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

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

True.

But it does nicely illustrate the absurdity of joining Church and State.

Indeed. I'm reminded of a small ditty about Henry VIII from Brendan Behan's 'Borstal Boy', though can't copy it here lest the language offend more sensitive ears (and breach the charter).

Peregrinus

Nick Park wrote: »

True.

But it does nicely illustrate the absurdity of joining Church and State.

Yes. Surely the fundamental problem here is not the Anglican church's position on sexuality and sexual orientation; it's the fact that the Anglican church's position on sexuality and sexual orientation might in any way be more influenced by this little boy's hypothetical future sexual identification than by that of any other Christian.

There are serious discussions to be had about the theology of sexuality, but speculating about the future sexual identification of a particular four-year-old boy, apart from being inherently distasteful, doesn't have anything to contribute to those discussions.

aloyisious

smacl wrote: »

Very odd behaviour to express for your preference for some else's child's sexual orientation to further your own agenda. If you were to flip it and pray that a child was not gay, no doubt you'd get labelled a homophobe. It seems like a wholly inconsiderate statement to me on more than one level.

Indeedy. I thought it a very strange article and notion, which is why I posted on it. The actual article included family photos which seemed [to me] to be gratuitous. It didn't really seem to appreciate how the family mentioned in it could/would be affected and doesn't [IMO] reflect well on both author/s, could be turned on it's head, which I presume the writer of the article and the blog would be aware.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. Surely the fundamental problem here is not the Anglican church's position on sexuality and sexual orientation; it's the fact that the Anglican church's position on sexuality and sexual orientation might in any way be more influenced by this little boy's hypothetical future sexual identification than by that of any other Christian.

There are serious discussions to be had about the theology of sexuality, but speculating about the future sexual identification of a particular four-year-old boy, apart from being inherently distasteful, doesn't have anything to contribute to those discussions.

Good morning!

The Episcopal Church of Scotland isn't established which is probably why there's been little in the form of a rebuke on this.

It seems like this is Revd Holdsworth's hobby horse or mild bravado at his church taking a position on homosexuality and having the rebuke of the Anglican Communion and the Archbishop of Canterbury on.

This story isn't per se about whether or not the church is established.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

It is, though.

I get that the Episcopal Church of Scotland isn't established. But the Church of England - which, obviously, is a much more signficant player in global Anglicanism is established, and (if he is spared) Prince George will one day have a symbolic, but nevertheless significant, role in relation to that church.

The important point here isn't that Holdwsorth is not a member of the CofE; it's that George is. And furthermore he will one day be the head of the CofE. And the CofE, as the established church in England, will be expected to celebrate his marriage. And, yeah, it would obviously create a bit of a quandary if, when that day comes, his marriage is to another man.

All of which is most unfair to George. Growing up gay, if that were to be the case, would be difficult enough with it raising constitutional issues about the relationship of crown and church. Even the fact that it's a theoretical possibility leads to unpleasant, distasteful public speculation by senior churchmen about the future sexual self-identification of a four-year-old child. No, just no!

I'm with Nick on this. The fact that someone might think that this boy's sexual orientation might be influential in the evolution of Anglican theology of sexuality strongly suggest that the Church of England's connection with the crown isn't healthy for the Church of England, or for the wider Anglican communion.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

It is, though.

I get that the Episcopal Church of Scotland isn't established. But the Church of England - which, obviously, is a much more signficant player in global Anglicanism is established, and (if he is spared) Prince George will one day have a symbolic, but nevertheless significant, role in relation to that church.

The important point here isn't that Holdwsorth is not a member of the CofE; it's that George is. And furthermore he will one day be the head of the CofE. And the CofE, as the established church in England, will be expected to celebrate his marriage. And, yeah, it would obviously create a bit of a quandary if, when that day comes, his marriage is to another man.

All of which is most unfair to George. Growing up gay, if that were to be the case, would be difficult enough with it raising constitutional issues about the relationship of crown and church. Even the fact that it's a theoretical possibility leads to unpleasant, distasteful public speculation by senior churchmen about the future sexual self-identification of a four-year-old child. No, just no!

I'm with Nick on this. The fact that someone might think that this boy's sexual orientation might be influential in the evolution of Anglican theology of sexuality strongly suggest that the Church of England's connection with the crown isn't healthy for the Church of England, or for the wider Anglican communion.

Good morning!

My point is that Revd Holdsworth's church (the Episcopal Church of Scotland) isn't established and that really he's just engaging in trolling because his church has just taken a stand against the formal position of the Anglican Communion on this issue.

I doubt that the Church of England would be forced to hold to the views of the monarch, or if it did you would certainly see an emptying of the ship to other forms of Anglican structures or indeed a push to disestablishment.

I don't think that it is worrying at all that Revd Holdsworth who is in my mind simply a provocateur would engage in this kind of chatter to somehow further his own view.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

El_Duderino 09

Hi all. Since the introduction of gay marriage has come and gone I wonder what the effects have been from a Christian perspective.

Lots of people opposed gay marriage for lots of reasons. So what have been the worst effects of gay marriage since its introduction?

DickSwiveller

I was hoping this would be an interesting thread in which people could discuss an interesting issue. Unfortunately it has been hijacked by the insufferable new atheists who can't debate in a civil manner.

pauldla

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I was hoping this would be an interesting thread in which people could discuss an interesting issue. Unfortunately it has been hijacked by the insufferable new atheists who can't debate in a civil manner.

Your comments prompted me to have a look back through the thread; I got as far as February before I found something more interesting to distract me. I'm not seeing much evidence of insufferability (new word! It's mine, 5c every time you use it). Would you care to expand on any points you feel merit attention or support your argument?

Delirium

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I was hoping this would be an interesting thread in which people could discuss an interesting issue. Unfortunately it has been hijacked by the insufferable new atheists who can't debate in a civil manner.

MOD NOTE

If you have an issue with post(s) on the thread, please report them.

Please don't derail the thread.

Thanks for your attention.

Cabaal

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Hi all. Since the introduction of gay marriage has come and gone I wonder what the effects have been from a Christian perspective.

Lots of people opposed gay marriage for lots of reasons. So what have been the worst effects of gay marriage since its introduction?

More to the point,
What has been the worst effect on them personally by marriage equality?

I'm betting basically no effect as marriage equality didn't extend to religious marriage so it remains unchanged.

aloyisious

There's a move in both houses in the Westminster Parliament on legalizing marriage equality in N/I. This is despite the fact that the N/I legislature in Stormont is still the legislative authority there, the British Govt has not taken over the reins via direct rule.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/same-sex-marriage-bill-for-the-north-passes-first-stage-in-westminster-834573.html

aloyisious

The USSC has overturned the ruling by a State court that a baker was wrong to refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple's wedding. The USSC ruled that the State Court ruling affected the baker's constitutional rights.

Peregrinus

aloyisious wrote: »

The USSC has overturned the ruling by a State court that a baker was wrong to refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple's wedding. The USSC ruled that the State Court ruling affected the baker's constitutional rights.

Yes, although on limited grounds specific to the circumstances of the case before them, as I understand it. Neither side is getting the general statement of principle that they hoped (or feared, depending on your point of view).

El_Duderino 09

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, although on limited grounds specific to the circumstances of the case before them, as I understand it. Neither side is getting the general statement of principle that they hoped (or feared, depending on your point of view).

I didn't really understand that. Does it mean the lower court did something wrong? Or can the supreme court decide to rule on a specific case but not on the general principle so it can't be used as precedent?

Peregrinus

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I didn't really understand that. Does it mean the lower court did something wrong?

Yes. In the view of 5 of the Supreme Court justices (a majority(:
- The Colorado Civil Rights Commission was or appeared (from comments made in the proceedings) to be motivated in the decision it made by a hostility to, or at least a dismissal of, the free exercise of religion;
- When the Commission's decision was appealed to the Colorado courts, they failed to spot this or to consider it properly;
- Therefore they failed to follow the correct principles in deciding this case, and their decision must be set aside.

Crucially, the Supreme Court did not say that if the Commission/Court had gone about this the right way, they would have affirmed the baker's right to refuse the order for the cake. Nor did it say that they wouldn't have.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Or can the supreme court decide to rule on a specific case but not on the general principle so it can't be used as precedent?

This case is a precedent for saying that courts and tribunals must apply the law properly - specifically, US constitutional law regarding the free exercise of religion. But we already knew that, so this isn't a new precedent.

aloyisious

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. In the view of 5 of the Supreme Court justices (a majority(:
- The Colorado Civil Rights Commission was or appeared (from comments made in the proceedings) to be motivated in the decision it made by a hostility to, or at least a dismissal of, the free exercise of religion;
- When the Commission's decision was appealed to the Colorado courts, they failed to spot this or to consider it properly;
- Therefore they failed to follow the correct principles in deciding this case, and their decision must be set aside.

Crucially, the Supreme Court did not say that if the Commission/Court had gone about this the right way, they would have affirmed the baker's right to refuse the order for the cake. Nor did it say that they wouldn't have.


This case is a precedent for saying that courts and tribunals must apply the law properly - specifically, US constitutional law regarding the free exercise of religion. But we already knew that, so this isn't a new precedent.

So it might be open to the Commission to rehear the case if the couple wished to re-submit a case to it for consideration again with a degree of hindsight as to what is proper in law now.

Peregrinus

aloyisious wrote: »

So it might be open to the Commission to rehear the case if the couple wished to re-submit a case to it for consideration again with a degree of hindsight as to what is proper in law now.

Possibly. Or their might be a rule against the authorities trying to have a second bite of the cherry in this fashion. I don't know.

But if similar facts occur again they can certainly take proceedings against a different baker (or against the same baker for refusing a different order). But they'll have to go about them in a different way. And possibly there needs to be some changes at the Civil Rights Commission, to retrain or remove officials who manifest an apparent bias against or disregard of free exercise rights.

My guess is that this will come before the Supreme Court again, but probably not from Colorado and probably not involving a baker, but some other merchant/trader/service supplier who has refused to cater to a same-sex wedding.

aloyisious

There's been discussion in the Irish LGBT community about the addition of extra letters to the original 4-strong group of letters that became synonymous with queer society. The additions are Q, I and A.

I see from this New York Times article that the symbol + has been added to the group in the US. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/style/lgbtq-gender-language.html

I can imagine that there will be a transfer of the additions to occasional use in type use here, over the limited use they already have here, and which some members of the community think is descriptively unnecessary. I have no problem with the additions except for the type-space needed to include the whole, as against LGBT which is shorter than the word queer itself. The actual use of the whole in speech would be a mouthful so I can't see the whole becoming part of slang and used in society generally. Shorter-letter groups are handier in colloquial speech and not misunderstood as to reference, unlike naff.

There's even mention in print and speech of extra colours being added to the rainbow flag to be inclusive of some of the above additional letters & symbols.

El_Duderino 09

aloyisious wrote: »

There's been discussion in the Irish LGBT community about the addition of extra letters to the original 4-strong group of letters that became synonymous with queer society. The additions are Q, I and A.

I see from this New York Times article that the symbol + has been added to the group in the US. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/style/lgbtq-gender-language.html

I can imagine that there will be a transfer of the additions to occasional use in type use here, over the limited use they already have here, and which some members of the community think is descriptively unnecessary. I have no problem with the additions except for the type-space needed to include the whole, as against LGBT which is shorter than the word queer itself. The actual use of the whole in speech would be a mouthful so I can't see the whole becoming part of slang and used in society generally. Shorter-letter groups are handier in colloquial speech and not misunderstood as to reference, unlike naff.

There's even mention in print and speech of extra colours being added to the rainbow flag to be inclusive of some of the above additional letters & symbols.

Q, I and A. Questioning, intersex and what? (Asexual?).

I know some people get wound up about these subdivisions. But I think it’s adding details as society in general learns about the queers in general.

What’s the Christian perspective on greater details and letters?

Peregrinus

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

. . . . What’s the Christian perspective on greater details and letters?

Still very much down to the conscience of the individual church-goer, I believe.

aloyisious

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Q, I and A. Questioning, intersex and what? (Asexual?).

I know some people get wound up about these subdivisions. But I think it’s adding details as society in general learns about the queers in general.

What’s the Christian perspective on greater details and letters?

Good question. Christianity should have as much interest in the letters & symbols as any other part of Irish society in how Ireland is examining and processing it's LGBT societal advances. Being christian is not anathema to queers.

Asexual as a description is a whole other kettle of fish itself, AFAIK, in that it can refer to personal self-description of gender - he/she/they. It seem's to be a very fluid term at the moment.

The mouthful can, IMO, be a turn-off [too long in detail] and deter reading up into the subject until it becomes more settled and clearer before examining it deeper, in a "whatever" way. The letters and symbols meanings are presently very fluid, symbolically even amongst those who use them as descriptive of their situation in and out of society and it's internal lgbtqia+ grouping.

I see LGBTQIA+ being a mouthful and hindering when it comes to oral use of language. It's almost algebraic in formulation. Personally, at a personal level I see no difference now between queer and LGBT [shorter, handier, understood & in general use].

BTW, that's my personal opinion as a Practicing christian, and not a practicing Christian, in society. I hope that provides some clarity

Peregrinus

aloyisious wrote: »

Good question. Christianity should have as much interest in the letters & symbols as any other part of Irish society in how Ireland is examining and processing it's LGBT societal advances. Being christian is not anathema to queers . . .

I see LGBTQIA+ being a mouthful and hindering when it comes to oral use of language. It's almost algebraic in formulation. Personally, at a personal level I see no difference now between queer and LGBT [shorter, handier, understood & in general use].

BTW, that's my personal opinion as a Practicing christian, and not a practicing Christian, in society. I hope that provides some clarity

Well, there is a serious point here. Whatever about other Christian traditions, the Catholic ethical tradition is reluctant to define people in terms of their actions - it’s much more comfortable speaking about “homosexual acts”, for example, than it is speaking about a “homosexual person”. (And this goes for all aspects of the human condition, not just sexuality.) From this perspective labelling somebody as “LBGTQ” (or whatever) seems reductive - it reduces them simply to what they do.

On the one hand, you can see this as a positive; nobody is defined by their acts - neither by their worst acts, nor by their best acts. In this tradition, what you do is only part of the story - what you are must also embrace what you can do, what you can become, what you are called to be, the ways in which you can grow and flourish. And this makes for a very high, optimistic, positive view of what it is to be human.

On the other hand, this can be a problem, particularly when it comes to sexuality. If somebody experiences themselves as, e.g., gay, and identifies with “LBGTQ” or similar, this is typically just as central to their perception of who they are as the fact that they are male, or female, or Irish, or Italian, or whatever. And a moral tradition which simply doesn’t have the language for talking about an LBGTQ person is going to look like one which has, literally, nothing meaningful to say to, or about, them.

The whole business of sexual orientation as an aspect of human personhood is really difficult to address in the language that Catholic ethics uses. You’ll find church documents talking about “persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies” and “homosexual inclinations” or “people who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction towards persons of the same sex”. These look like terribly evasive and uncomfortable ways of talking about a gay person. They treat homosexuality as something that happens to you, rather than as an aspect of who you are. Given this, is it any wonder that the Church and gay people frequently find themselves talking past one another? They’re not even speaking the same language, much of the time.

JimiTime

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, there is a serious point here. Whatever about other Christian traditions, the Catholic ethical tradition is reluctant to define people in terms of their actions - it’s much more comfortable speaking about “homosexual acts”, for example, than it is speaking about a “homosexual person”. (And this goes for all aspects of the human condition, not just sexuality.) From this perspective labelling somebody as “LBGTQ” (or whatever) seems reductive - it reduces them simply to what they do.

On the one hand, you can see this as a positive; nobody is defined by their acts - neither by their worst acts, nor by their best acts. In this tradition, what you do is only part of the story - what you are must also embrace what you can do, what you can become, what you are called to be, the ways in which you can grow and flourish. And this makes for a very high, optimistic, positive view of what it is to be human.

On the other hand, this can be a problem, particularly when it comes to sexuality. If somebody experiences themselves as, e.g., gay, and identifies with “LBGTQ” or similar, this is typically just as central to their perception of who they are as the fact that they are male, or female, or Irish, or Italian, or whatever. And a moral tradition which simply doesn’t have the language for talking about an LBGTQ person is going to look like one which has, literally, nothing meaningful to say to, or about, them.

The whole business of sexual orientation as an aspect of human personhood is really difficult to address in the language that Catholic ethics uses. You’ll find church documents talking about “persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies” and “homosexual inclinations” or “people who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction towards persons of the same sex”. These look like terribly evasive and uncomfortable ways of talking about a gay person. They treat homosexuality as something that happens to you, rather than as an aspect of who you are. Given this, is it any wonder that the Church and gay people frequently find themselves talking past one another? They’re not even speaking the same language, much of the time.

Given that a Christians identity is in Christ first and foremost, then the idea of a language that also defines you as homosexual is completely at odds. Thats not saying that you can't be Christian and also be same sex attracted, but you certainly can't identify yourself with the homosexual community but also with Christ. So I understand the Roman Catholic linguistics here. If you happen to be same sex attracted, but are Christian, then that same sex attraction is not your identity. Sure, it can be used to define a fact about an aspect of you, a very specific aspect. 'I am a Christian' is your identity', I am same sex attracted', is simply a description of a very precise aspect of you but it certainly doesn't define you. It is very different to saying 'Im Christian and gay', in terms of the connotations, the pride, the identity etc.
I think it does nobody any favours to butter it up. You cannot let sin define you and Christ also. We all sin, but we don't all let ourselves be defined by our sin.
If I happen to be a man who likes to sleep with other mens wives before Christ calls me to repentance, then I cannot then identify with Christ and adultery after being called. As God said to the adulterous woman after he saves her from stoning, 'Go, and sin no more'.

As Paul said to the church at Corinth:
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 English Standard Version (ESV)
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous[a] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Peregrinus

Well, that's not the same point. It's not that the Catholic church doesn't talk of a Christian as a homosexual; it doesn't talk of anyone as a homosexual. And that's not based on any view of how Christians ought to behave (obviously), or even on any view as to the moral dimension of homosexuality. It's based on an understanding of what it is to be human, which is that we can't be reduced to just our acts. We can't be defined by what we do, and therefore a person may engage in homosexual acts but it's inadequate to call him "a homosexual"; a person may commit murder but he is more than "a murderer"; etc. And this goes not just for morally problematic acts; a person who heals the sick is always much more than a healer, for example. And someone of heterosexual orientation is not going to be spoken of as "a heterosexual".

aloyisious

JimiTime wrote: »

Given that a Christians identity is in Christ first and foremost, then the idea of a language that also defines you as homosexual is completely at odds. Thats not saying that you can't be Christian and also be same sex attracted, but you certainly can't identify yourself with the homosexual community but also with Christ. So I understand the Roman Catholic linguistics here. If you happen to be same sex attracted, but are Christian, then that same sex attraction is not your identity. Sure, it can be used to define a fact about an aspect of you, a very specific aspect. 'I am a Christian' is your identity', I am same sex attracted', is simply a description of a very precise aspect of you but it certainly doesn't define you. It is very different to saying 'Im Christian and gay', in terms of the connotations, the pride, the identity etc.
I think it does nobody any favours to butter it up. You cannot let sin define you and Christ also. We all sin, but we don't all let ourselves be defined by our sin.
If I happen to be a man who likes to sleep with other mens wives before Christ calls me to repentance, then I cannot then identify with Christ and adultery after being called. As God said to the adulterous woman after he saves her from stoning, 'Go, and sin no more'.

As Paul said to the church at Corinth:
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 English Standard Version (ESV)
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous[a] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

By this part of your's above [Thats not saying that you can't be Christian and also be same sex attracted, but you certainly can't identify yourself with the homosexual community but also with Christ] I take it that you mean sexually-active homosexuals when you wrote the 2nd sentence in your quote [rather than merely being same-sex attracted which would include engaging socially with other homosexuals in groups or locations outside of sexual activity] OR do you think that even such non-sexual social activity is also non-Christian merely because it involves meeting with other homosexuals? I'd read "identify yourself with the homosexual community" as including simple social meetings.

I'm not sure what you mean by language that also identifies one as homosexual as being at odds with [presumably] christianity? Do you mean the letters and symbol I wrote about [I presume so] being used to identify the various strands of queer society, rather than Polari?

I see that you see that being same-sex attracted can be a description of a definition of an aspect of one's identity BUT that it does not define the totality of one's identity. However you following that up with your "It is very different to saying 'Im Christian and gay', in terms of the connotations, the pride, the identity etc". is contradicting that. Identifying one-self and accepting being gay is NOT contradictory to identifying one-self as christian. Rather it is contradictary of some christians to claim that to be a fact.

I have noticed that you did not use any of the letters or the symbol I wrote of, LGBTQIA + in your response. It's hard to tell if that's because they are hard for you to use in reference to you seeing this as being some form of non-christian [son of god] definition or if you are only opposed to them as they are indicative of people who are choosing to re-define what gender they are as distinct from what they are medically or officially defined as due to their human sexual organs and chests/breasts at birth, whatever about those same people seeing themselves as homosexual, ala same-sex attracted. That is not a given, as distinct that it is a given that persons male at birth can see they were intended to be female and attracted to males, so the attraction is not same-sex, though I can see how traditionalists in regard to birth recording would have some way to go to get their heads around that as a reality, seeing as some would probably see it as a perversion of god's will.

For your info; the use of the word "Pride" was and is a public declaration that one was no longer going to hide that single homosexual aspect of one's identity away from public view, no longer being SHAMEFUL, no longer going to accept being put upon, bashed or murdered as being par for the course for being homosexual. It had and has nothing to do with Christianity as a religion or a rebuttal to that belief, but a rejection of being a victim in society and standing to be counted where it mattered. Pride was the word chosen, for want of a better word, to describe that fact in a protest march.

The present day event is not a protest [we're here, we're queer] march anymore, it's a social family event inclusive of ALL the religious beliefs here without those non-homosexual non-LGBTQIA+ family members seeing anything contradictory in their presence there with their personal religious beliefs.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, that's not the same point. It's not that the Catholic church doesn't talk of a Christian as a homosexual; it doesn't talk of anyone as a homosexual. And that's not based on any view of how Christians ought to behave (obviously), or even on any view as to the moral dimension of homosexuality. It's based on an understanding of what it is to be human, which is that we can't be reduced to just our acts. We can't be defined by what we do, and therefore a person may engage in homosexual acts but it's inadequate to call him "a homosexual"; a person may commit murder but he is more than "a murderer"; etc. And this goes not just for morally problematic acts; a person who heals the sick is always much more than a healer, for example. And someone of heterosexual orientation is not going to be spoken of as "a heterosexual".

Surely a person's identity, whether religious or sexual, is for them and no one else to declare. It is not subject to qualification by any third party. So for example, if someone nominates themselves as Catholic on the census, then they're considered Catholic. Similarly if someone declares they're gay and a Catholic. While this might be morally problematic for the Church, that problem seems to rest more with the church than the gay Catholic.

JimiTime

aloyisious wrote: »

By this part of your's above [Thats not saying that you can't be Christian and also be same sex attracted, but you certainly can't identify yourself with the homosexual community but also with Christ] I take it that you mean sexually-active homosexuals when you wrote the 2nd sentence in your quote [rather than merely being same-sex attracted which would include engaging socially with other homosexuals in groups or locations outside of sexual activity] OR do you think that even such non-sexual social activity is also non-Christian merely because it involves meeting with other homosexuals? I'd read "identify yourself with the homosexual community" as including simple social meetings.

Meeting other homosexuals is not a sin. Meeting and talking to people is perfectly fine. However context is important. Jesus himself is our example. He met and ate with many prostitutes, thieves etc. But he wasn't hanging out with them passing round the dutchie. He met them and ministered to them, giving them a better way. Offering them salvation FROM their sin not IN their sin. He never said, 'You are an adulterer, I dig it. Whatever suits you.' He did not offer them affirmation, but transformation. As he does to all of us. Like the example earlier, he said 'Go, and sin no more'.

I'm not sure what you mean by language that also identifies one as homosexual as being at odds with [presumably] christianity? Do you mean the letters and symbol I wrote about [I presume so] being used to identify the various strands of queer society, rather than Polari?

I refer to declaring oneself gay in a modern context as it pertains to the notion of pride, the 'This is who and what I am' attitude. The affiliation with its community and its affirmation as a perfectly fine way of life. Now if thats what you identify with, then thats your business. However, it is diametrically opposed to God and what he declares righteous and sinful. So the idea that you can have one foot in affirming sin, while trying to identify with Christ is simply untenable.
If someone is saying I'm Gay and Christian to simply colloquially refer to his being same sex attracted, I would find that most unusual. If I have been freed in Christ, why would I wish to identify with the sin I struggle with?
Again, we must remember the context here. This is about a person who accepts Jesus as Lord. If you declare what God has called sin, not sin, then Jesus is not your Lord, and thus, you are not his disciple. Like I said previously, thats not to say that we don't struggle with our desires etc, but to declare what God declares sinful as acceptable puts you in rebellion against God.

I see that you see that being same-sex attracted can be a description of a definition of an aspect of one's identity BUT that it does not define the totality of one's identity.

No, I don't see it as being any part of your 'identity' in Christ anymore than being greedy is. The only time it becomes part of your identity is when you yourself identify with it. The vast majority struggle with one sin or another, but don't use it to identify themselves. One person may struggle with lust for women, another with pornography and some with lust for members of the same sex.
A line is crossed when the attempt is made to affirm the sin. To call it something other than sin.

Again, to a non Christian, the concept of sin is meaningless. However, once you are trying to declare yourself reborn in Christ, declaring him Lord, then you must realise what that means. The concept of sin and righteousness is part of it.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Surely a person's identity, whether religious or sexual, is for them and no one else to declare. It is not subject to qualification by any third party. So for example, if someone nominates themselves as Catholic on the census, then they're considered Catholic. Similarly if someone declares they're gay and a Catholic. While this might be morally problematic for the Church, that problem seems to rest more with the church than the gay Catholic.

Well, yes. If the church is using language to try to appeal to you, and the language is simply incomprehensible to you, that's a problem for the church much more than for you. Obviously.

But I'm not so sure about identities being declared by oneself and no-one else. I think there's a bit more to it than that. Identities are bound up with relationships. Am I Irish, say, if other Irish people don't consider me to be Irish? What about Jewish? If I am widely regarded, both by French people and by non-French people, as French, does my insistence that I'm not French entirely prevail?

I think identity is partly something that you construct for yourself, and partly something that is constructed for you, socially and culturally, by your community and society. Apart from anything else, homosexuality/heterosexuality as a personal identity (as opposed to a sexual preference) is a relatively recent construct, and I don't think you can meaningfully identify as, say, a gay man unless you live in a society in which this means something.

But that's maybe by the by. Such an identity undoubtedly exists in our culture, and if the Catholic church struggles with that, that's primarily the Catholic church's struggle. It may impede dialogue between Catholicism and gay people, and in principle both parties suffer when communication is impeded, but the way gay people regard themselves and the language they use to express that arises out of their own lived experience, so I don't think the Church can dismiss it just because it doesn't fit with traditional or established Christian anthropology.

Tl;dr: this is mainly the church's problem, and it's mainly the church's problem to fix.

aloyisious

JimiTime wrote: »

Meeting other homosexuals is not a sin. Meeting and talking to people is perfectly fine. However context is important. Jesus himself is our example. He met and ate with many prostitutes, thieves etc. But he wasn't hanging out with them passing round the dutchie. He met them and ministered to them, giving them a better way. Offering them salvation FROM their sin not IN their sin. He never said, 'You are an adulterer, I dig it. Whatever suits you.' He did not offer them affirmation, but transformation. As he does to all of us. Like the example earlier, he said 'Go, and sin no more'.

I refer to declaring oneself gay in a modern context as it pertains to the notion of pride, the 'This is who and what I am' attitude. The affiliation with its community and its affirmation as a perfectly fine way of life. Now if thats what you identify with, then thats your business.

However, it is diametrically opposed to God and what he declares righteous and sinful. So the idea that you can have one foot in affirming sin, while trying to identify with Christ is simply untenable.

If someone is saying I'm Gay and Christian to simply colloquially refer to his being same sex attracted, I would find that most unusual. If I have been freed in Christ, why would I wish to identify with the sin I struggle with?
Again, we must remember the context here.

No, I don't see it as being any part of your 'identity' in Christ anymore than being greedy is. The only time it becomes part of your identity is when you yourself identify with it. The vast majority struggle with one sin or another, but don't use it to identify themselves.

Again, to a non Christian, the concept of sin is meaningless.

It seem's that you are mixing up one's acceptance of what one is with what you as sin. I pointed out the reason the word pride was used but you continue to use it as meaning prideful, instead of accepting what one is at a personal level. It's your continued use of the word pride, and the context in which you see it [pride] as being sinful, that is part of your problem with acceptance of queer folk in general and your refusal to admit that they can be as good a christian as you.

EDIT: In regard to your reference above to gay people accepting that they are gay and identifying as such as being sinful in itself, how would you see a gay person who is totally accepting of being gay but is also totally abstinent from any same-sex activity and following what you quoted from the bible, Jesus and god? end edit.

If you were in a needy situation and a gay person came by offering help, would you refuse that offer on the basis that it came from a gay person or accept it on the basis of it being from a good Samaritan?

As you say, context is important. You seem to have the notion that a open self-admitted gay person accepting of his/her situation cannot also be christian.
Now I'll give you one practical example. There is, in the Christian groups who opposed the same-sex marriage referendum and the abortion referendum here, a gay man with a very high profile. The people in those groups did not object to his being amongst them or reject his support against both referendums on the basis that he is gay. It was his position, as a gay christian, that same-sex marriage was not marriage and he opposed the abortion referendum on the same basis. In what you say, you apparently believe, because of his acceptance that he is a gay man, he is a sinner and non-christian.

Ref your understanding that for non-Christians, there is no concept of sin, well, that might speak a multitude as to how you see other faith beliefs. BUT I'm not sure if you wrote that in reference to your vision of gays acceptance of their personal situation and at the same time identifying as christian [which you are denying as possible] or whether your reference to non-Christians is a direct reference to the non-christian faiths here.

Just because one is from the LGBT community, is aware and accepting of that fact and is from another faith does not mean one does not or cannot have a concept of sin. Putting it simply, some of my best friends in the LGBT community are not merely Christians but are Hebrew and Muslim and they do have an understanding and concept of sin and I don't see them as sinners or unbelievers. As you say, it's in the context.