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

philologos

aloyisious wrote: »

On a by the by basis, there are gay people who identify as christian, are in same-sex fully-consensual relationships, and see no contradiction between both of those facts.

The question from a Christian point of view is what does the Bible reveal on this issue. What has God said about marriage, what does marriage tell us about His character?

That is if we want to get into a theological discussion on the case for holding the Biblical definition which has lasted for the last two thousand years in Christian churches or the theological case for assuming that our will is king over the will of God.

This will require us to get into the ins and outs of Scripture though.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have a number of issues to raise:

1) As the raising of children is not part of the legal contract of marriage, nor is a childless marriage considered invalid, then this is not relevant to a discussion of marriage rights and responsibilities.

2.) Even considering the, irrelevant, issue of raising children - why exactly is marriage the best environment?

If it is a matter of stability:
Opposite sex marriages can be dissolved and frequently are - regardless of whether there are children or not.

Same-sex couples raise children - would these children not benefit by allowing their parents to raise them in this 'best environment'?

It it because 'Marriage' legally recognises two parents? Parents who, by the way, do not have to be biologically related to the children. Again, why should the children of same-sex couples be denied two legally recognised parents?


is an argument against divorce - not same-sex marriage. Are you advocating the repeal of divorce legislation?

Do you think same-sex couples are incapable of making a life-long commitment?

Do you believe that all opposite sex couples who marry are, indeed, making life-long commitments and will therefore never seek to break that commitment?



Read more: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Divorce-rates-soar-in-Ireland-as-population-continues-to-expand-145121415.html#ixzz2JkFIrDaL
Follow us: @IrishCentral on Twitter | IrishCentral on Facebook

87,770 People in Ireland seem to disagree that they made a 'life-long commitment'.

JimiTime wrote: »

Your choice Zombrex. You accused me of something, you can accept me at my word, and I continue to talk to you, or you can maintain your stance on this particular poster and our interaction stops. Its your choice.

Perhaps you will deal with the points I put to you in post #2326?

Bannasidhe

philologos wrote: »

The question from a Christian point of view is what does the Bible reveal on this issue. What has God said about marriage, what does marriage tell us about His character?

That is if we want to get into a theological discussion on the case for holding the Biblical definition which has lasted for the last two thousand years in Christian churches or the theological case for assuming that our will is king over the will of God.

This will require us to get into the ins and outs of Scripture though.

The question why should a Biblical definition of something (even if all Christians agreed with that definition which they don't) be allowed to dictate what the legal definition is?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Your choice Zombrex. You accused me of something, you can accept me at my word, and I continue to talk to you, or you can maintain your stance on this particular poster and our interaction stops. Its your choice.

I don't accept you at your word. Like I said I respond to action, not words. You have had these points consistently put to you and in the following posts which you must have read since you quote from them you have responded to straw man versions of them or simply completely ignored them, continuing to repeat the your point that was just debunked. You have gone so far to simply throw out snide comments about how you don't think they are debunked, so the idea you have missed them innocently again rings very hollow.

If because of this you want to throw your toys out of the pram and continue to ignore the points being put to you, well lets just say I'm not surprised.

philologos

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The question why should a Biblical definition of something (even if all Christians agreed with that definition which they don't) be allowed to dictate what the legal definition is?

aloyisius' post was about Christian belief. As I've said this thread isn't solely about law.

Most Christians since Christ have held to the Biblical position.

Bannasidhe

philologos wrote: »

Most Christians since Christ have held to the Biblical position.

Have they?

Do you have any evidence to support that?

Perhaps it is worth mentioning this again

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

Here we have substantiated evidence of Christian celebrations of same-sex weddings with the blessing and participation of the church from the 9th to 12th centuries.

You still haven't addressed the question of why the fact that some Christians object to the use of the term marriage should justify the civil State (which, like it or not is the only authority who gets to decide who is and who is not legally married) not using it for same-sex marriages.

After all - given that the Bible you read is a translation (of a translation...), the argument can be made that the translators simply used the existing term 'marriage' to describe wedding ceremonies.

philologos

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Have they?

Do you have any evidence to support that?

Perhaps it is worth mentioning this again

http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

Here we have substantiated evidence of Christian celebrations of same-sex weddings with the blessing and participation of the church from the 9th to 12th centuries.

You still haven't addressed the question of why the fact that some Christians object to the use of the term marriage should justify the civil State (which, like it or not is the only authority who gets to decide who is and who is not legally married) not using it for same-sex marriages.

After all - given that the Bible you read is a translation (of a translation...), the argument can be made that the translators simply used the existing term 'marriage' to describe wedding ceremonies.

The vast majority of Christians, and those who were orthodox have understood marriage as the union between a man and a woman. The fact that you can find me a few anomalies doesn't undermine this.

The Bible is not a translation of a translation. This is myth. See my signature "Why trust the Bible?". All of the modern translations I can think of are translated directly from Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts.

This discussion is broader than law. It is wrong to claim that it isn't and it's wrong to attempt to force it to law when it was never intended to be a discussion just about law.

aloyisious

philologos wrote: »

aloyisius' post was about Christian belief. As I've said this thread isn't solely about law.

Most Christians since Christ have held to the Biblical position.

Good reply. However, it seem's to me that some people are arguing that the bible is the sole arbiter to be used in deciding on the basis of marriage, that it is so because the bible is the word of God and therefore absolute law.

I'd have to refer back to the point I'm talking about, and that some christians believe has a credible basis. They and I believe that it is possible for state law to have a version of marriage (Civil Marriage) other than that based within the writings in the Bible, or other religious books and beliefs.

An example of this state recognizing another version of law other than divine is when people affirm rather than swear to the truth of their testimony in our courts. As far as I know, the RC Church in Ireland recognizes and accept's that fact, and thus the validity of testimony given by way of affirmation.

Having and recognizing Civil Law prevents this country of going down the path to a theocracy, where one's religious and other beliefs might ensure one a painful death, as is happening regularly abroad under religious law today. This country has had more than enough of Christian-based cruelty and murder over the past few centuries laid on it by Christian believers.

Bannasidhe

philologos wrote: »

The vast majority of Christians, and those who were orthodox have understood marriage as the union between a man and a woman. The fact that you can find me a few anomalies doesn't undermine this.

The Bible is not a translation of a translation. This is myth. See my signature "Why trust the Bible?". All of the modern translations I can think of are translated directly from Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts.

This discussion is broader than law. It is wrong to claim that it isn't and it's wrong to attempt to force it to law when it was never intended to be a discussion just about law.

Grand, you have no evidence to support your contention so resort to dismissing evidence that disproves your statement as an anomaly.

Was the Bible written in English? No. Therefore it is a translation.

In fact, the first known translations of the Bible into 'English' were into old English from the Latin Vulgate which was itself a revision of the Classical Latin text by Jerome who used Hebrew texts...

What is the provenance of these Greek, Latin and Aramaic manuscripts?
As someone who works with manuscripts on a daily basis I find it extremely implausible that no mistakes were ever made in either transcription or translation.

None of this disputes the point that those who translated the Bible into English simply used the pre-existing term 'marriage' to describe weddings.

philologos

aloyisious wrote: »

Good reply. However, it seem's to me that some people are arguing that the bible is the sole arbiter to be used in deciding on the basis of marriage, that it is so because the bible is the word of God and therefore absolute law.

I'd have to refer back to the point I'm talking about, and that some christians believe has a credible basis. They and I believe that it is possible for state law to have a version of marriage (Civil Marriage) other than that based within the writings in the Bible, or other religious books and beliefs.

An example of this state recognizing another version of law other than divine is when people affirm rather than swear to the truth of their testimony in our courts. As far as I know, the RC Church in Ireland recognizes and accept's that fact, and thus the validity of testimony given by way of affirmation.

Having and recognizing Civil Law prevents this country of going down the path to a theocracy, where one's religious and other beliefs might ensure one a painful death, as is happening regularly abroad under religious law today. This country has had more than enough of Christian-based cruelty and murder over the past few centuries laid on it by Christian believers.

How is this post related to the one you raised earlier?

I've made my position in respect to civil law clear, and I've explained the concerns that I have about it enough on this thread.

I agree that it is possible for the state to have a definition of marriage that is contrary to Scripture. Where I would disagree is believing that this is the right thing.

Christianity from the very beginning has held that there are two forms of authorities. Governing authorities which are to keep order in the temporal world, and God's authority which is the final authority of good and evil, and it will be the judgement that we face at the end of time irrespective of what governing authorities have said.

Your last point is obscure. I don't think a Christian perspective which is based on the Gospel presents cruelty, but salvation and love to all who repent and believe in Jesus Christ and acknowledge Him as Lord. I have no interest in being cruel, I do have an interest in proclaiming what's true, and I think ultimately that's the loving thing to do.

philologos

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Grand, you have no evidence to support your contention so resort to dismissing evidence that disproves your statement as an anomaly.

Showing me one incident where one church engages in a heretical practice doesn't show me that this was widely accepted within Christianity or that the huge weight of Scripture and commentary on Scripture wasn't overwhelmingly for the union of a man and a woman to be marriage.

Was the Bible written in English? No. Therefore it is a translation.

Obviously. That wasn't my objection. My objection was to all English Bibles being a translation of a translation. That's not true.

In fact, the first known translations of the Bible into 'English' were into old English from the Latin Vulgate which was itself a revision of the Classical Latin text by Jerome who used Hebrew texts...

I can think of a lot of early translation that went straight from the Biblical languages to the vernacular. Including the Tyndale Bible. This isn't true. Sone were, but certainly many weren't.

What is the provenance of these Greek, Latin and Aramaic manuscripts?
As someone who works with manuscripts on a daily basis I find it extremely implausible that no mistakes were ever made in either transcription or translation.

The New Testament is the most authentic ancient text in all history. Consult the links in my signature.

None of this disputes the point that those who translated the Bible into English simply used the pre-existing term 'marriage' to describe weddings.

This argument is incredibly weak. It has nothing to do with my original point which was about marriage in Christianity.

Bannasidhe

philologos wrote: »

Showing me one incident where one church engages in a heretical practice doesn't show me that this was widely accepted within Christianity or that the huge weight of Scripture and commentary on Scripture wasn't overwhelmingly for the union of a man and a woman to be marriage.

300 years cannot be dismissed as one incident. Nor can what was then the largest Christian Church - and the only one in Christendom - be dismissed as 'one' church. It was, in a European context the only church.

Obviously. That wasn't my objection. My objection was to all English Bibles being a translation of a translation. That's not true.

They are still all translations.

I can think of a lot of early translation that went straight from the Biblical languages to the vernacular. Including the Tyndale Bible. This isn't true. Sone were, but certainly many weren't.

And you think the MS Tyndale used were the originals?

The New Testament is the most authentic ancient text in all history.

That is an utterly meaningless statement.

This argument is incredibly weak. It has nothing to do with my original point which was about marriage in Christianity.

You claim the word 'marriage' for Christianity. I have simply pointed out that the word exists Independently of Christianity and was in use prior to the introduction of vernacular Bibles.
The translators used an existing term.

Links234

philologos wrote: »

Christianity from the very beginning has held that there are two forms of authorities. Governing authorities which are to keep order in the temporal world, and God's authority which is the final authority of good and evil, and it will be the judgement that we face at the end of time irrespective of what governing authorities have said.

But the bible says that god established goverments and commands you to obey them:

Romans 13:1. Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

So it follows that if god established governments, and governments legalise same sex marriage, then god supports marriage equality.

philologos

I'm not going to chew your post up again. I honestly don't see why it is so concerning to you that most Christians throughout history have agreed that marriage is the union between a man and a woman and that the Bible says the same. Why does it bother you that people don't believe the same thing as you do about it?

If you read the links in my signature you'll see the manuscript evidence that shows the New Testament to be the most authentic ancient text or why I can trust the Bible.

The civilised thing to do is agree to disagree not to force people to agree and call them bigots amongst other charming things.

Bannasidhe

philologos wrote: »

I'm not going to chew your post up again. I honestly don't see why it is so concerning to you that most Christians throughout history have agreed that marriage is the union between a man and a woman and that the Bible says the same. Why does it bother you that people don't believe the same thing as you do about it?

If you read the links in my signature you'll see the manuscript evidence that shows the New Testament to be the most authentic ancient text or why I can trust the Bible.

The civilised thing to do is agree to disagree not to force people to agree and call them bigots amongst other charming things.

I have never called you a bigot.

I have absolutely no issue with how Christians wish to define their religious ceremony of matrimony. Nor with what they call it. In fact, I do understand where you are coming from butMy issue, as you well know, is when people try and claim some bizarre copyright of the word 'marriage' and then deny others the use of it. It bothers me when people who believe differently to me feel they have the right to insist that I be denied equal treatment by the Civil State.

As for 'New Testament to be the most authentic ancient text ' - no matter how many times you say it, it is still nonsense. The Laws of Hammurabi put the NT in the half penny place.

philologos

Links234 wrote: »

But the bible says that god established goverments and commands you to obey them:

So it follows that if god established governments, and governments legalise same sex marriage, then god supports marriage equality.

Christians endeavour to follow the State insofar as it doesn't subvert God's authority. God establishes the State, but this does not mean that when the State undermines God's word that they should go along with it.

For example Peter and the apostles when they were chastised by the authorities for preaching the Gospel carried on doing it (Acts 4:1-22, and Acts 5:17-42 show this perfectly). They even escaped from jail with God's help.

It's right that God has given us government and authority, but nowhere does God say to subvert His authority in the process.

This is a poor argument Scripturally. One could say that God didn't approve of preaching the gospel by extension of that.

This is why reading the whole Bible correctly is important instead of isolating verses. Indeed, it's why reading the Bible with a sincere heart, and with a sincere interest in knowing the truth is important.

philologos

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As for 'New Testament to be the most authentic ancient text ' - no matter how many times you say it, it is still nonsense. The Laws of Hammurabi put the NT in the half penny place.

Read my signature links. We have far more manuscripts by which to check New Testament translation than any other text. Indeed the tine gaps between them and when they were first written are far shorter than any other ancient text also.

Present a good reason for your objection and provide good reason to back it up. Biblical scholarship completely blows the idea of the New Testament being Chinese whispers out of the water.

aloyisious

philologos wrote: »

How is this post related to the one you raised earlier?

I've made my position in respect to civil law clear, and I've explained the concerns that I have about it enough on this thread.

I agree that it is possible for the state to have a definition of marriage that is contrary to Scripture. Where I would disagree is believing that this is the right thing.

Christianity from the very beginning has held that there are two forms of authorities. Governing authorities which are to keep order in the temporal world, and God's authority which is the final authority of good and evil, and it will be the judgement that we face at the end of time irrespective of what governing authorities have said.

Your last point is obscure. I don't think a Christian perspective which is based on the Gospel presents cruelty, but salvation and love to all who repent and believe in Jesus Christ and acknowledge Him as Lord. I have no interest in being cruel, I do have an interest in proclaiming what's true, and I think ultimately that's the loving thing to do.

I'm not casting you as a cruel person, but I realize that you and I have reached a dead-end here, so to speak. The attitude of the established Christian Churches leadership, as I now perceive it, is of showing more concern for affairs of state and NOT the flock. Putting it politely, I believe they've lost faith with God and Christ, or it's maybe the other way round. In any case. their leadership's criminal behaviour and deceit has put me off believing anything they proclaim and pronounce. Ultimately, I've come to realize that one does not necessarily need a "go-between" to speak to God, given the fact of his alternate title, the almighty, and the old lesson of a bedside prayer

Bannasidhe

philologos wrote: »

Read my signature links. We have far more manuscripts by which to check New Testament translation than any other text. Indeed the tine gaps between them and when they were first written are far shorter than any other ancient text also.

Present a good reason for your objection and provide good reason to back it up. Biblical scholarship completely blows the idea of the New Testament being Chinese whispers out of the water.

The Code of Hammurabi was carved on an eight foot high stone monument. We can read the original. That is authentic.

As for the NT

No original manuscripts of the original Greek New Testament have been found. However, a large number of ancient manuscript copies have been discovered, and modern translations of the New Testament are based on these copies. As one would expect, they contain some scribal errors. In fact, "there is not a single copy wholly free from mistakes.

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/features/new_testament_manuscripts.htm

So, we have the Code of Hammurabi carved in stone over 1700 years before the birth of Christ Vs fragments of MS not one of which is free from mistakes. You may want to revise your definition of the word 'authentic'.

philologos

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm not casting you as a cruel person, but I realize that you and I have reached a dead-end here, so to speak. The attitude of the established Christian Churches leadership, as I now perceive it, is of showing more concern for affairs of state and NOT the flock. Putting it politely, I believe they've lost faith with God and Christ, or it's maybe the other way round. In any case. their leadership's criminal behaviour and deceit has put me off believing anything they proclaim and pronounce. Ultimately, I've come to realize that one does not necessarily need a "go-between" to speak to God, given the fact of his alternate title, the almighty, and the old lesson of a bedside prayer

I would advocate the sentiment that one doesn't need a priest to act as mediator between man and God.

However if His word tells us something of His will listening to it is hugely important from my perspective.

I need to continually submit to God's word in my own life.

Links234

Oh, some rather good news here from France, they've voted 249 vs 97 in favour of marriage! http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/02/02/french-general-assembly-votes-to-make-same-sex-marriage-legal/

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/national-assembly-france-votes-gay-marriage020213

Also:

In addition deputies also scrapped an amendment proposed by the right wing that could have mayors who object to gay marriage an option to opt out.

All French mayors will thus be obliged, by law, to conduct same-sex marriage.

That's quite excellent.

Well done France!

tommy2bad

God establishes the State,

He what? pushing it a bit with that one I think. I cant for the life of me see how God established the state.

sponsoredwalk

philologos wrote: »

The civilised thing...

That has to be a joke?

Sonics2k

philologos wrote: »

Read my signature links. We have far more manuscripts by which to check New Testament translation than any other text. Indeed the tine gaps between them and when they were first written are far shorter than any other ancient text also.

Present a good reason for your objection and provide good reason to back it up. Biblical scholarship completely blows the idea of the New Testament being Chinese whispers out of the water.

Y'know what, it's really not the oldest authentic manuscript, and you -need- to stop deluding yourself on this matter.

But here's what it all comes down to on this matter.
If you don't want gays to marry, that's fine. Don't marry a gay.

If you want to claim it will affect children, that's fine. Just please know that you're wrong. Just so very wrong.

Now do as you claim Jerusalem would do, pipe down, smile and jog on. Apparently God(s) the will sort it out in the end.

Kk.

lmaopml

This no doubt is a very emotional and difficult topic...otherwise it wouldn't be so popular. I often think that people talk at each other as opposed to with each other, and we would be fooling ourselves if we didn't think that both opinions bring with them a ton of what both sides may think is 'baggage'....

To be honest about it - I think that a child who is really 'loved' is clothed in everything they need, and real love is something that can't be either put aside or ever underestimated or even quantified really..

A child who is loved and who's parents are involved in their life, both the father and mother, well studies show that they benefit from this - from a purely objective point of view.

If Christianity supports this foundation and building block of society as the 'ideal' foundation of a child's life than possibly there is some truth in there no?

Therefore if the State is owned by the people and for the people, and it reflects the peoples values than perhaps this is where it finds it's foundation...? Not in any particular agenda, but for the people, the way it should be.

I think it's wrong to think that Christians in general are homophobic, because quite frankly the greatest part of us aren't, and one doesn't have to be a Christian to be preoccupied with another persons choices, most of us are too busy being preoccupied with our own faults and failings, and success and journey getting on with life and making sure that it's not only about frills, but has some kind of depth.

I am, I might add, not entirely sure that a child left in an orphanage is better off merely by being left there rather than have at least one person love them, person to person, and I am quite positive that women or men who identify themselves as sexually one or another are quite capable of providing every single thing and not only that are also capable of showering love in abundance - However, it's so very difficult to adopt a child that more often than not an adoption agency will choose a family environment with both a male and a female - and this is not an accident, it's based on the research that shows that it is the best environment where possible.

philologos

Sonics2k wrote: »

Y'know what, it's really not the oldest authentic manuscript, and you -need- to stop deluding yourself on this matter.

But here's what it all comes down to on this matter.
If you don't want gays to marry, that's fine. Don't marry a gay.

If you want to claim it will affect children, that's fine. Just please know that you're wrong. Just so very wrong.

Now do as you claim Jerusalem would do, pipe down, smile and jog on. Apparently God(s) the will sort it out in the end.

Kk.

There's nothing delusional about pointing to manuscript evidence and what we know from Biblical scholarship to back up my point.

The Chinese whispers hypothesis on the other hand has no evidence. There is no evidence to show that the New Testament has changed significantly since the first century.

sponsoredwalk

My post was edited as if by divine intervention - now I remember why I never come to this forum...

Silvio.Dante

aloyisious wrote: »

Revolting Gays

.

The shamateur dramatics are a tad Hammy...

lmaopml

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

My post was edited as if by divine intervention - now I remember why I never come to this forum...

I think the way you embedded it just didn't work properly, it looked that way from the time you posted to my browser. Perhaps you could post it again?

Was it really interesting? If so, brilliant...

philologos

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

That has to be a joke?

This post is another example as to why posting on this thread is frustrating:
1) I never said I don't like homosexuals, or that I don't have friends who are LGBT
2) The Bible doesn't say not to like homosexuals.
3) I don't believe that homosexuals in and of themselves are evil, nor does Scripture.
4) I don't believe that God hates homosexuals. God doesn't hate anybody. In fact it is because He loved the world that He sent Jesus into the world. If anyone irrespective of sexuality repents of their sin and believes in the Gospel they can be saved.
5) I think that homosexuals do deserve rights. Civil partnerships in the country where I'm living afford all the rights that a marriage provides.
6) I don't believe that I am a victim of oppression.

I can't believe I had to even clarify some of that.