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

Cabaal

aloyisious wrote: »

The Irish Society for Christian Civilisation - Irish TPF has written a letter and is asking the public to sign a F/B petition to Archbishop Diarmuid Martin to dis-invite Fr James Martin SJ from the World Meeting of Families event here this August. They are upset by what they see as Fr Martin's opposition to the church's teaching on human sexuality. In 2017 Pope Francis appointed Fr Martin as a consultant to the Vatican's Secretariat for Communications. Fr Martin writes for, and is editor-at-large for, the Jesuit magazine America.

Fr John Zuhlsdorf thinks Fr Martin is homosexual and secretly hates himself and this explains why Fr Martin is "obsessed" with homosexuals. http://voxcantor.blogspot.com/2017/06/james-martin-sj-homosexual-sex-obsessed.html.

I've come across their Facebook sponsored advert (no idea why I'm targeted), the comments section doesn't appear to be going their way with many more people being fine with his none extreme views against gay people and how the church should be more accepting and welcome them

Mancomb Seepgood

aloyisious wrote: »

Fr John Zuhlsdorf thinks Fr Martin is homosexual and secretly hates himself and this explains why Fr Martin is "obsessed" with homosexuals. http://voxcantor.blogspot.com/2017/06/james-martin-sj-homosexual-sex-obsessed.html.

Quite the neck on him making that argument given the content of his blog,if anyone is obsessed with the subject it isn't Fr Martin.

Cabaal

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/mary-mcaleese-s-son-calls-for-one-kind-of-marriage-in-north-1.3583652

Mary McAleese’s son calls for ‘one kind of marriage’ in North
Gay rights campaigner says ‘faith has no place in secular, registry office marriage’

To be fair he is right, nobody wants to force any church to perform marriages for gay couples. This is about the state, not religious groups recognising them

aloyisious

I've gotten an invitation to like the page of and join the Irish Society for Christian Civilisation, the curse of temptation is upon me.

aloyisious

This news report has certainly left me gobsmacked - only this week, a safe burial place for Matthew Shepherd 20 years after his murder.

https://nypost.com/2018/10/25/matthew-shepard-murdered-gay-student-finally-laid-to-rest/

aloyisious

The US House of Representatives passed the Equality Act vote 236 - 173 on Friday last. Zero Democrats voted against it, all the nay votes were Republican.

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/05/18/house-of-representatives-approves-equality-act/

The USCBB [Catholic Board of Bishops] responded to the vote outcome and passing of the act with the statement in the link below. It seems they are worried about the effects they say it will have on women's rights in federal law, abortion, sex and marriage and that the act exempts itself from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.

https://www.indcatholicnews.com/news/37127

aloyisious

I dont know if the specific thread related to the Belfast Asher Bakery gay wedding cake court action is still active or if its been deleted. The case is now going to the ECHR on a point of law, that the UK Supreme Court failed to give enough weight to the human rights of the plaintiff Gareth Lee, who first took legal action, when it decided in favour of the bakery and against the N/I Human Rights commission ruling on the case. The latest action is against the UK as it is a member of the ECHR and not against the Asher family bakery as their right to privately hold religious or political views. I thought it was done and dusted.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/ashers-bakery-gay-cake-case-goes-to-european-court-944245.html

Peregrinus

aloyisious wrote: »

I dont know if the specific thread related to the Belfast Asher Bakery gay wedding cake court action is still active or if its been deleted. The case is now going to the ECHR on a point of law, that the UK Supreme Court failed to give enough weight to the human rights of the plaintiff Gareth Lee, who first took legal action, when it decided in favour of the bakery and against the N/I Human Rights commission ruling on the case. The latest action is against the UK as it is a member of the ECHR and not against the Asher family bakery as their right to privately hold religious or political views. I thought it was done and dusted.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/ashers-bakery-gay-cake-case-goes-to-european-court-944245.html

Robindch noted this development over here.

This will be a slow-burning one - the ECtHR is not really designed for rapid action. The first stage, if I recall correctly, will be arguments about whether the complaint is even admissible, before they get on to arguing the merits of the issue itself.

Might be wise, if and when there's more to be said about this, to open a new thread, specifically directed at the Asher case. Because of the slow pace of movement, posts about Asher in the more general threads may be swallowed up, and prove hard to find.

El_Duderino 09

Remembering the gay marriage debate leading up to the ref and the dire predictions that would occur if gay marriage was allowed. Have any of these predictions been realised yet or are there any signs of negative consequences from gay marriage, from a Christian perspective?

Hotblack Desiato

I can imagine the credibility of those who were telling us that society was going to hell in a handcart has taken yet another dent.

Of course, whether you regard that as a bad thing or a good thing depends on your point of view...

Peregrinus

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Remembering the gay marriage debate leading up to the ref and the dire predictions that would occur if gay marriage was allowed. Have any of these predictions been realised yet or are there any signs of negative consequences from gay marriage, from a Christian perspective?

Can we remember any of the specifics of any of the dire predictions? Generalised "hell-in-a-handbasket" prognistications aren' really falsifiable, so not of much use in this context.

El_Duderino 09

Peregrinus wrote: »

Can we remember any of the specifics of any of the dire predictions? Generalised "hell-in-a-handbasket" prognistications aren' really falsifiable, so not of much use in this context.

The devaluation of heterosexual marriage. Use of the term "value" suggests is it could be measured but I suspect not.

smacl

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The devaluation of heterosexual marriage. Use of the term "value" suggests is it could be measured but I suspect not.

Or even that the value relates to relative rather than intrinsic worth. If the value of any couple's marriage can be undermined by another couple's relationship being given the same status in the eyes of the law, I know which marriage I'd consider questionable

Peregrinus

Mmm. I could just about see an argument that the introduction of divorce "devalues" marriage. I don't think I'd be convinced by the argument, but I could construct it.

But, honestly, I don't even understand the claim that the introduction of same-sex marriage "devalues" opposite-sex marriage.

Cabaal

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Remembering the gay marriage debate leading up to the ref and the dire predictions that would occur if gay marriage was allowed. Have any of these predictions been realised yet or are there any signs of negative consequences from gay marriage, from a Christian perspective?

Well, if you selectively apply stuff that generally happens a christian could claim that the predictions of a great flood have happened.....

Yes, this is a real claim

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/18/uk-storms-divine-retirubtion-gay-marriage-ukip

UK storms are divine retribution for gay marriage laws, says Ukip councillor
Former Tory David Silvester says 'natural disasters' are result of David Cameron acting 'arrogantly against the Gospel'

aloyisious

Peregrinus wrote: »

Mmm. I could just about see an argument that the introduction of divorce "devalues" marriage. I don't think I'd be convinced by the argument, but I could construct it.

But, honestly, I don't even understand the claim that the introduction of same-sex marriage "devalues" opposite-sex marriage.

Going back over old ground, if one has the mindset that marriage has a specific [sacramental] purpose then one is putting a value on it. Continuing with that mindset, it's inevitable that one would not want same-sex couples to have access to marriage, even civil marriage, as to those of that mindset, there is a singular purpose behind marriage in all its forms. Ireland did and does still have people with that value mindset. If one cannot fulfil within a civil marriage the sacramental requirements, then, per se, there is an inevitable conclusion reached within the said mindset.

smacl

aloyisious wrote: »

Going back over old ground, if one has the mindset that marriage has a specific [sacramental] purpose then one is putting a value on it. Continuing with that mindset, it's inevitable that one would not want same-sex couples to have access to marriage, even civil marriage, as to those of that mindset, there is a singular purpose behind marriage in all its forms. Ireland did and does still have people with that value mindset. If one cannot fulfil within a civil marriage the sacramental requirements, then, per se, there is an inevitable conclusion reached within the said mindset.

Worth noting that heterosexual atheists would also fall foul of that [sacramental] criterion, as would marriage between Christians who have no intention of having kids. I would have thought that whether or not one is married in the eyes of the church is a matter for the church whereas that whether or not one is married in the eyes of the law is a matter for the state.

aloyisious

smacl wrote: »

Worth noting that heterosexual atheists would also fall foul of that [sacramental] criterion, as would marriage between Christians who have no intention of having kids. I would have thought that whether or not one is married in the eyes of the church is a matter for the church whereas that whether or not one is married in the eyes of the law is a matter for the state.

I agree with you as far as those heterosexuals who would fall foul of the sacramental criterion goes. However, it was the position of the church that civil marriage must be denied to homosexuals and that was based on it's position of the sacramental value of marriage.

I don't recall there being as much mention of heterosexual atheists or non-conforming heterosexuals who might decline to comply with the importance of the sex-act for procreation purposes as outlined by the church in respect of sacramental marriage as there was of the need to deny civil marriage equality between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples.

Heck, there were even gay people standing alongside the religious-belief heterosexuals before the referendum all promoting the message that there must be no equality of civil marriage for gay couples. Some of those gay people made it clear that their position was based on their Christian faith belief.

Cabaal

Fyp

aloyisious wrote: »

Heck, there were even gay people one gay man standing alongside the religious-belief heterosexuals before the referendum all promoting the message that there must be no equality of civil marriage for gay couples. Some of those gay people made it clear that their position was based on their Christian faith belief.

So just Paddy Manning then?
:pac::pac::pac:

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Worth noting that heterosexual atheists would also fall foul of that [sacramental] criterion, as would marriage between Christians who have no intention of having kids. I would have thought that whether or not one is married in the eyes of the church is a matter for the church whereas that whether or not one is married in the eyes of the law is a matter for the state.

Um. [Heterosexual] marriages involving atheists, non-Christians and non-Catholics are perfectly religiously valid from the Catholic point of view. Those marriages might be invalid for other reasons - not freely entered into, one or both spouses still married to other people, etc - but this is independent of whether the parties are Catholics. And I'm pretty sure that other denominations and religions mostly take a similar view.

Which means that, from this perspective, a gay marriage is [religiously] invalid in the way that a bigamous marriage would be, or a marriage of somebody who lacks (what the church regards as) capacity or understanding or proper intent.

But of course civil law already recognises lots of marriages which Catholics/Christians would regard as not true marriages, from a religious point of view. That ship sailed a long time ago, and the churches have managed to live with it.

Cabaal

Peregrinus wrote: »

Um. [Heterosexual] marriages involving atheists, non-Christians and non-Catholics are perfectly religiously valid from the Catholic point of view.

Really?
So when a person I know outright told the priest that they didn't believe in god, were only getting marriage in a church for the other half and they also flat out refused to do the marriage course and the priest married them anyway. That was all square and ok with the catholic church? I would have thought believing in god was a basic requirement of a catholic religious marriage.

That seems a little odd.

If it is then it seem like the church cares little about the people it marrys and instead just wants to pack in the numbers as much as they can.

Are they that desperate to try increase the catholic church marriage numbers as they fall each year?

Peregrinus

Cabaal wrote: »

Really?
So when a person I know outright told the priest that they didn't believe in god, were only getting marriage in a church for the other half and they also flat out refused to do the marriage course and the priest married them anyway. That was all square and ok with the catholic church? I would have thought believing in god was a basic requirement of a catholic religious marriage.

That seems a little odd.

If it is then it seem like the church cares little about the people it marrys and instead just wants to pack in the numbers as much as they can.

Are they that desperate to try increase the catholic church marriage numbers as they fall each year?

You're confusing "marriages celebrated in a Catholic church" with "marriages the Catholic church regards as valid".

The Catholic church has a rule that Catholics must marry in a Catholic ceremony (or get a dispensation allowing them to marry in a non-Catholic ceremony) and, if they don't, the marriage is invalid. But this rule only applies to Catholics.

For non-Catholics - and this includes other Christians, adherents of non-Christian religions, and unbelievers - no such rule applies. The nature and location of their marriage ceremony is irrelevant, as are their views or lack of them on God or His existence or non-existence. All that matters is their capacity and intention to marry. If they freely intend to enter into a committed, exclusive, enduring, procreative, conjugal union, their marriages are entirely religiously valid, as far as the Catholic - and I think most other - church is concerned. (To the extent that, if they later get religion and rock up to a church seeking to be married in a religious ceremony to the same - or, awkwardly, a different - spouse, they'll be told "No can do; you're already married".)

Nick Park

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Remembering the gay marriage debate leading up to the ref and the dire predictions that would occur if gay marriage was allowed. Have any of these predictions been realised yet or are there any signs of negative consequences from gay marriage, from a Christian perspective?

As someone who argued for a No vote, I didn't believe that the word 'marriage' should be redefined by the State.

I don't think I made any 'dire' predictions. The most extreme prediction I made was that the special nature of marriage as a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman was being changed, in Enda Kenny's words, into "the right to say I do". I therefore predicted that we might expect to see divorce being made easier to obtain, and a growing trend for pre-nuptial agreements.

The most 'dire' prediction I remember elsewhere was from the Iona Institute when it predicted that we could see two heterosexual men getting married for tax reasons: https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/iona-institute-calls-for-defeat-of-marriage-referendum-677960.html

That prediction, of course, was fulfilled in 2017: https://www.thejournal.ie/marriage-tax-reasons-3766958-Dec2017/

aloyisious

Peregrinus wrote: »

Um. [Heterosexual] marriages involving atheists, non-Christians and non-Catholics are perfectly religiously valid from the Catholic point of view.

Umm: interesting perspective, that if one of the partners was honest and upfront with the priest as to his/her non-belief in the creed of the other partners faith but was intent on being faithful within the marriage to that partner, then there would be no auto-restrictions placed on the priest by rules of the church preventing him from proceeding with the ,marriage ceremony and giving it the blessing of the church and its deity. Edit: I'm referring to heterosexual couples marrying there. On an aside, this caused me to check on the Ne Temere rule and I found it was removed from RC church law in 1970.

Cabaal

Nick Park wrote: »

The most 'dire' prediction I remember elsewhere was from the Iona Institute when it predicted that we could see two heterosexual men getting married for tax reasons: https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/iona-institute-calls-for-defeat-of-marriage-referendum-677960.html

After all, as we all know no man and women has ever gotten married for tax, money or immigration reasons
:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

Nick Park

Cabaal wrote: »

After all, as we all know no man and women has ever gotten married for tax, money or immigration reasons
:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

Oh, of course they have always been happening: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sham_marriage

The concept of a 'sham' marriage was always based on the fact that they were not 'real' marriages with sexual consummation and a lifelong commitment. However, it is none of our business what two consenting adults choose to do in the privacy of their bedrooms (including choosing to do nothing at all ever). Nor can it be convincingly argued that marriage is truly a lifelong commitment.

It's not particularly 'dire' (but then, I wasn't the one who initially chose that word). I do predict that it is going to prove increasingly hard to argue that any union is 'sham' when we don't have much of a criteria for what constitutes a 'real' marriage.

recedite

Nick Park wrote: »

I do predict that it is going to prove increasingly hard to argue that any union is 'sham' when we don't have much of a criteria for what constitutes a 'real' marriage.

We are being led into an age of gender fluidity and marriage flexibility.
By this reasoning, you can be whatever you claim you are.
Male/female, sham/legit, who cares anymore. Its only a piece of paper. Or so they say.

Hotblack Desiato

Cabaal wrote: »

So just Paddy Manning then?
:pac::pac::pac:

Keith Mills, as well. So that's 2...

Nick Park wrote: »

As someone who argued for a No vote, I didn't believe that the word 'marriage' should be redefined by the State.

Appeal to tradition. "We've always given fewer legal rights to gay people, therefore we should continue to give fewer legal rights to gay people."

I therefore predicted that we might expect to see divorce being made easier to obtain, and a growing trend for pre-nuptial agreements.

There was already increasing pressure for both. Nothing to do with gay marriage. The five year wait written into the constitution was always ridiculous. Still no legal recognition of pre-nups but it'll likely happen eventually. Irrelevant for the vast majority of couples with few or no assets beyond a family home.

The most 'dire' prediction I remember elsewhere was from the Iona Institute when it predicted that we could see two heterosexual men getting married for tax reasons: https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/iona-institute-calls-for-defeat-of-marriage-referendum-677960.html

That prediction, of course, was fulfilled in 2017: https://www.thejournal.ie/marriage-tax-reasons-3766958-Dec2017/

So that's one case that we know of.

But so what?

People have got married to obtain property, cement / repair links between two powerful families (or even nations), and all sorts of other reasons which don't correspond to the relatively newfangled Western notion of romantic love, and these marriages were regarded as perfectly valid.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

All that matters is their capacity and intention to marry. If they freely intend to enter into a committed, exclusive, enduring, procreative, conjugal union, their marriages are entirely religiously valid, as far as the Catholic - and I think most other - church is concerned.

The only criterion there that would would preclude gay marriage between men would be procreation, which would be the same for marriage between hetero Christians who have no intention of having kids (as previously raised), though not for gay women who could avail of artificial insemination. I'm at something of a loss to see what is objectionable about a gay marriage in the above context beyond this.

Um. [Heterosexual] marriages involving atheists, non-Christians and non-Catholics are perfectly religiously valid from the Catholic point of view. Those marriages might be invalid for other reasons - not freely entered into, one or both spouses still married to other people, etc - but this is independent of whether the parties are Catholics. And I'm pretty sure that other denominations and religions mostly take a similar view.

Which means that, from this perspective, a gay marriage is [religiously] invalid in the way that a bigamous marriage would be, or a marriage of somebody who lacks (what the church regards as) capacity or understanding or proper intent.

I struggle to see from the first paragraph how a gay marriage would be invalid in the same sense as a bigamous marriage. Is this intent to procreate again?

recedite

smacl wrote: »

The only criterion there that would would preclude gay marriage between men would be procreation, which would be the same for marriage between hetero Christians who have no intention of having kids...

That, and the fact that they are both men :pac:
In the RC doctrine marriage may only be between one man and one woman.
Genesis 2:24 states: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.”

In Matthew 19:4-5, Jesus reaffirms this: “He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’?”

smacl wrote: »

... though not for gay women who could avail of artificial insemination. I'm at something of a loss to see what is objectionable about a gay marriage in the above context beyond this.

The fact that they are two women (as above).
And besides, your cop-out clause is invalid because artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, and surrogate motherhood are considered immoral because they involve sexual acts that are procreative, but not unitive.