The mention of Jesus quoting from Genesis 1 and 2 (para 2 in the first link below) showed me how far back the Christian base-stone of marriage went back.

Links on Wiki to: Protestant P.O.V - https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjwipi6tLjNAhXDI8AKHU5hDfgQFggdMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FChristian_views_on_marriage&usg=AFQjCNGctAWcDSHHnljDNYrbavSSn5-yAQ

AND: RC/Eastern Churches P's.O.V - https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjC47bstLjNAhXnL8AKHU7FC1AQFggtMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSacrament&usg=AFQjCNF2HZ1ixKmEt5rYTZL54f0FyWWINA

Your [if anything it's an extension of and expansion on what would otherwise have been a relatively mundane and uncomplicated secular event.] threw me at first reading, then I realised you were referring to marriage in it's overall wide-ranging Christian discussion complexity. It certainly seem's that the Civil Marriage version is a good deal less complicated, while still liable to the self-same human failures of married couples finding they are not compatible at all.

I won't be minded to change my P.O.V on the legitimacy on the recently altered state of civil marriage, nor my preference for it, given the state of unrest within and between the various Christian camps, all using the name of God to certify their P's.O.V.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Alternatively you could discuss with the Roman Catholic and Protestant posters on this thread instead of linking to Wikipedia.

Then we'd actually be using the thread for what it was intended for!

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

I get to better understand your P.O.V. of Marriage in it's two aspects. The Christian definition of marriage, in so far that it's version of marriage comes directly from the word of God, put's it on a different plane from secular marriage, seeing it as variously - [Protestants - Sacred/Holy] AND [the RC Church - Sacramental or an efficacious sign of grace, instituted by Christ].

Actually I didn't say it was my P.O.V., I was simply pointing out the Catholic Church's position on marriage(s), in response to Lazygal's question about her own marriage.

aloyisious

Thank you both for your rapid and coincidentally-timed responses to my post.

@solodeogloria: I thought it best to reference sources to read up on the topic, rather than rely solely on others here. I'm sorry if my seeking knowledge beyond what you would want to restrict me to upset's you. Thank's for your moderating-style input on what the thread should be used for.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Thank you both for your rapid and coincidentally-timed responses to my post.
@solodeogloria: I thought it best to reference sources to read up on the topic, rather than rely solely on others here. I'm sorry if my seeking knowledge beyond what you would want to restrict me to upset's you. Thank's for your moderating-style input on what the thread should be used for.

In fairness, providing links to other peoples opinions isn't exactly discussing the subject, though if you were to provide links to actual sources (like the Catholic Church's Canon Law, or the Church of England's Canons Ecclesiastical) in support of your own opinions, that would be considered good form by most posters I think. Solodegloria I'm sure would certainly approve of and enjoy engaging with opinions expressed and backed by Biblical links and would almost certainly be happy to assist you in seeking knowledge; perhaps consider his post in that light rather than as moderating-style input restricting the knowledge you seek?

aloyisious

In fairness, I'll seek knowledge from knowledgeable sources on line at will, ta very much. Links are links are links........ I think I'll drop this here, instead of going in a circle with you again, ta very much.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

In fairness, I'll seek knowledge from knowledgeable sources on line at will, ta very much. Links are links are links........ I think I'll drop this here, instead of going in a circle with you again, ta very much.

Feel free to go forth and seek knowledge I suppose then

aloyisious

Turns matter of absolom's posting behaviour over to mods.

aloyisious

Passing of an online site friendship. Qid is closing it's doors at 5 PM today after almost thirteen (13) years serving the community. Chris & Danny, ta very much and good luck with your other ventures.

Cabaal

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36636845

Pope Francis has said that the Roman Catholic Church should apologise to gay people for the way it has treated them.

So the way Catholics treated gay people was wrong, even in the eyes of the Pope.

Must be a kick in the teeth for the gay hating Catholics out there

robdonn

Cabaal wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36636845



So the way Catholics treated gay people was wrong, even in the eyes of the Pope.

Must be a kick in the teeth for the gay hating Catholics out there

“The questions is: if a person who has that condition, who has good will, and who looks for God, who are we to judge?”

When are they ever going to find a cure for that condition?? :rolleyes:

By saying that Catholics should not judge them still infers that there is something to judge. So good for him for trying to get Christians to not be cruel, but still...

Cabaal

robdonn wrote: »

“The questions is: if a person who has that condition, who has good will, and who looks for God, who are we to judge?”

When are they ever going to find a cure for that condition?? :rolleyes:

By saying that Catholics should not judge them still infers that there is something to judge. So good for him for trying to get Christians to not be cruel, but still...

The cure is very simple in the church's eyes....the person needs to stop being gay. Anything else is unnatural....but you shouldn't judge a person being unnatural
:rolleyes:

lazybones32

Cabaal wrote: »

Must be a kick in the teeth for the gay hating Catholics out there

What an odd statement! In a topic that addresses apologising and forgiveness, you focus on "the gay hating Catholics out there".

MrPudding

lazybones32 wrote: »

What an odd statement! In a topic that addresses apologising and forgiveness, you focus on "the gay hating Catholics out there".

You might think it odd, but would you not agree that it is a valid observation?

MrP

aloyisious

Left me wondering what Francis and/or the Vatican, think's the condition should be classed under, medical, psychiatric or moral? It's almost like reading from Vatican scripture circa ten, or less, years ago.

lazybones32

MrPudding wrote: »

You might think it odd, but would you not agree that it is a valid observation?

MrP

A valid observation?! I'd call it an assumption or a conjecture, an imagination or even a fantasy...unless he/she knows gay-hating Catholics and can definitely observe that the Popes' words were like a kick in the teeth to them.

aloyisious

lazybones32 wrote: »

What an odd statement! In a topic that addresses apologising and forgiveness, you focus on "the gay hating Catholics out there".

Would you not think the gay hating Catholics out there should follow the Pope's instruction to them?

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Would you not think the gay hating Catholics out there should follow the Pope's instruction to them?

What instruction did the Pope give to gay hating Catholics?

lazybones32

aloyisious wrote: »

Would you not think the gay hating Catholics out there should follow the Pope's instruction to them?

I follow the pope's advice about not swallowing red herrings; you should too.

aloyisious

lazybones32 wrote: »

I follow the pope's advice about not swallowing red herrings; you should too.

I have to say I learned here not to have a taste for herring, esp in tomato sauce.. maybe you mean like this.... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiu9bSnjcnNAhWJK8AKHYJvCT0QFghHMAc&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FCatholicism%2Fcomments%2F4esl49%2Fpope_francis_beware_of_polite_persecution%2F%3Fref%3Dreadnext&usg=AFQjCNFWIYoDyfjeDWdGKT3uqAu6nzEyrA

Cabaal

lazybones32 wrote: »

What an odd statement! In a topic that addresses apologising and forgiveness, you focus on "the gay hating Catholics out there".

You don't think an organization that for hundreds of years has hated gay people, treated them liker scum and pressured for laws to make being gay illegal doesn't create people that hate gay people? Its completely accurate for me to say gay hating catholics, after all they most certainly exist....but thankfully such bigoted idiots are in a minority now.

Apologizing while still referring to a gay person has having "condition" isn't much of an apology...unless you're a foolish person who ignores the condition reference, it shows the church still hasn't changed its spots on the issue, its all words rather then actions.

tommy2bad

Cabaal wrote: »

You don't think an organization that for hundreds of years has hated gay people, treated them liker scum and pressured for laws to make being gay illegal doesn't create people that hate gay people? Its completely accurate for me to say gay hating catholics, after all they most certainly exist....but thankfully such bigoted idiots are in a minority now.

Apologizing while still referring to a gay person has having "condition" isn't much of an apology...unless you're a foolish person who ignores the condition reference, it shows the church still hasn't changed its spots on the issue, its all words rather then actions.

In fairness condition is a step forward from disorder. It might be only carefully chosen word play but it does show some movement however glacial the pace.

aloyisious

tommy2bad wrote: »

In fairness condition is a step forward from disorder. It might be only carefully chosen word play but it does show some movement however glacial the pace.

It leave's me thinking the Vatican is still of the opinion that homosexuality can be cured, whether it chooses to call it a condition or a disorder.

Absolam

I think Church teaching is that a homosexual inclination is objectively disordered... Which is a different statement again, and wouldn't lead one to imagine that means the Church thinks it is something that can be cured.

lazybones32

Cabaal wrote: »

You don't think an organization that for hundreds of years has hated gay people, treated them liker scum and pressured for laws to make being gay illegal doesn't create people that hate gay people? Its completely accurate for me to say gay hating catholics, after all they most certainly exist....but thankfully such bigoted idiots are in a minority now.

No, I don't think any of that...

Cabaal wrote: »

Apologizing while still referring to a gay person has having "condition" isn't much of an apology...unless you're a foolish person who ignores the condition reference, it shows the church still hasn't changed its spots on the issue, its all words rather then actions.

He didn't apologise. He said the Church should apologise for how certain groups of people (not just gays) were treated.

aloyisious

lazybones32 wrote: »

No, I don't think any of that...


He didn't apologise. He said the Church should apologise for how certain groups of people (not just gays) were treated.

Wouldn't the church's apology - when it come's - be inclusive of him as a member of the church?

I am assuming that the church, in whatever manner and by whomever it is delivered, will take note of what the Pope said to reporters and deliver an apology to the different groups he had in mind.

I like your use of English grammar and it's cohesive symbols and devices which show up in your posts when the quote device is used for responding.

P.S. Maybe it just occur's due to a computer grammatical correction device.

Cabaal

lazybones32 wrote: »

He didn't apologise. He said the Church should apologise for how certain groups of people (not just gays) were treated.

So its basically, we know we were dicks, we perfectly acknowledge that and we think we should offer an apology...but we're not going to, yet

Imagine if a child or teenager took that same stance to their parent when they were asked to offer an apology for doing something wrong? You'd think the child was trying to be smart with you,

aloyisious

For what it's worth, while reading a "dear editor" letter yesterday from a doctor who has a specific expertise in medicine responding to a columnist's latest (non-medically qualified) opinion piece on matters specific to the doctor's expertise, I saw this - THERE IS A SUBTLE AND INTELLIGENT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING PROVOCATIVE AND DELIBERATELY PROVOKING - in the doctor's letter referring to the columnist's words.

It struck a chord with me that that difference was what got me annoyed enough about another regular poster here using words, phrases and quotes lifted from old books etc (which were capable of being read and understood in more than one way) to give vent to my feelings here. I knew from that other poster's previous postings here stating how as to how much he knew of English grammar and it's devices to believe that what he wrote was carefully researched and deliberately scripted, capable of having more than one reading, with get-me-out-of-trouble (YOU misunderstood) explanations being kept in reserve. Until I read the doctor's letter, I didn't quite know how to put into words what I knew the other poster was doing. Ta, Doc......