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

MrPudding

Aurongroove wrote: »

I disagree with your conclusions (and the reasoning you've used to reach those conclusions), but it would be unproductive to go into why in this thread. not at least until after I look at those cases you've posted.

I look forward to your response.

MrP

Aurongroove

Don't be; I'm not guaranteeing one.
I've got a lot on my plate for the next few weeks and probably won't have time.

aloyisious

Aurongroove wrote: »

Don't be; I'm not guaranteeing one.
I've got a lot on my plate for the next few weeks and probably won't have time.

Toikey & ham?

aloyisious

From GAYSTARNEWS

Porn causes men to support gay marriage, says US sociologist

A US Christian Sociologist claimed that watching porn is responsible for increased support of marriage equality
25 DECEMBER 2012 | BY DAN LITTAUER

Mark Regnerus, an associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Texas, claimed that watching porn makes straight men support marriage equality.

Regnerus made these claims in an article published late last week on the Witherspoon Institute site, a Christian organization with strong links the Family Research Council, a group well known to promote discredited anti-gay ‘research’.

He stated that ‘contrary to what we might wish to think, young adult men’s support for redefining marriage may not be entirely the product of ideals about expansive freedoms, rights, liberties, and a noble commitment to fairness’.

Rather, ‘it may be, at least in part, a by-product of regular exposure to diverse and graphic sex acts’.

He therefore argued that porn confuses men about sex as means for procreation as it ‘redirects sex — by graphic depiction of it — away from any sense of it as a baby-making activity. Porn also undermines the concept that in the act of sexual intercourse, we share our body and whole self … permanently and exclusively’.

Regnerus reveals that ‘of the men who view pornographic material “every day or almost every day”, 54 percent “strongly agreed” that gay and lesbian marriage should be legal, compared with around 13 percent of those whose porn-use patterns were either monthly or less often than that’.

He therefore concluded: ‘On the contrary, it reinforces the idea that people can share their bodies but not their inmost selves, and that they can do so temporarily and (definitely) not exclusively without harm’.

In other words, Regnerus claimed that repeated exposure to porn ‘reinforces’ the idea that sex is divorced from marriage and its function of procreation leading men to think gay marriage is acceptable.

To Regnerus the increasing support for marriage equality in the USA, is in part, due to watching porn rather than understanding that its ban is a denial of equality and civil liberties.

He also added: ‘The same pattern emerges for the statement, "Gay and lesbian couples do just as good a job raising children as heterosexual couples”. Only 26 percent of the lightest porn users concurred, compared to 63 percent of the heaviest consumers.

‘It's a linear association for men: the more porn they consume, the more they affirm this statement. More rigorous statistical tests confirmed that this association too is a very robust one’.

Dan Avery commented on Queerty that the sample in Regnerus’s ‘study’ by definition is flawed: ‘Because men who acknowledge they look at porn are honest. And they’re less judgmental. They accept than humans are sexual beings with natural urges they can’t just wish away.

‘Which would make them more the kind of guys to support marriage equality—and not.say, expect gay men to magically turn straight’.

Regnerus, a Christian Sociologist, has been overwhelmingly criticised when he published a widely discredited study earlier this year that alleged children of gay parents are worse off than those of straight ones.

The University of Texas continues to support his 'research' despite it being widely discredited.

Links234

aloyisious wrote: »

A US Christian Sociologist claimed that watching porn is responsible for increased support of marriage equality

just when you think the anti-marriage crowd can't get any more loopy! :pac:

did nobody think to explain to that fellow that correlation doesn't imply causation?

what if we did polled people about how heathly their diets are and asked them if they support marriage equality, then the results showed that people who ate lots of fast foods and junk foods were less likely to support marriage equality, and those that ate healthy were in favour of marriage equality. would it be correct to assume that healthy eating made people pro marriage, or that it's rather useless to draw a conclusion from such a polling?

SebBerkovich

Links234 wrote: »

just when you think the anti-marriage crowd can't get any more loopy! :pac:

did nobody think to explain to that fellow that correlation doesn't imply causation?

what if we did polled people about how heathly their diets are and asked them if they support marriage equality, then the results showed that people who ate lots of fast foods and junk foods were less likely to support marriage equality, and those that ate healthy were in favour of marriage equality. would it be correct to assume that healthy eating made people pro marriage, or that it's rather useless to draw a conclusion from such a polling?

They seems to be using what they're got.
Need support for something irrational? what you need is a study that implements that irrational homophobia with just a sprinkle some science words. Then you've got yourself something that makes sticking to your particularly antiquated view that little bit less insane.

MrPudding

SebBerkovich wrote: »

They seems to be using what they're got.
Need support for something irrational? what you need is a study that implements that irrational homophobia with just a sprinkle some science words. Then you've got yourself something that makes sticking to your particularly antiquated view that little bit less insane.

I have been doing a lot of reading on this subject recently for a dissertation. Mostly it is based on the US around laws attempting to restrict same sex marriage. They failed on the morality attempt, as the courts don't really care about that, there has to be a rational basis for law, so can't be doctrine based.

We then have attempts to present what is, in effect, sheer bigotry, in secular or political terms; they have not been successful. If you have a look at the cases I attached a few posts up you will see.

In the proposition 8 case they made many claims, pre-trail, that they were going to show how gay marriage would damage the state, was bad for society in general and was harmful to children. They got crucified in the court. Most of their witnesses refused to testify and those that did were seen or what they were, bigots trying to masquerade their bigotry as something else and relying on anecdote and personal opinion to support it.

MrP

martinnew

Marriage, Matrimony, Comes from a latin term. mater (Mother) y munus (Offering…). Marriage involves a Man and a Woman.

If gay couples want their relationship recognised they whats wrong with a Civil partnership with the same legal rights? Why the rush to re-define somthing that removes the woman from the very definition of marriage.

MrPudding

martinnew wrote: »

Marriage, Matrimony, Comes from a latin term. mater (Mother) y munus (Offering…). Marriage involves a Man and a Woman.

If gay couples want their relationship recognised they whats wrong with a Civil partnership with the same legal rights? Why the rush to re-define somthing that removes the woman from the very definition of marriage.

Why don't you read some of the posts above. The reasons why are detailed there.

MrP

Links234

martinnew wrote: »

Why the rush to re-define somthing that removes the woman from the very definition of marriage.

I don't. I want to add a woman

aloyisious

@martinnew: please go read up on the rights and privileges given in Irish law to married couples and to "Gay" Civil Partner-shipped couples.

Gay CP relationships are NOT solely the privilege of males, so the woman may not always be removed from the definition.

Bannasidhe

Proof that not all Christians have a problem with Gay Marriage.

The Washington National Cathedral, where the US gathers to mourn tragedies and celebrate new presidents, will soon begin performing same-sex marriages.

Cathedral officials said the church will be among the first Episcopal congregations to implement a new rite of marriage.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/world/washington-cathedral-to-stage-gay-marriages-580490.html

JimiTime

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Proof that not all Christians have a problem with Gay Marriage.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/world/washington-cathedral-to-stage-gay-marriages-580490.html

What do you think? Are you familiar enough with scripture to comment on whether you think these professing Christians are behaving in a Christian manner? Its no news that there are Many, many, many, many professing Christians who would have a gay affirming theology. Not sure if you are informed enough to comment, but if you are, what do you think?

wonderfulname

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Proof that not all Christians have a problem with Gay Marriage.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/world/washington-cathedral-to-stage-gay-marriages-580490.html

They're not alone;

Quakers see God in everyone and so we would say that all committed relationships are of equal worth.

- http://www.quaker.org.uk/samesexbriefing

In fact, homosexuality was still illegal in Ireland when the first Quaker same sex marriage was performed in the US.

There are a huge number of christian denominations/groups that recognise same sex unions, that's just one I've paid attention to, Wikipedia has a list;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessing_of_same-sex_unions_in_Christian_churches

philologos

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Proof that not all Christians have a problem with Gay Marriage.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/world/washington-cathedral-to-stage-gay-marriages-580490.html

Some who claim to be Christians are willing to undermine God's word, and accept themselves as Lord over Jesus.

Unfortunately, the Episcopal Church have been false teachers, and so for very many years, at least at a heirarchical level. They have refused to submit to the authority of God's word on many topics, not just this one. They have also sued churches that have had to defect to other Anglican churches such as the newly established Anglican Church of North America because of their disagreement to Episcopal Church teachings, and the Episcopal Church has spent the tune of $22 million just to sue them.

4 dioceses have defected from the Episcopal Church, and a 5th is about to after the Episcopal Church prosecutes their bishop for not agreeing with their liberal policies.

Their archbishop has refused to accept that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation as the Bible says rather clearly in a number of places including John 14:6. Their church has essentially sidelined those who believe in Biblical Christianity, and sued those who have been ousted with the cost of $22mn to sue them all.

It's truly tragic, and I am deeply thankful that the Church of England or the Church of Ireland isn't like this. The state of the Episcopal church in America saddens me. It's horrific to see how they can twist Anglicanism which is a faith that is grounded in Scripture as it's primary authority to completely undermine Scripture at a whim.

The Episcopal Church is in terminal decline at least in it's liberal parts, and it is tearing itself apart. This is a church in suicide.

Benny_Cake

philologos wrote: »

Unfortunately, the Episcopal Church have been false teachers, and so for very many years, at least at a heirarchical level. They have refused to submit to the authority of God's word on many topics, not just this one. They have also sued churches that have had to defect to other Anglican churches such as the newly established Anglican Church of North America because of their disagreement to Episcopal Church teachings, and the Episcopal Church has spent the tune of $22 million just to sue them.

4 dioceses have defected from the Episcopal Church, and a 5th is about to after the Episcopal Church prosecutes their bishop for not agreeing with their liberal policies.

Their archbishop has refused to accept that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation as the Bible says rather clearly in a number of places including John 14:6. Their church has essentially sidelined those who believe in Biblical Christianity, and sued those who have been ousted with the cost of $22mn to sue them all.

I think that most of the court cases have been about property? The Episcopal Church isn't a congregational church so individual parishes can't simply leave and hold on to church property, for example. I agree that the infighting on this issue is tragic as one of the strengths of Anglicanism is that it always accommodated diverse traditions (conservative/liberal, evangelical/Anglo-Catholic). Now everyone seems to be migrating towards extreme positions

philologos

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I think that most of the court cases have been about property? The Episcopal Church isn't a congregational church so individual parishes can't simply leave and hold on to church property, for example. I agree that the infighting on this issue is tragic as one of the strengths of Anglicanism is that it always accommodated diverse traditions (conservative/liberal, evangelical/Anglo-Catholic). Now everyone seems to be migrating towards extreme positions

The Episcopal Church is one of the least tolerant of diversity within the Anglican Communion I think. The issues in the diocese of South Carolina show this. They are imposing a theology on clergy and if you're refusing to accept it as a bishop you are ousted. The Episcopal Church has repeatedly shown itself to ignore traditionalists such as the Bishop of South Carolina. I think a church which refuses to listen after 5 dioceses part ways is an obstinate and a stubborn church.

Just a quick glance through Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer will show that the Episcopal Church is very different from how Anglicanism was invisioned to be.

You're right there's a three thronged split I think.
1) liberal
2) Reformed / Evangelical
3) Anglo-Catholic.

3 can be either liberal or conservative.
2 tends to put a large emphasis on Scripture.

Unsurprisingly I'm in camp 2. I think the Bible should be the foremost authority in any church. Moreover that churches should submit to Scripture than the other way around irrespective of whether that was because of alleged tradition, or because of secular ideologies trying to corrupt Christianity.

If I was hypothetically involved in the Episcopal Church and they repeatedly refused to listen on this issue or the other issue I mentioned regarding soteriology I'd have to leave I think.

Bannasidhe

JimiTime wrote: »

What do you think? Are you familiar enough with scripture to comment on whether you think these professing Christians are behaving in a Christian manner? Its no news that there are Many, many, many, many professing Christians who would have a gay affirming theology. Not sure if you are informed enough to comment, but if you are, what do you think?

I think that as Christians cannot agree there is no such thing as a Christian position.

I think it is amusing how when some Christians actually openly act in a tolerant manner other Christians take issue with it.

I think I don't need to be familiar with the Bible (even though I am) anymore than I need to be familiar with the Koran. Neither are my 'holy' books so they should not be allowed to dictate how I live my life or my civil rights. Are you familiar with the Koran?

As for how 'informed' I am - that is pretty rich coming from you Jimi given your willingness to make pronouncements on subjects like gay parents when by your own admission you have no interest in informing yourself by reading studies but prefer to base your views on 'personal observation'.

philologos

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think that as Christians cannot agree there is no such thing as a Christian position.

I think it is amusing how when some Christians actually openly act in a tolerant manner other Christians take issue with it.

There's a clear Biblical position, some choose to ignore Scripture in favour of personal preference.

I think there's a bigger issue than what's on the surface.

How can you genuinely say that God is sovereign and that He has authority when in reality if one isn't willing to be corrected and rebuked by Scripture?

How can one say that He is Lord when people seem to think that they are Lord?

The Bible is clear on marriage. I think when people try bring secular agendas that fly in the face of Scripture that they should be argued against strongly.

Jesus is King, His Father gave Him all authority. Why won't we listen to Him instead of selfishly being consumed with ourselves?

Claiming there is no clear Christian position seems to be either ignorant or dishonest.

God's standard doesn't depend on our agreement. It's His. He's the sovereign Lord, we should submit to Him.

Bannasidhe

philologos wrote: »

Claiming there is no clear Christian position seems to be either ignorant or dishonest.

Insisting there is a clear Christian position when it is obvious there is no such thing seems to me to be the dishonest thing.

Claiming that only those Christians who agree with ones own position are 'true' Christians seems to me to be arrogance.

tommy2bad

philologos wrote: »

There's a clear Biblical position, some choose to ignore Scripture in favour of personal preference.
Some interpret differently ?
I think there's a bigger issue than what's on the surface.
Yes this is a power play more than theology
How can you genuinely say that God is sovereign and that He has authority when in reality if one isn't willing to be corrected and rebuked by Scripture?

How can one say that He is Lord when people seem to think that they are Lord?

The Bible is clear on marriage. I think when people try bring secular agendas that fly in the face of Scripture that they should be argued against strongly.
The bible is anything but clear on marriage or is polygamy back on the books?
Jesus is King, His Father gave Him all authority. Why won't we listen to Him instead of selfishly being consumed with ourselves?

Claiming there is no clear Christian position seems to be either ignorant or dishonest.
Claiming that your position is the clear one is arrogant.
God's standard doesn't depend on our agreement. It's His. He's the sovereign Lord, we should submit to Him.

Submit? isnt that Islam?
Sorry phil but I have to disagree. I don't see a clear position historically or geographically. Thats a major problem with claiming any position is the 'one true way'
I think if we are to follow Jesus then first love one another is the basis we start from, not some rules that were employed at some arbitrary time in the past.

philologos

tommy2bad wrote: »

Submit? isnt that Islam?
Sorry phil but I have to disagree. I don't see a clear position historically or geographically. Thats a major problem with claiming any position is the 'one true way'
I think if we are to follow Jesus then first love one another is the basis we start from, not some rules that were employed at some arbitrary time in the past.

Christianity also puts forward the idea of God's sovereignty. Christians acknowledge Jesus as Lord. We submit to Him. The Bible's rather clear about it, much as it's clear about this subject. The church submits to Christ (Ephesians 5:24)

No prophesy of man ones from interpretation (2 Peter 1:16-21)

If we don't believe that we should submit to God's authority how can we call Him Lord?

Why don't we take God's word seriously?

It's a question I've been wrestling with in my own quiet time. I think God's brought it up for a reason. I want to pursue holiness, His will before mine. I want 2013 to be a year where I submit to Him all the more.

Jesus defined marriage in the New Testament. Practically all description of polygamy is in the negative.

God's in charge of my life. That's what I promised 6 years ago.

JimiTime

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think that as Christians cannot agree there is no such thing as a Christian position.

Ok, to be more precise, is this theology, biblically compatible.

I think it is amusing how when some Christians actually openly act in a tolerant manner other Christians take issue with it.

Firstly, those who bang on about tolerance a lot, I find are usually the most intolerant of folk, and in fact only tolerate views which are agreeable to their own, but thats a different topic I suppose. Secondly, I'm not sure how familiar you are with scripture, but we are not told to tolerate sin, but flee from it. We are certainly not told to encourage it. So IF the biblical stance on sex is in fact not compatible with homosexuality, then rather than such tolerance being a positive thing, it is a grave and heinous thing.

I think I don't need to be familiar with the Bible (even though I am) anymore than I need to be familiar with the Koran. Neither are my 'holy' books so they should not be allowed to dictate how I live my life or my civil rights. Are you familiar with the Koran?

My point was nothing to do with the scriptures authority in terms of you, but I was rather asking you if you had any knowledge of scripture, do you think, looking honestly at the scriptures as a whole, do you believe that this churches position is biblical.

As for how 'informed' I am - that is pretty rich coming from you Jimi given your willingness to make pronouncements on subjects like gay parents when by your own admission you have no interest in informing yourself by reading studies but prefer to base your views on 'personal observation'.

Just a word of advice. When someone says, 'I'm not sure how informed you are', it means, 'I'm not sure how informed you are'. It doesn't mean, 'You are an ignoramous'. Maybe you could bear that in mind before you start throwing silly insults about, in reaction to insults you THINK have been made against you. You could at least TRY to be civil in the future, and before jumping the gun in future and fling out your personal barbs, you could ask yourself, 'Have you actually been insulted, or are you just being paranoid'. This is not the first time you've done it, and I'm not the only one I've observed you doing it too neither. How you took umbridge at my quite simple and innocent post, is truly beyond me. You may think I'm out to ge you or something, but all I can say is that I'm not.


So, if you can accept my correcting your misunderstanding and manner above, can you answer the question I originally asked?

philologos

I find it bizarre that believing in Biblical Christianity as was practiced from the first century is seen now as somehow radical and extreme. All I've pretty much said is that I refuse to undermine Jesus' Lordship by refusing to submit to Him over the world.

I have a big feeling that there's going to be a bumpy ride ahead for Christians who refuse to compromise the Gospel in their churches.

JimiTime

philologos wrote: »

I find it bizarre that believing in Biblical Christianity as was practiced from the first century is seen now as somehow radical and extreme. All I've pretty much said is that I refuse to undermine Jesus' Lordship by refusing to submit to Him over the world.

I have a big feeling that there's going to be a bumpy ride ahead for Christians who refuse to compromise the Gospel in their churches.

TBH, in the context of the modern world, I'd be worried if Godly ways were NOT seen as radical. I'd also agree with your foresight.

Bannasidhe

JimiTime wrote: »

Ok, to be more precise, is this theology, biblically compatible.

It very much depends on which bit of scripture one decided is important. It is Paul/Leviticus' anti-homosexuality or Jesus' admissions to not judge. And therein lies the problem. Scriptural passage are open to widely differing interpretation and, indeed, scriptural 'approval' for many thaings - such as slavery- can easily be found.

Firstly, those who bang on about tolerance a lot, I find are usually the most intolerant of folk, and in fact only tolerate views which are agreeable to their own, but thats a different topic I suppose. Secondly, I'm not sure how familiar you are with scripture, but we are not told to tolerate sin, but flee from it. We are certainly not told to encourage it. So IF the biblical stance on sex is in fact not compatible with homosexuality, then rather than such tolerance being a positive thing, it is a grave and heinous thing.

You are free to live according to your Holy Book - you do not have the right to impose the strictures of your Holy Book on all of society. To you that may seem like intolerance...

My point was nothing to do with the scriptures authority in terms of you, but I was rather asking you if you had any knowledge of scripture, do you think, looking honestly at the scriptures as a whole, do you believe that this churches position is biblical.

See answer re: differing possible interpretations above.
The fact remains not all Christians share your interpretation of scripture. Therefore there is no unified Christian position.
What I think scriptural passages mean is irrelevant as I am not part of the Christian Fellowship. Christians disagree with you - take the theology up with them.

Just a word of advice. When someone says, 'I'm not sure how informed you are', it means, 'I'm not sure how informed you are'. It doesn't mean, 'You are an ignoramous'. Maybe you could bear that in mind before you start throwing silly insults about, in reaction to insults you THINK have been made against you. You could at least TRY to be civil in the future, and before jumping the gun in future and fling out your personal barbs, you could ask yourself, 'Have you actually been insulted, or are you just being paranoid'. This is not the first time you've done it, and I'm not the only one I've observed you doing it too neither. How you took umbridge at my quite simple and innocent post, is truly beyond me. You may think I'm out to ge you or something, but all I can say is that I'm not.


So, if you can accept my correcting your misunderstanding and manner above, can you answer the question I originally asked?

Word of advice - practice what you preach.

Bannasidhe

philologos wrote: »

I find it bizarre that believing in Biblical Christianity as was practiced from the first century is seen now as somehow radical and extreme. .

Possibly as many things were acceptable in the 1st century that have no place in the 21st century.

Perhaps you would like the Roman Empire to return?

Also do you shun all 'modern' medical and technological advances as they are not compatible with a 1st century philosophy?

philologos

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Possibly as many things were acceptable in the 1st century that have no place in the 21st century.

Perhaps you would like the Roman Empire to return?

Also do you shun all 'modern' medical and technological advances as they are not compatible with a 1st century philosophy?

What a strawman

My position is that the Gospel is relevant for all time and to all people. The Gospel isn't ours to change, it's God's.

I believe that Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever more and that His word us relevant in every age.

The problem is the more and more we start undermining this, it starts to look like we are trying to make God submit to us than to submit to Him.

I essentially object to any church undermining or ignoring what God has told us. Rather we should be consumed with a love for Scripture and for humble obedience to it.

Bannasidhe

philologos wrote: »

What a strawman

My position is that the Gospel is relevant for all time and to all people. The Gospel isn't ours to change, it's God's.

I believe that Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever more and that His word us relevant in every age.

The problem is the more and more we start undermining this, it starts to look like we are trying to make God submit to us than to submit to Him.

I essentially object to any church undermining or ignoring what God has told us. Rather we should be consumed with a love for Scripture and for humble obedience to it.

No - it is not a strawman. You believe a philosophy developed 2000 years ago is relevant now despite the fact that the world is vastly different. You do not live in the 1st century so circumstances dictate that you need to adapt that philosophy to now. So, it could be argued, that you have already compromised...

What you appear to object to is other Christians disagreeing with your interpretation and non-Christians pointing out that there is no unified Christian position.

I object to anyone attempting to impose the strictures of their religious belief (regardless of what that religion is) on all members of society - if you, personally, wish to live by a 1st century philosophy work away, but you have no right to impose that on others.

wonderfulname

philologos wrote: »

I essentially object to any church undermining or ignoring what God has told us. Rather we should be consumed with a love for Scripture and for humble obedience to it.

"But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made."

Humans as commodities is a reality of a first century philosophy, any rational that makes this non applicable to modern incarnations of same can be used in relation this topic and others. You already come to the same conclusions other christians do with regard following an ancient doctrine in modern times, just not on this issue, so you can't preach purity of adherance.