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

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

It isn't sudden.

But I see a difference between a word evolving naturally through normal usage, and it being artifically altered Soviet-style to suit an agenda.

Languages, by their very nature, are fluid. But the manipulation of language IMHO is a different thing.

Oh come off it, no one is manipulating language "Soviet-style".

I would be shocked if you didn't understand exactly what was meant by "gay marriage" the first time you heard it mentioned. No where has the requirement for the couple being married to be one man and one woman ever been a semantical requirement of the use of the word "marriage". People have used the term outside of that context for thousands of years without confusion. Humans marrying animals for example has been part of human myths and legends for nearly as long as the concept has existed in the first place.

Don't get my wrong, if Christians want to use a different word just to make a point knock yourselves out.

But it would be as silly as atheists refusing to use the word Thursday because of its historical reference to Thor, as if the Thor bit is the important bit about the word Thursday :rolleyes:

Sonics2k

qrrgprgua wrote: »

One this for a Boy is to be Raised by his mother,, if the father dies or leaves.. But to have no Father figure at all in the boys life does have negative impacts. Having a Father Figure is fundamental in a boys development.

Hi, as a man raised by a woman with no 'Father Figure' as you put it, that's just wrong and completely misinformed. But please, do tell me what aspects I missed out on? Genuine question.

You've previously been linked with independent studies from around the world, have had the children of gay couples (and single parents) offer to correct you, and at each turn you deny it.

It's come down to this. You have set your opinion. It will not change and it cannot change. I don't know, nor care, if it's down to bigotry or simply just not wanting to change your mind, or maybe you simply can't.

But you are wrong. Very wrong. And in one post you have managed to not only insult all single mothers and gay parents, but also their children.

Well done you.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

But it would be as silly as atheists refusing to use the word Thursday because of its historical reference to Thor, as if the Thor bit is the important bit about the word Thursday :rolleyes:

Not so. A more fitting analogy would be if Thor-worshippers were lobbying in Israel for Thursday to be redesignated as 'the Sabbath'.

FWIW, I don't believe for one second that you are dim enough to think that the word 'marriage' carries as little value and meaning in people's eyes as does the word 'Thursday'. It's a shame you would rather indulge in such rhetorical games rather than interact with other people's viewpoints.

philologos

PDN wrote: »

And, as I've argued in other threads, if the State insists on changing the meaning of the word 'marriage' to refer to these civil ceremonies, then the churches should adopt another term and excise the word 'marriage' from their vocabulary and Bible translations.

If it were redefined, I'd agree wholeheartedly with Christians, and with Bible translations finding a word that more accurately defines the union between a man and a woman in order to communicate Biblical truth, and in order to ensure that the Christian faith isn't compromised, or misunderstood as a result of using a word that will have been changed.

I find it peculiar that non-believers would object to churches continuing to teach what the Bible says more clearly by changing how we refer to traditional marriage.

Sonics2k

totus tuus wrote: »

The following link might be of some interest!
http://mercatornet.com/articles/view/same_sex_adoption_is_not_a_game

This is the same man who makes claims that the child abusing Priests are homosexual, and any child/adult who is gay is simply suffering from GID.

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/FitzGibbonsOpenLetter.php

One of the reasons why people have been so willing to accept the idea that same-sex attraction is genetically determined is their own experience with men who are extremely effeminate and have been so since early childhood. This condition of extreme effeminacy is called Gender Identity Disorder (GID). The differences between boys with GID and other boys are so profound, that those observing them conclude that the boys with GID must have been born that way. Those who treat GID have found that effective family therapy in which the father bonds more closely with the son and affirms his son's masculinity can in a relatively short time result in the elimination of these symptoms and the emergence of normal boyish behavior. Tragically, because this information is not widely known most boys with GID do not receive treatment and approximately 75% of them will go on to develop SSA in adolescence. Unfortunately, if these boys come from Catholic families, those around them may point them toward the priesthood. Because they aren't attracted to girls, people wrongly assume that the celibate life will be easy for them.

In our practice, we have seen many boys who suffered from distant father relationships, lacked hand eye coordination and subsequently were subjected to humiliating teasing from peers because of their inability to play sports. These and other factors lead to feelings of male inadequacy and loneliness and later to homosexual attractions. The sooner these problems are addressed in therapy, the more hope there is for a full recovery.

So here he's claiming gay men are all effeminate and can be 'cured', suffer from poor hand to eye co-ordination, unable to play sports and feelings of inadequacy and loneliness.

He also goes on to claim that sexuality is a choice, and a decision that can be changed.

What, did this guy get his education from the back of a pack of Rice Krispies?

I've seen more intelligent life encrusted into the bottom of my socks after a long run through mud.

NuMarvel

totus tuus wrote: »

The following link might be of some interest!
http://mercatornet.com/articles/view/same_sex_adoption_is_not_a_game

Respectfully, I doubt the conclusions put forward by the author when he appears to already have a somewhat... interesting view of homosexuality. Sorry, I meant same-sex attraction disorder.

http://www.narth.com/docs/fitz2.html

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/ho0039.html#07

Do you have any sources where the author's biases aren't so easily shown by a quick Google search? At the very least, try and find one by someone who isn't a member of NARTH's Scientific Advisory Committee...

Bannasidhe

qrrgprgua wrote: »

One this for a Boy is to be Raised by his mother,, if the father dies or leaves.. But to have no Father figure at all in the boys life does have negative impacts. Having a Father Figure is fundamental in a boys development.

What you mean here is a male role model.

My son was raised by a same-sex couple but he was certainly not short of male role models. We were falling over male role models - Gay and Straight. What he did not 'learn' was strict gender stereotyping and a bizarre notion about male and female roles. In his world women can do DIY, run businesses, farm, play sports at international level, are builders, plumbers, lawyers, MD's, lecturers, carpenters etc etc while men can cook, clean (my straight brother is a devil with a hoover and a feather duster), nurture, change nappies, iron, sew (my grandfather taught all his children to knit, sew, read, polish shoes - my grandmother didn't have that kind of patience).

My nephew was raised by my sister, my mother and my grandmother. He had few male role models. He is a Man U supporting, big strapping bloke who enjoys going for a pint with the lads and is a carpenter. He also cooks and has recently learnt how to operate a washing machine at the age of 29 - we are all so proud.

Both are now heterosexual men in their late 20s. My son has a son and daughter of his own and my nephew is about to get married in Nov - a civil marriage to his female fiancée.

Now that you mention fathers - my maternal great-grand father was raised by his mother - with no male role models as her family disowned her for converting to Catholicism so she could marry the man who abandoned her when she was pregnant. My great-grandfather went on to become a medic in WWI and serve with distinction - won medals and was mentioned frequently in dispatches. He married and had 9 children.
Seems to me the lack of a male role model in his instance produced a very fine man.

Zombrex

qrrgprgua wrote: »

What evidence?

America has some of the oldest gay adoption laws in the world. Since the late 1970s gay couples have been able to adopt. This has provided plenty of examples which can be studied to see the effect on the children.

The conclusion of the American Psychological Association

On the basis of a remarkably consistent body of research on lesbian and gay parents and their children, the American Psychological Association (APA) and other health professional and scientific organizations have concluded that there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation. That is, lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children. This body of research has shown that the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children are unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish.

Of course despite being one of the most respected psychologist associations in the world a lot of religious groups opposed to the normalization of homosexuality consider the APA biased since they decided in 1975 that homosexuality was no longer to be considered a mental disease. Clearly they are too gay friendly.

qrrgprgua wrote: »

In the 60's they said the best milk for a Child was formula.. Today its Natures way is best.. Well the natural family is Mother-Father children.

And, as often pointed out by Christians on this forum, nature also produces animals that consume their own young. Does that make it a good idea because nature produced it? Nature produces serial killers, cancer and flesh eating bacteria.

If appealing to the natural occurrence of homosexuality means nothing as to its morality (and quite rightly so since it is a stupid argument) and appealing to nature for the correct family structure is equally stupid. Nature produces heterosexual couples how drown their own children in cars for the media attention for crying out loud.

Nodin

Sonics2k wrote: »

So here he's claiming gay men are all effeminate and can be 'cured', suffer from poor hand to eye co-ordination, unable to play sports and feelings of inadequacy and loneliness.

.....

This explains why theres no gay artists!!!! I always wondered about that.

G.K.

totus tuus wrote: »

The following link might be of some interest!
http://mercatornet.com/articles/view/same_sex_adoption_is_not_a_game

Ah mecatornet, who, and I quote, 'oppose scientism'.

I.E. They don't give total credence to the scientific method and empirical science.

Ergo I, and I would hope others, give no credence to anything they have to say.

philologos

G.K. wrote: »

Ah mecatornet, who, and I quote, 'oppose scientism'.

I.E. They don't give total credence to the scientific method and empirical science.

Ergo I, and I would hope others, give no credence to anything they have to say.

No, actually scientism is the belief that all questions can be answered by science, and there is no limit to the nature of questions that science can positively answer:

Scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life

Many scientists would disagree with scientism also.

Bannasidhe

Nodin wrote: »

This explains why theres no gay artists!!!! I always wondered about that.

Or athletes.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Not so. A more fitting analogy would be if Thor-worshippers were lobbying in Israel for Thursday to be redesignated as 'the Sabbath'.

Er, no again it wouldn't because 'the Sabbath' is semantically connected with Saturday. If I said to you "PDN I'll meet you on the Sabbath for tea and cake" you would turn on Saturday wondering where I was. You would be perfectly justified in saying it is confusing that people have now started using the Sabbath to refer to Thursday since when they use the term you have no idea if they mean Saturday or Thursday.

If on the other hand I said Barry and Paul got married yesterday you would understand exactly what I meant. Your first notion would be that Barry and Paul are a gay couple who have just got married. You wouldn't be sitting there thinking "This is all very confusing, is Paul a girl's name now? When did that happen?"

PDN wrote: »

FWIW, I don't believe for one second that you are dim enough to think that the word 'marriage' carries as little value and meaning in people's eyes as does the word 'Thursday'.

The value the word carries is to Christians is not relevant unless as I said, you are trying to make some sort of religious point in this objection, rather than genuine objection to the redefinition of words.

The question is do people continue to understand the word in this new context and understand what is being discussed. If they do perfectly fine then nothing is being "redefined", and certainly not forcibly, since the definition clearly already covers the new context.

I would be very surprised to find anyone who did not understand what the sentence

"Bill and Paul got married on Saturday"

means, no how much they think it is an abomination.

NuMarvel

Zombrex wrote: »

I would be very surprised to find anyone who did not understand what the sentence

"Bill and Paul got married on Saturday"

means, no how much they think it is an abomination.

The fact that they would think it's an abomination shows they know exactly what that sentence means. Otherwise, as you pointed out earlier in your post, they'd be confused and befuddled, not objecting to it.

philologos

Zombrex: If same-sex marriage became legal, the Bill & Paul example is precisely why many Christians would consider changing how Christians refer to traditional marriage in the future.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Zombrex: If same-sex marriage became legal, the Bill & Paul example is precisely why many Christians would consider changing how Christians refer to traditional marriage in the future.

What?It is too understandable?

philologos

Zombrex wrote: »

What?It is too understandable?

No, because if marriage were altered then Christians would need to define traditional marriage differently in order to preserve God's word.

NuMarvel

philologos wrote: »

Zombrex: If same-sex marriage became legal, the Bill & Paul example is precisely why many Christians would consider changing how Christians refer to traditional marriage in the future.

Maybe that's not so bad in the long run. Civil marriage and religious marriages are separate entities and it could help distinguish the two so that discussions like this don't get overheated.

What I would wonder is if it would lead to a change in where people get married. Most marriage ceremonies are religious ceremonies, but is that because of expectations and convenience, or because people want to celebrate their marriage in the manner of their faith?

From my experiences of weddings I've attended over the last few years, none of the participants are particularly religious, a few said they did it to keep the families happy, and one couple even did it so they could be sure their children would be baptised and get into the local school. Other people's experiences could be different though.

philologos

NuMarvel wrote: »

Maybe that's not so bad in the long run.

In what sense I guess? From a Christian perspective or from a societal perspective?

NuMarvel

philologos wrote: »

In what sense I guess? From a Christian perspective or from a societal perspective?

I pressed reply when I meant to press preview post. I've edited the post since.

I'm just glad I didn't hit reply when I had all those half finished sentences in there!

Bannasidhe

NuMarvel wrote: »

Maybe that's not so bad in the long run. Civil marriage and religious marriages are separate entities and it could help distinguish the two so that discussions like this don't get overheated.

What I would wonder is if it would lead to a change in where people get married. Most marriage ceremonies are religious ceremonies, but is that because of expectations and convenience, or because people want to celebrate their marriage in the manner of their faith?

From my experiences of weddings I've attended over the last few years, none of the participants are particularly religious, a few said they did it to keep the families happy, and one couple even did it so they could be sure their children would be baptised and get into the local school. Other people's experiences could be different though.

Don't forget the fact that as civil registrars only work office hours Mon-Fri so if one wants to get married during the weekend it can be nearly impossible to find a celebrant - as my nephew recently found out when trying to arrange a civil marriage for a Saturday.:(

philologos

NuMarvel wrote: »

Maybe that's not so bad in the long run. Civil marriage and religious marriages are separate entities and it could help distinguish the two so that discussions like this don't get overheated.

The reason I largely don't believe that we should change marriage legally is because I value the traditional family, and I believe kids do best with their biological parents. In essence, I don't believe that same-sex marriage is the best thing for society. That's what the issue comes down to. Can I really support something that I don't believe is right or good for society? To me the answer is no at present.

However, if the majority of people disagree, and if the majority of people change what marriage is. Or if in cases like Britain you're just going to steamroll over public opinion, Christians need to think about how we're going to continue to stand for Biblical values going forward.

NuMarvel wrote: »

What I would wonder is if it would lead to a change in where people get married. Most marriage ceremonies are religious ceremonies, but is that because of expectations and convenience, or because people want to celebrate their marriage in the manner of their faith?

I think Christians need to make clear that if you are being married in a church, that it is because you believe that God is significant in your life. In my own church they make clear that if you are going to get married there that it will be an overtly Christian ceremony, and that both parties should be Christians.

NuMarvel wrote: »

From my experiences of weddings I've attended over the last few years, none of the participants are particularly religious, a few said they did it to keep the families happy, and one couple even did it so they could be sure their children would be baptised and get into the local school. Other people's experiences could be different though.

Indeed, and this is what could be interesting going forward.

People in Ireland, and in Britain and in most of the Western world, think they know about the Gospel, and they think they know about Jesus. The reality is that they don't, and we need to start sharing the good news with people again.

Churches would do a better job if they encouraged their members to truly live and speak for Jesus, and not only to live and speak for Him, but to truly appreciate that Jesus Christ set us free from sin by being nailed to a cross for sin, and we have come to new life by Him being raised again from the dead.

I hope that these times will wake people up, and I hope Christians will become bold again for the Gospel.

That's a bigger issue than people wanting to get married in a church for mammy, because it concerns eternal life and eternal condemnation.

Can I ask why it would be necessary for Christians to change how they refer to a traditional, Christian marriage if the word marriage became associated with a union between two homosexuals? Genuine question, here.

I'd have assumed that any time a Christian would use the word marriage, a traditional marriage would be implied by the very fact that it's a Christian using the term--be that a Christan person or in Christian literature; I'd have thought an explicit definition superfluous in this particular case. Perhaps Christians wouldn't like the meaning of a phrase to rest solely on an implicit definition. Is that it?

mooliki

philologos wrote: »

The reason I largely don't believe that we should change marriage legally is because I value the traditional family, and I believe kids do best with their biological parents.

The point you made about kids is irrelevant. Unless you're suggesting that homosexual couples, once married, are going to go around stealing children from their biological parents?

If you value a "traditional" view of family, then you get married in the traditional fashion and raise a traditional family. The issue is dictating how others should marry. If it's standing for values you're concerned about, then of course, stand for your values. That doesn't mean standing on other peoples values.

Personally I value the nontraditional family; a loving, supportive, compassionate family, indiscriminate of sexuality, race, creed.

Onesimus

I came into this thread thinking it was going to be a very Gay discussion.... you can only imagine my disappointment.......

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

No, because if marriage were altered then Christians would need to define traditional marriage differently in order to preserve God's word.

Christians already define their own version of marriage, it is called a Christian marriage.

Now if the insidious Soviet style gay agenda language Nazi's wanted to forcibly redefine what a Christian marriage is, you guys might have a point.

But since I haven't seen anyone trying to do that, you, er, don't.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

The reason I largely don't believe that we should change marriage legally is because I value the traditional family

What?

Given that a homosexual couple who aren't legally allowed to marry would never produce a traditional family anyway, how is continuing to have them not able to marry doing to damage traditional (ie heterosexual) marriage. The heterosexuals all stay heterosexual.

philologos wrote: »

I believe kids do best with their biological parents.

What?

I think I will just leave that at What?

NuMarvel

philologos wrote: »

The reason I largely don't believe that we should change marriage legally is because I value the traditional family, and I believe kids do best with their biological parents. In essence, I don't believe that same-sex marriage is the best thing for society. That's what the issue comes down to. Can I really support something that I don't believe is right or good for society? To me the answer is no at present.

I respect your right to believe that, but how have you formed that opinion? Is it on the basis of objective analysis or studies, or is it what you believe because it seems right to you? And if you are presented with evidence that your opinion is wrong, are you willing to re-evaluate it and change it if needs be?

philologos wrote: »

However, if the majority of people disagree, and if the majority of people change what marriage is. Or if in cases like Britain you're just going to steamroll over public opinion, Christians need to think about how we're going to continue to stand for Biblical values going forward.

I posted this on another thread earlier, but personally I don't believe that human and civil rights should go to a referendum unless absolutely necessary.

There was never a referendum when the Equal Status Acts were passed. Or when same-sex sexual activity was decriminalised. Or when women were allowed to stay in the civil service after marriage. And that's even though the Constitution strongly implies a married woman's place is in the home.

Similarly, because the extension of civil marriage rights to same sex couples doesn't impinge on anyone else's freedoms in any way, and the Constitution doesn't have a clear ban on it, I don't see why it needs to go to the people in the first place.

And while I can understand the desire of Christians to promote their values, they don't have a place in this topic of discussion. We're talking about legal matters, not religious. To borrow from another post of mine, I wouldn't quote equality legislation if a priest refused me communion, so I don't expect scripture to be quoted when discussing civil marriage rights.

I think Christians need to make clear that if you are being married in a church, that it is because you believe that God is significant in your life. In my own church they make clear that if you are going to get married there that it will be an overtly Christian ceremony, and that both parties should be Christians.

Indeed, and this is what could be interesting going forward.

People in Ireland, and in Britain and in most of the Western world, think they know about the Gospel, and they think they know about Jesus. The reality is that they don't, and we need to start sharing the good news with people again.

Churches would do a better job if they encouraged their members to truly live and speak for Jesus, and not only to live and speak for Him, but to truly appreciate that Jesus Christ set us free from sin by being nailed to a cross for sin, and we have come to new life by Him being raised again from the dead.

I hope that these times will wake people up, and I hope Christians will become bold again for the Gospel.

That's a bigger issue than people wanting to get married in a church for mammy, because it concerns eternal life and eternal condemnation

For the most part, I'd view all of this as being internal to the Church, so I'd have no major issues with it. The only thing I'd say is that there needs to be more separation of Church and State in Ireland for the reasons I outlined in my previous post (e.g. marrying just to make sure that the child can get into the local school) or that Bannasidhe outlined in her post.

Onesimus wrote: »

I came into this thread thinking it was going to be a very Gay discussion.... you can only imagine my disappointment.......

I can't really, because I'm not sure what exactly your definition of "very Gay" is. Given the use of the capital G, it might be that you expected it to be very Gay Byrne, but that doesn't really clear things up. Can you enlighten the rest of us?

G.K.

philologos wrote: »

No, actually scientism is the belief that all questions can be answered by science, and there is no limit to the nature of questions that science can positively answer:


Many scientists would disagree with scientism also.

If that is the case, I have recieved a poor definition from the dictionary I looked it up in.

Nodin

philologos wrote: »

...........

However, if the majority of people disagree, and if the majority of people change what marriage is. Or if in cases like Britain you're just going to steamroll over public opinion, Christians need to think about how we're going to continue to stand for Biblical values going forward.

..........

.....I'm unsure of what you're referring to here. Firstly polls show a majority in favour of gay marriage in Britain, so I can't see where "steamroll" comes into anything.

Secondly, and far more importantly, such matters are hardly suitable to be decided by weight of numbers and forcing a minority to conform. Its a matter of an individuals choice and conscience. No church or religion owns the term marriage. While its perfectly reasonable for individual religions to refuse to marry same sex couples under their respective rites, its entirely unreasonable to enforce a ban on those who have no objections.