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

Absolam

I think maybe a discussion of the march might be more relevant in the Politics or LGBT fora? There's nothing particularly relevant to Christianity's relationship with homosexuality either in the article or in the fact that the march took place, which is probably why you're not getting a great reaction to dropping the link in the thread. The seeking of equality in both the eyes of the law and the eyes of the people would be more of a political issue than anything, I think?

aloyisious

LGBT marches for equality are also known as Pride Marches. The use of the word "pride" there is to signify that the marchers are NOT ashamed of being LGBT people or of their sexuality. With or without the inclusion of the word "pride" the aim and intent of the LGBT people on the march remains the same; the seeking of equality with fellow citizens and not to be denied such on the grounds of one's sexuality. The shame angle on sexuality came from others reading of the bible, creation and the word of God.

When the reasoning for denial of and opposition to such equality is based on one's religious or biblical beliefs, then the denial steps outside the political sphere into the religious sphere. Unless there is some claim that the religious beliefs of people do not now or in the past have any input into how they feel about homosexual people and the LGBT people seeking to overturn the denial of equal rights to them, then I can see no reason for them to dislike or object to the inclusion of LGBT marches for equality on this thread.

I doubt if it is the case that not even one Polish person of RC persuasion would object [on RC faith beliefs] to Polish LGBT citizens having the same rights as them.

I doubt very much if anyone can put up an argument that the self-same denial of right to equality between Irish LGBT citizens and other Irish citizens here in the past had absolutely no religious input based on the bible, creation and the word of God, as is the present case in Poland.

Absolam

Sure. Maybe those opinions, in the first place, rather than a link to an article about a march that doesn't mention Christianity might have gotten a few more people onboard with talking about what you think though?

For what it's worth, I think 'the shame angle on sexuality' isn't exclusive to homosexuality, or even Christianity. Controlling sexuality has historically been a means of controlling populations, and that shame factor is visible through many cultures and many religions. The current Christian perspective of "love the sinner hate the sin" I'm sure you'll agree is a more tolerant perspective than has prevailed in previous centuries, and many predominantly Christian societies are more tolerant than many other societies today.

As for rights to equality, I think that's a fairly blurry line you're treading; Ireland has shown that even predominantly Christian societies can confer civil rights like marriage whilst reserving religious rites like marriage, so I'm dubious about how much value there is in pitching a discussion of civil liberties in a thread on religious positions. There's some overlap sure, but there are clear distinctions too.

I'd suggest that whilst you're now offering opinions on subjects unconnected to the march in Poland that may bear discussion, you haven't made a case that the march in Poland has any overlap with them. Political positions may be informed by religious opinions, but they're obviously not determined by them.

aloyisious

In the case of Poland, I'd demur from agreeing with an opinion-holder who says religious ethos has not determined the way homosexual rights are determined in that country and who also holds the differing opinion that political positions may be informed by religious opinion and there's some overlap. Thank's for noting the relevance of the opinion I offered; that religious opinion definitely affects decisions made in reference to civil rights.

I am unsure what other opinions it is others believe I am offering on subjects unconnected to the march in Poland. Perhaps the people with that belief would care to state what those other opinions are? We wouldn't want any deflection away from the overlap of religious think on civil rights, would we?

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

In the case of Poland, I'd demur from agreeing with an opinion-holder who says religious ethos has not determined the way homosexual rights are determined in that country and who also holds the differing opinion that political positions may be informed by religious opinion and there's some overlap. Thank's for noting the relevance of the opinion I offered; that religious opinion definitely affects decisions made in reference to civil rights. I am unsure what other opinions it is others believe I am offering on subjects unconnected to the march in Poland. Perhaps the people with that belief would care to state what those other opinions are? We wouldn't want any deflection away from the overlap of religious think on civil rights, would we?

I don't believe I (or anyone) actually said any of that... but what I did say is that the march doesn't seen at all relevant to the opinions you're putting forward. Pretty much the opinions you offered here seems rather unrelated to the march, to be honest. Which is to say, the article doesn't mention anything about "The shame angle on sexuality came from others reading of the bible, creation and the word of God.", or "denial of and opposition to such equality is based on one's religious or biblical beliefs", or "the self-same denial of right to equality between Irish LGBT citizens and other Irish citizens here in the past had absolutely no religious input based on the bible, creation and the word of God".

These are all opinions you might put forward, and even attempt to argue, they just don't seem to have anything to do with the link you dropped.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

I don't believe I (or anyone) actually said any of that... but what I did say is that the march doesn't seen at all relevant to the opinions you're putting forward. Pretty much the opinions you offered here seems rather unrelated to the march, to be honest. Which is to say, the article doesn't mention anything about "The shame angle on sexuality came from others reading of the bible, creation and the word of God.", or "denial of and opposition to such equality is based on one's religious or biblical beliefs", or "the self-same denial of right to equality between Irish LGBT citizens and other Irish citizens here in the past had absolutely no religious input based on the bible, creation and the word of God".

These are all opinions you might put forward, and even attempt to argue, they just don't seem to have anything to do with the link you dropped.

Perhaps one might reply to me as to why the march took place in the first place?

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Perhaps one might reply to me as to why the march took place in the first place?

One might I'm sure. One other (or perhaps even a few!) might ask what the march had to do with Christianity, given no mention no made of it was made in the article. And then another one might, in the spirit of Christian charity, suggest that you'd probably get more productive engagement if you just offered your opinion instead of dropping a link, since the only correlation you seem to be able to make is there's Christians there. Along with the non Christians.

Anyways, all that aside, you've already said yourself that you think the purpose of the march was to seek equality in the eyes of the law and the eyes of the people. That's not a Christian issue, it's a political issue.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

One might I'm sure. One other (or perhaps even a few!) might ask what the march had to do with Christianity, given no mention no made of it was made in the article. And then another one might, in the spirit of Christian charity, suggest that you'd probably get more productive engagement if you just offered your opinion instead of dropping a link, since the only correlation you seem to be able to make is there's Christians there. Along with the non Christians.

Anyways, all that aside, you've already said yourself that you think the purpose of the march was to seek equality in the eyes of the law and the eyes of the people. That's not a Christian issue, it's a political issue.

Could one legitimately extrapolate from your [Anyways, all that aside, you've already said yourself that you think the purpose of the march was to seek equality in the eyes of the law and the eyes of the people. That's not a Christian issue, it's a political issue] that voters should put aside personal religious beliefs when called upon to decide on issues of equality in civil rights in a christian charitable manner?

Do you think that that was what happened in the debate and vote on LGBT equality vis a vie the rights other citizens already had here?

Do you think that there should a christian charitable spirit in play in Poland when deciding on civil rights issues which conflict with personal religious beliefs as guided and learned under RC Church teaching?
[I'm mindful that Poland's population is over 90% RC Christian in belief so reckon that would make for a fairly large component part of the voting population being similarly minded].

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Could one legitimately extrapolate from your [Anyways, all that aside, you've already said yourself that you think the purpose of the march was to seek equality in the eyes of the law and the eyes of the people. That's not a Christian issue, it's a political issue] that voters should put aside personal religious beliefs when called upon to decide on issues of equality in civil rights in a christian charitable manner?

If you want to try I'll watch with interest.

aloyisious wrote: »

Do you think that that was what happened in the debate and vote on LGBT equality vis a vie the rights other citizens already had here?

Well, I certainly didn't notice them mention it on the march in Poland. Did you?

aloyisious wrote: »

Do you think that there should a christian charitable spirit in play in Poland when deciding on civil rights issues which conflict with personal religious beliefs as guided and learned under RC Church teaching? [I'm mindful that Poland's population is over 90% RC Christian in belief so reckon that would make for a fairly large component part of the voting population being similarly minded].

I think, given your assertions about Poland that there were probably Christians on the march. Do you think their Christian charitable spirit wasn't in play?

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

If you want to try I'll watch with interest.
Well, I certainly didn't notice them mention it on the march in Poland. Did you?

I think, given your assertions about Poland that there were probably Christians on the march. Do you think their Christian charitable spirit wasn't in play?

Hmm,,, I suppose you are right in your extrapolations, given the Polish populace make-up, there probably were charitable non-lgbt Christian Poles on the march as well as LGBT Christian Poles. You're probably right too about charitable non-christians from other faith beliefs being on the march.... One wouldn't want to define LGBT people as being non-Christian merely because they are LGBT, it wouldn't be charitable, would it?

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

You're probably right too about charitable non-christians from other faith beliefs being on the march.... One wouldn't want to define LGBT people as being non-Christian merely because they are LGBT, it wouldn't be charitable, would it?

I think it's a pretty massive leap to suddenly imagine that anyone would ever define LGBT people as being non-Christian merely because they are LGBT, whether they were charitable or not. It sounds a bit like an attempt to create an argument no one is offering just to kick back against it. I'm sure there's a name for that sort of thing, it just escapes me at this moment. Can you think what it might be that you were doing there?

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

I think it's a pretty massive leap to suddenly imagine that anyone would ever define LGBT people as being non-Christian merely because they are LGBT, whether they were charitable or not. It sounds a bit like an attempt to create an argument no one is offering just to kick back against it. I'm sure there's a name for that sort of thing, it just escapes me at this moment. Can you think what it might be that you were doing there?

If you do a bit of research on the RC church positions on LGBT and homosexual people [seeing as how both are co-mingled in modern thought] being christians or Christians, i think you will find it was not a massive leap for the RC church clergy and/or it's headquarters staffers in the Vatican to make. I know that you are an excellent user of the keyboard and the internet and that you can research that RC leap yourself without help by me. I wouldn't want to bias your capabilities or thoughts by providing research data myself.

It's possible that you could also refresh your memory on the name which escaped your grasp by using the various internet lexicons.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

If you do a bit of research on the RC church positions on LGBT and homosexual people [seeing as how both are co-mingled in modern thought] being christians or Christians, i think you will find it was not a massive leap for the RC church clergy and/or it's headquarters staffers in the Vatican to make.

Oh, I think we all know quite well that none of them have made any such leap at all, for reasons that would be perfectly obvious to anyone with the faintest idea of the most basic facts about the Church.

I'm afraid your leap is absolutely a product of your own imagination, delivered without any consideration whatsoever for facts but rather based entirely on your own apparent need for a strawman to rail against.

That was the word... strawman! I knew it would come to me if I looked at your post again

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

Oh, I think we all know quite well that none of them have made any such leap at all, for reasons that would be perfectly obvious to anyone with the faintest idea of the most basic facts about the Church.

I'm afraid your leap is absolutely a product of your own imagination, delivered without any consideration whatsoever for facts but rather based entirely on your own apparent need for a strawman to rail against.

That was the word... strawman! I knew it would come to me if I looked at your post again

We: the ultimate in deflection.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

We: the ultimate in deflection.

Yeeeeesss.... that seems to address what I said. Sure

aloyisious

I came across an item involving a US Catholic Bishop and his instructions to priests in his diocese on how to act in regard to LGBT funerals, so as it's outside Ireland maybe a Moderator can let me know if its ok to post it here.

Absolam

These instructions? They seem mostly to be in accordance with Catholic teaching...ish. I think he may be presuming that anyone in a same sex-marriage is necessarily sinning, and whilst that's probably not a massive presumption I don't think the wider Church is likely to agree that the presumption should be acted on, even if it agreed the measures he's describing are appropriate if those people are sinning. He also seems to be taking the view that living openly in a same sex marriage is being a manifest sinner (as in sinning publicly and deliberately, which it kind of could be...), and allowing such a person ecclesiastical funeral rites would give scandal to the faithful (which it probably would if any of the faithful gave it any thought). I suspect the Vatican is more inclined to liberal interpretation of repentance these days though, so it probably wouldn't take much to allow such a funeral; the very act of expressing a desire for ecclesiastical funeral rites might be construed as sufficient sign of penitence.

aloyisious

Thoughts of a senior Anglican minister, the Very Rev Kelvin Holdsworth in The Independent [UK Paper] Christians should pray for Prince George to be gay, says senior Scottish reverend.

Christians should pray for Prince George to be gay in order to force the Church of England to support same-sex marriage, a senior Anglican minister has said. The Very Rev Kelvin Holdsworth wrote in a blog post that Christians should hope that “the Lord blesses George with the love of a fine young gentleman” to help the progression of LGBTQ+ rights in the church.
He wrote: “If people don’t want to engage in campaigning in this way, they do in England have another unique option, which is to pray in the privacy of their hearts (or in public if they dare) for the Lord to bless Prince George with a love, when he grows up, of a fine young gentleman. “A royal wedding might sort things out remarkably easily, though we might have to wait 25 years for that to happen. Who knows whether that might be sooner than things working out by other means?”

Rev Holdsworth is a LGBTQ+ campaigner and the provost of St Mary's Cathedral in Glasgow, a Scottish Episcopal Church, the Church of England’s sister institution. Currently same-sex couples are not allowed to marry in the Church of England, while The Scottish Episcopal Church voted to allow priests to decide for themselves.

Rev Holdsworth told The Independent that as leader of the Church of England, it is ultimately up to the Archbishop of Canterbury to decide the Church's stance on same-sex marriage. “The question is really one for the Archbishop of Canterbury," he said. The Archbishop announced that he was "delighted" that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle would get married, despite Ms Markle being divorced. Both same-sex marriages and divorcees getting married in church are frowned on by the same church law.

Rev Holdsworth's blog post has prompted controversy, with former chaplain to the Queen, Rev Gavin Ashenden, describing it as praying "the child out of the intentions of God." Rev Ashenden told Christian Today: "It is an unkind and destabilising prayer. It is the theological equivalent of the curse of the wicked fairy in one of the fairy tales.
“To co-opt the Royal children to service a narrow sexual agenda seems particularly tasteless.”
Rev Holdsworth's comments urging Christians to pray for the four-year-old future monarch and head of the Church of England to be gay was part of a list of suggestions to force LGBTQ+ inclusion in the Church of England.

smacl

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.

Nick Park

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.

True.

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

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.