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

solodeogloria

lazybones32 wrote: »

A cop out my eye! The actual situation deals with two lesbians; if the situation was about a philandering husband, an active prostitute, a known thief; an IRA member etc; then their removal would be as warranted but the actual situation - this event we are talking about - centres around 2 married women. Must I denounce every other sin and hypothetical scenario first, in order to denounce this situation without being accused of homophobia or making it look like I'm not singling out the gheys? So, instead of me answering your potential scenarios I will deal with the issue directly at hand.

Good afternoon!

My point is that the aim shouldn't to be to get anyone out.

Rather the aim should be to keep people in. Encourage them to repent and move forward to live as Christians. That's my hope and prayer. Sadly sometimes it might require asking people to step down but this should be done in an appropriate and loving manner. The primary concern should be for those in our church family who aren't living for Jesus and how to restore them.

Mavericks who publish details of sensitive pastoral issues online do our churches more harm than good.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

lazybones32

@SDG

Removal from the position, not removal from the Church... I agree that people should be encouraged to remain but not at any price. If someone cherry-picks what aspects of Christianity they will adhere to, then they shouldn't have a prominent place in the Church.



The "maverick" who posted the scenario isn't the one who has done the most harm: those women, with the approval of the priest, had no problem in disregarding the Church every week from beside the altar for however long. The ones who didn't want to bring trouble to the door go on radio to talk about it.
You put the emphasis on keeping things internal and following Christ's words for dealing with problems but only apply the command to him?

jobbridge4life

I like this story. It is a great example of the lived truth of Christ being apparent to virtually all people actually attending in this parish crashing up against the local pharisees and doctrine.

Two individuals dedicating themselves to service of Christ in one of God's great gifts, music, are attacked and driven out by a loud mouth, holier than though 'righteous believer'.

If you don't know which side Jesus would have been on you truly need to 'read your history books Kim'.

aloyisious

I missed yesterday's irish Times, just saw an article from it (on F/B) covering the above story. Both the sides in it seem to have been provided a venue in which to put forward their versions on what occurred. Locals seem to have also been provided a venue on which to lay out their POV's. I was surprised and unhappy to see this as part of the I/T report: Mr Murphy, who was advised by gardaí not to attend Sunday Mass “for my own personal safety”, told The Irish Times that he and his family felt “shunned and terrorised by the local community in Athy”.

At a personal level, I can only hope wiser heads prevail in the parish in the end.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/athy-lesbian-couple-return-to-packed-church-to-retake-roles-1.2788134

learn_more

Good Evening !

Today I woke up and had noting to do so I lay in bed contemplated the idea of being 'demeaned'. Demeaned in a heterosexual marriage, as a result the widening parameters allowed in marriage.

I fantasied I was a 55 year old woman, with a couple of kids just starting off in their careers, with a husband who is still actively bringing the cash in. It was just a scenario I imagined, which is completely fictitious and outside the reality of my life as a gay man.

I, Ann, am lying here in bed feeling totally demeaned. I'm looking back on my life and I'm thinking how different my life could have been.

If I only knew of the other options that could have been open to me. I could have married my pillow. Or to and old boot. Or to a lemon , or anything in fact. But I wasn't given those options. My life could have been so different.

When I decided to marry the reason I did so was because of the specific limitations that were laid down. Not for any other reason. I only married because I wanted to subscribe to the laws that were defined by marriage , and I wouldn't have gotten married otherwise. Why else would anyone get married if it wasn't to subscribe to a specified set of rules.

Now the rules have changed and I'm just wondering what the hell my life is about. I think what was so special about my marriage to my husband, when I could have had so many alternatives. Yeah I have a husband who loves me, kids that love me and their doing well, but isn't it all meaningless when what I am doing in my life could have had so many alternatives.

Well that's the end of Ann.

When I buy a SKY TV package the reason I do it is not for the joy of signing up for said. I don't sign up for the joy of sighing the terms and conditions, or handing over the cash, I do it for what I get from it , ie, I get to watch the sport channels and enjoy all the football matches etc. When I'm enjoying my football match, I'm not upset that others are watching the same football match on a VIRGIN TV package that may be cheaper.

So , I never got the 'demeaned' argument until today. There was a lot of claptrap going on about it at the time and I admit I was lost on it because of all the noise created by the many SSM debates.

Ann feels that what's special about her marriage is that she subscribed to a set of rules, that were very specific. What an utterly warped idea of marriage that is. What's special about marriage is that one has met a person, who says, that they love you so badly, that they want to spend the rest of their lives with you. To me, that is just an amazing special thing.

Absolam

learn_more wrote: »

What an utterly warped idea of marriage that is.

In fairness, you're the one who came up with the idea though, whilst you were contemplating being the completely fictitious Ann. If you'd contemplated being a somewhat different completely fictitious Ann, you might have found the experience more rewarding.

learn_more

Absolam wrote: »

In fairness, you're the one who came up with the idea though, whilst you were contemplating being the completely fictitious Ann. If you'd contemplated being a somewhat different completely fictitious Ann, you might have found the experience more rewarding.

Good Evening !

You see, there is no Ann, and there is actually no-one in reality who genuinely believes that their marriage is demeaned because of homo marriage.

There is no-one who wakes up this morning and genuinely feels their marriage is demeaned. No one.

The 'demeaned' argument was just a pathetic desperate argument that has no basis in reality whatsoever.

Oh and @Absolam, I don't need you to tell me what I find would find rewarding in life. Thanks all the same.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Dare I say if you think the Christian position on sexuality and marriage is based on an irrational fear of a 55 year old married woman being demeaned you might want to take a closer look into what the Bible says about marriage.

I don't think the Bible speaks of opposition to homosexual relationships in terms of "demeaning" marriage but rather that they aren't truly marriages in God's sight. In the same way that unmarried heterosexual couples aren't marriages before God.

If you're interested in finding out more about what the Bible teaches on this subject it's been dealt with at length in earlier posts.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

learn_more wrote: »

Good Evening !

You see, there is no Ann, and there is actually no-one in reality who genuinely believes that their marriage is demeaned because of homo marriage.

There is no-one who wakes up this morning and genuinely feels their marriage is demeaned. No one.

The 'demeaned' argument was just a pathetic desperate argument that has no basis in reality whatsoever.

So, you constructed a bogus argument in order to point out that it was bogus?

Fair enough, but . . . why? What does this achieve?

I get that you think that what you have constructed is a summary of arguments advanced by [some] Christian opponents of marriage equality. But - and I say this as a Christian supporter of marriage equality - I don't honestly think that it is.

I think to make any progress here you're going to have to engage with actual Christian opponents of marriage equality, and look at what they actually say.

Nick Park

learn_more wrote: »

Today I woke up and had noting to do so I lay in bed contemplated the idea of being 'demeaned'. Demeaned in a heterosexual marriage, as a result the widening parameters allowed in marriage.

I fantasied I was a 55 year old woman,

Possibly not the best way to start the day.

aloyisious

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Dare I say if you think the Christian position on sexuality and marriage is based on an irrational fear of a 55 year old married woman being demeaned you might want to take a closer look into what the Bible says about marriage.

I don't think the Bible speaks of opposition to homosexual relationships in terms of "demeaning" marriage but rather that they aren't truly marriages in God's sight. In the same way that unmarried heterosexual couples aren't marriages before God.

If you're interested in finding out more about what the Bible teaches on this subject it's been dealt with at length in earlier posts.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Re your middle para above, I was a bit surprised by the wording used by you referring to homosexual relationships. I was of the understanding that you knew modern society knew and accepted the clear difference between religious/church marriage - A la that as performed under biblical historical standards (one of sacramental nature) and civil marriage within modern civil society. When you refer to homosexual relationships, do you include both civilly-married homosexual couples and unmarried homosexual couples in it?

If the bible actually makes specific mention/s to same-sex civilly-married couples, as modern society sees, understands and recognizes such civil marriages, can you provide me the links to the specific sections of the bible where the mention/s are written please.

The reference you make; In the same way that unmarried heterosexual couples aren't marriages before God: is a bit of a non-sequitur. It's a taken in both civil and religious law that unmarried heterosexual couples are NOT married.

Do you accept the validity of either or both heterosexual or homosexual civil marriages in modern civil society?

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

In the eyes of the State same-sex marriage is provided. That isn't what I'm discussing.

In terms of what God has declared in His Word, there is no provision for same sex marriage as marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Biblically speaking homosexuality and unmarried heterosexual relationships fall short of God's standards for us.

I don't see how one can claim that the Bible endorses anything beyond friendship amongst two people of the same sex when the Bible repeatedly prohibits sexual relationships outside of a marriage between a man and a woman.

This is what I meant.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Absolam

learn_more wrote: »

Oh and @Absolam, I don't need you to tell me what I find would find rewarding in life. Thanks all the same.

I'm only saying, if you're going to lie in bed fantasizing, you can probably do better...

Giacomo McGubbin

Regarding the mess in Athy, Co. Kildare. There's a lot of misreporting going on. I've listened to the full 30 minute interview. No one was asked to leave their Church.
Catholicism correctly teaches that being of a homosexual orientation is not a sin in itself, but that sex outside a holy sacramental marriage is.
Anyone who either rejects or doesn't correctly understand the teachings of their Church should not be appointed to leadership positions in that Church.
If the local Priest hasn't the bravery and conviction to sort it out, then Anthony Murphy should have pursued it correctly up the line as far as necessary.
Instead it's been badly handled by all parties so far.
Now due to the threats he and his family have been receiving since, Murphy has instead been told by the Gardai not to attend Mass for his own personal safety.

marienbad

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

Regarding the mess in Athy, Co. Kildare. There's a lot of misreporting going on. I've listened to the full 30 minute interview. No one was asked to leave their Church.
Catholicism correctly teaches that being of a homosexual orientation is not a sin in itself, but that sex outside a holy sacramental marriage is.
Anyone who either rejects or doesn't correctly understand the teachings of their Church should not be appointed to leadership positions in that Church.
If the local Priest hasn't the bravery and conviction to sort it out, then Anthony Murphy should have pursued it correctly up the line as far as necessary.
Instead it's been badly handled by all parties so far.
Now due to the threats he and his family have been receiving since, Murphy has instead been told by the Gardai not to attend Mass for his own personal safety.

Can you give a source other than Murphy for those threats ?

Giacomo McGubbin

marienbad wrote: »

Can you give a source other than Murphy for those threats ?

Are you claiming the Irish times doesn't check what it reports ? Perhaps you should write to them.

marienbad

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

Are you claiming the Irish times doesn't check what it reports ? Perhaps you should write to them.

No on a news article such as this the IT just reports the quote and who said it .

So again have you any source for those threats other than your man saying it ?

Giacomo McGubbin

marienbad wrote: »

No on a news article such as this the IT just reports the quote and who said it .

So again have you any source for those threats other than your man saying it ?

Journalists are supposed to verify the claims they report. That's a basic principle of journalism. If you are claiming they didn't then perhaps you should take it up with them, and the anything else reported in the story as well that they didn't verify according to you.

marienbad

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

Journalists are supposed to verify the claims they report. That's a basic principle of journalism. If you are claiming they didn't then perhaps you should take it up with them, and the anything else reported in the story as well that they didn't verify according to you.

I don't think you understand the basics of news reporting . Journalists report what , who , when , where , why .

So they report what such and such a person said , that does not vouchsafe the veracity of what was said - just that it was said .

You don't think that when the IT report what Donald Trump or HRC said they are endorsing the truth of it do you ?

Giacomo McGubbin

marienbad wrote: »

I don't think you understand the basics of news reporting . Journalists report what , who , when , where , why .

So they report what such and such a person said , that does not vouchsafe the veracity of what was said - just that it was said .

You don't think that when the IT report what Donald Trump or HRC said they are endorsing the truth of it do you ?

I don't think you understand basic journalism. If someone makes a claim, a journalist is also suppose to verify/fact check it as well as report it. Are you claiming the Irish Times don't verify and fact check what they report ? Or just the things you don't like being reported ?

marienbad

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

I don't think you understand basic journalism. If someone makes a claim, a journalist is also suppose to verify/fact check it as well as report it. Are you claiming the Irish Times don't verify and fact check what they report ? Or just the things you don't like being reported ?

I don't think you understand the difference between news reporting and investigative reporting .

For example this is what Frank Daly the head of NAMA had to say about the report issued today as reported by the IT

''It is clear to us that, if Nama had retained the Eagle portfolio, there would be no investor interest in buying it today – or in the foreseeable future – at anything close to the £1.322 billion price that was actually achieved''

So according to you because the paper reported what he said it must be true and we can forget all about the report and the upcoming Dail committee .

aloyisious

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

I don't think you understand basic journalism. If someone makes a claim, a journalist is also suppose to verify/fact check it as well as report it. Are you claiming the Irish Times don't verify and fact check what they report ? Or just the things you don't like being reported ?

Apart from the below courses being followed by a reporter, I can't see how Mr Murphy's claims could be verified.

1. Ask the Gardai. Somehow I can't see the local Gardai officially confirming to the I/T that they advised Mr Murphy that, for his own safety, he should NOT attend mass on the Sunday. I'd see them saying that they don't comment on individual cases, or that for security reasons they couldn't comment. So for the meantime, we have to rely on Mr Murphy, the alleged victim, for the veracity of his claim.

2. Ask the locals if they are shunning the Murphys re Mr Murphy's claim that he and his family members are being shunned by locals. The same applies to that, that we have to rely on Mr Murphy for that as well, barring a few locals putting their hands up and telling the media that they are shunning Mr Murphy and his family.

What might be interesting would be a report in some paper of independent standing reporting that Mr Murphy attended Sunday mass with his family after he received the reported Garda personal safety advice and that nothing happened as a result of him attending the mass.

Re the presence of the civilly-married lesbian couple in roles of import within church activities in the parish, the question should be asked of Mr Murphy were the couple flaunting their relationship or marriage while carrying out their parish-related tasks?

Mr Murphy has stated that his objections were NOT connected to the fact that the COUPLE were lesbians, just that they were in a relationship that did not comply with church teachings, a lesbian relationship. I call that splitting hairs.

Giacomo McGubbin

marienbad wrote: »

''It is clear to us that, if Nama had retained the Eagle portfolio, there would be no investor interest in buying it today – or in the foreseeable future – at anything close to the £1.322 billion price that was actually achieved''

So according to you because the paper reported what he said it must be true and we can forget all about the report and the upcoming Dail committee .

No, please quote me honestly. I don't think you understand the difference between mere fact checking / verification, and investigative reporting. Any journalist verify's the claim they report "but the true value according to independent valuers is x billion". It's standard reporting. If you're claiming the that the Irish times does not verify fact check anything reported, and in particular anything you don't like reported, then I don't see any evidence of this.

Giacomo McGubbin

aloyisious wrote: »

Apart from the below courses being followed by a reporter, I can't see how Mr Murphy's claims could be verified.

1. Ask the Gardai. Somehow I can't see the local Gardai officially confirming to the I/T that they advised Mr Murphy that, for his own safety, he should NOT attend mass on the Sunday. I'd see them saying that they don't comment on individual cases, or that for security reasons they couldn't comment. So for the meantime, we have to rely on Mr Murphy, the alleged victim, for the veracity of his claim.

This is incorrect, Gardai rightly might not divulge specifics, I've often seen papers stating that "when contacted the Gardai confirmed they are not investigating x "

aloyisious wrote: »

2. Ask the locals if they are shunning the Murphys re Mr Murphy's claim that he and his family members are being shunned by locals. The same applies to that, that we have to rely on Mr Murphy for that as well, barring a few locals putting their hands up and telling the media that they are shunning Mr Murphy and his family.

So they are or they are not, which is it ?

aloyisious wrote: »

Mr Murphy has stated that his objections were NOT connected to the fact that the COUPLE were lesbians, just that they were in a relationship that did not comply with church teachings, a lesbian relationship. I call that splitting hairs.

I thought it was a same sex marriage, rather than a platonic relationship ?
Regardless of the subject, I don't know any mainstream church that places people in leadership positions who do not agree with and / or understand that Church's teaching, regardless of the subject involved ?

marienbad

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

No, please quote me honestly. I don't think you understand the difference between mere fact checking / verification, and investigative reporting. Any journalist verify's the claim they report "but the true value according to independent valuers is x billion". It's standard reporting. If you're claiming the that the Irish times does not verify fact check anything reported, and in particular anything you don't like reported, then I don't see any evidence of this.

You simply don't or won't understand the difference between news reporting and investigative reporting .

The only fact checking in this instance is did Murphy say what the IT report says he said . And he did - end of . The truth of what he said is not verified or denied by a news report . Just that he said it

Giacomo McGubbin

marienbad wrote: »

You simply don't or won't understand the difference between news reporting and investigative reporting .

The only fact checking in this instance is did Murphy say what the IT report says he said . And he did - end of . The truth of what he said is not verified or denied by a news report . Just that he said it

Actually you don't understand very simple fact checking / verification and investigative journalism. I suggest you take your claim that the Irish times don't verify of fact check anything they report, including the rest of the story, up with them.

learn_more

Absolam wrote: »

I'm only saying, if you're going to lie in bed fantasizing, you can probably do better...

I completely agree with you on that point. My time could have been better spent. <snip>

Absolam

learn_more wrote: »

I completely agree with you on that point. My time could have been better spent. <snip>

There you go... and you wouldn't have had to go to all the trouble of making it up, writing it down, and puzzling it out either, because someone already made a handy video for you

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Re the presence of the civilly-married lesbian couple in roles of import within church activities in the parish, the question should be asked of Mr Murphy were the couple flaunting their relationship or marriage while carrying out their parish-related tasks?

Should it? I'm not sure that public observance of doctrine is what concerns Mr Murphy, it would seem that it's actual observance that exercises him? As in, people who are choosing not to observe doctrine ought not to be allowed to have prominent roles in the Church. I would have thought a more apt question would be whether he thinks members of the clergy who are abusing children ought to be allowed to have prominent roles in the Church. Though I suspect if he's as Catholic as he's making himself out to be, he'll be inclined to the view that anyone who genuinely repents, is reconciled of, and genuinely intends not to repeat their past sins should have a full and active part in the Church. I imagine as a good Christian he will welcome this couple back to full participation in the parish with open arms as soon as they expiate their sins and fully accept the teachings of the Church. On the other hand, Mr Murphy (presumably) doesn't know they're engaging in sinful acts, or that they're portraying their marriage as being a Christian one, so he may be being somewhat unChristian in his own casting of aspersions; the couple might well be involved in a chaste civil arrangement for nothing more than legally beneficial reasons. Maybe.

aloyisious wrote: »

Mr Murphy has stated that his objections were NOT connected to the fact that the COUPLE were lesbians, just that they were in a relationship that did not comply with church teachings, a lesbian relationship. I call that splitting hairs.

The Church that he (and they) belongs to doesn't call it splitting hairs though; it makes a very specific distinction between homosexual orientation and acts. The Church of Aloyisious might well take a broader view of such things, but that's not the Church they're involved with.

learn_more

Absolam wrote: »

There you go... and you wouldn't have had to go to all the trouble of making it up, writing it down, and puzzling it out either, because someone already made a handy video for you

Your absolutely right once again. Why should I spend even a moment of my time considering what other peoples point of view are . Silly me.