Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

Knasher

No

Benny_Cake wrote: »

No valid grounds that I can think of. I think they had an issue with the State having any role in marriages.

Perhaps if the spouse is of a different nationality, I've heard of people having a marriage ceremony for one part of the family in one country, while having another in the others country. If they got the civil + religious in one, they mightn't want to bother with the civil in the other as the first is legally binding regardless (assuming that civil marriage requires some sort of fee).

mrsbyrne

AerynSun wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that the State should tell any religion what to do - but I don't think 'they should be allowed to continue to discriminate as they wish' without adherents of the faith who disagree with their discrimination being allowed to speak up (as internal voices of dissent) and challenge those aspects of the religion.

If gay people don't like a particular faith's stance, they are also quite free to work towards changing the faith's stance - they are NOT obliged to leave.

If your in a club/organisation and you don't agree with some of the rules, yes you are free to continue to voice your reservations,and to campaign for change.
But while your doing this, you must continue to obey the rules. Or just retire.
That's my take on it.

AerynSun

No

mrsbyrne wrote: »

If your in a club/organisation and you don't agree with some of the rules, yes you are free to continue to voice your reservations,and to campaign for change.
But while your doing this, you must continue to obey the rules. Or just retire.
That's my take on it.

Well, given that the Church is not simply a club... there's a lot of wiggle room on this one. Is the Church only for people who do not EVER sin? I'd say a pretty significant proportion of the membership should then seriously consider 'just retiring'. That's my take on it.

So - while I myself have left the Church... I support my LGBT friends who have remained as members. There are couples amongst them, and fair play to them for hanging in there when their relationships are not only not recognised but derided by many in the Church. I'm not sure how Christian it is for people to refuse to offer them the sign of peace... when sure aren't there loads of heterosexual people in that same Church who are doing all manner of sinful things that are just less noticeable because they're sitting next to partners of the opposite sex.

In my view, gay sex isn't 'intrinsically disordered', and as such is not a sin. But that's my view.

Lyaiera

No

There's a few Christian church's that will marry gay people. Off hand I know the Universal Unitarians in America will.

lazygal

No

AerynSun wrote: »

Well, given that the Church is not simply a club... there's a lot of wiggle room on this one. Is the Church only for people who do not EVER sin? I'd say a pretty significant proportion of the membership should then seriously consider 'just retiring'. That's my take on it.

So - while I myself have left the Church... I support my LGBT friends who have remained as members. There are couples amongst them, and fair play to them for hanging in there when their relationships are not only not recognised but derided by many in the IChurch. I'm not sure how Christian it is for people to refuse to offer them the sign of peace... when sure aren't there loads of heterosexual people in that same Church who are doing all manner of sinful things that are just less noticeable because they're sitting next to partners of the opposite sex.

In my view, gay sex isn't 'intrinsically disordered', and as such is not a sin. But that's my view.

What makes a church any different from any other club with rules?

AerynSun

No

lazygal wrote: »

What makes a church any different from any other club with rules?

Probably it's rule book: love your neighbour, do not judge... and so on and so forth. So if the church club's rules are to be believed... nobody in that 'club' has the right to treat any of the club members with disdain or the kind of disrespect that many LGBT people experience within the Church. I do wish church people would pay more attention to the whole rule book, and not just cherry pick the bits that they like to use against other members.

J_E

No

lazygal wrote: »

What makes a church any different from any other club with rules?

They like you to follow the rules even if you aren't in the club.

lazygal

No

AerynSun wrote: »

Probably it's rule book: love your neighbour, do not judge... and so on and so forth. So if the church club's rules are to be believed... nobody in that 'club' has the right to treat any of the club members with disdain or the kind of disrespect that many LGBT people experience within the Church. I do wish church people would pay more attention to the whole rule book, and not just cherry pick the bits that they like to use against other members.

But what makes that any different from a golf club where you've to respect other players or a chess club that adheres to the rules of the game?

Benny_Cake

Lyaiera wrote: »

There's a few Christian church's that will marry gay people. Off hand I know the Universal Unitarians in America will.

The Unitarians in Ireland, as well as the many (but not all) Quaker meetings will perform same-sex partnerships. The Progressive Jewish synagogue in Dublin does too, I think.

AerynSun

No

lazygal wrote: »

But what makes that any different from a golf club where you've to respect other players or a chess club that adheres to the rules of the game?

What is your point? Are we back to the debate about how Catholic is Catholic, who are really members and who decides how it works?

I've had this discussion on here with a number of people, and it's (as another poster said earlier today) a 'rabbit hole'. So please excuse me for not going down that path with you today.

My view: gay people are entitled to be religious and go to Church if they want to, and they are also entitled to challenge homophobia within the Church, as well as those Church teachings that are out of date and need to be updated. Homosexuality is not - in my view - intrinsically disordered, and same sex couples are not - again, in my view - 'sinners' or in any way less an expression of love than heterosexual couples are.

Lyaiera

No

Benny_Cake wrote: »

The Unitarians in Ireland, as well as the many (but not all) Quaker meetings will perform same-sex partnerships,love. The Progressive Jewish synagogue in Dublin does too, I think.

I didn't know about the Unitarians in Ireland as I know they're slightly different to the UU's in America. It doesn't surprise me in the least though. The people I met there were almost unanimously lovely and interested in charity and "good" as well as spirituality. I attended a Unitarian church for a while and it helped me realise that my problem wasn't just with the Catholic Church but with the broader ideas behind religion.

circlesquared

Have been reading the posts and I thought I'd make my point. Here goes

Which person is the husband and which one is the wife? that is what confuses me about gay marriage.

AerynSun

No

circlesquared wrote: »

Have been reading the posts and I thought I'd make my point. Here goes

Which person is the husband and which one is the wife? that is what confuses me about gay marriage.

There doesn't have to be a husband and a wife. There are two partners. It's not uncommon to hear heterosexual people insisting that a gay couple needs to be run along the man/woman role definitions that exist in many heterosexual parnerships.

If I'm dancing with my lover, we're both 'the woman'. If we're divvying up the household chores and I do be fixing the roof while she cooks dinner, we're both still 'the woman'.

Bannasidhe

No

circlesquared wrote: »

Have been reading the posts and I thought I'd make my point. Here goes

Which person is the husband and which one is the wife? that is what confuses me about gay marriage.

Seriously?

Are there things that only a 'husband' can do and things that only a 'wife' can do to say one must have one of each?

Lyaiera

No

circlesquared wrote: »

Have been reading the posts and I thought I'd make my point. Here goes

Which person is the husband and which one is the wife? that is what confuses me about gay marriage.

It's pretty easy... If they're a man they're the husband. If they're a woman they're the wife.

bada_bing

No

circlesquared wrote: »

Have been reading the posts and I thought I'd make my point. Here goes

Which person is the husband and which one is the wife? that is what confuses me about gay marriage.

well this is going to blow your mind, but it's simply husband and husband or wife and wife.

oh no think of the children!!!!!

Lyaiera

No

circlesquared wrote: »

Have been reading the posts and I thought I'd make my point. Here goes

Which person is the husband and which one is the wife? that is what confuses me about gay marriage.

Actually, it's well worth linking to this classic here. http://i.imgur.com/edZQ9is.jpg

Safe for work.

Annasopra

No

circlesquared wrote: »

Have been reading the posts and I thought I'd make my point. Here goes

Which person is the husband and which one is the wife? that is what confuses me about gay marriage.

I'm not sure what confuses you. Man marries man. Husband and Husband.

AerynSun

No

Lyaiera wrote: »

Actually, it's well worth linking to this classic here. http://i.imgur.com/edZQ9is.jpg

Safe for work.

That's brilliant.

Of course I do have some lesbian feminist friends who are appalled at the idea of lesbians using a strap-on... they're not at all into (raised eyebrows) that kind of thing. Logic being: if you want that, then get a man.

And maybe they're right, to some extent. But different strokes for different folks - only thing that really matters is that you and your partner both agree on what works for you in that department.

circlesquared

So it is husband and wife for a man and a woman

husband and husband - two men
wife and wife - women

Got it and there was me thinking the titles were going to be changed.

They say you learn something new every day. Thank you all very much.

JackF1

No

circlesquared wrote: »

Have been reading the posts and I thought I'd make my point. Here goes

Which person is the husband and which one is the wife? that is what confuses me about gay marriage.

You are being serious?

circlesquared

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Seriously?

Are there things that only a 'husband' can do and things that only a 'wife' can do to say one must have one of each?

Did you do biology at school at all?

circlesquared

JackF1 wrote: »

You are being serious?

deadly serious.


Mod: Troll banned. Nothing to see here.

Lyaiera

No

The candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long.

God speed circlesquared!

Links234

No

circlesquared wrote: »

Have been reading the posts and I thought I'd make my point. Here goes

Which person is the husband and which one is the wife? that is what confuses me about gay marriage.

That's like asking which chopstick is the fork and which is the knife :pac:

Kiwi in IE

No

Softies AerynSun and Ban for thanking that post!

neiphin

mango salsa wrote: »

That is forcing religions to marry couples. I would be against that.

no, i dont agree
they could do all the religious ceremonys they like
but
a state recognised marriage would have to be performed by a person that the state has confidence in to perform a service without fear or favour

Lyaiera

No

Links234 wrote: »

That's like asking which chopstick is the fork and which is the knife :pac:

Why is there spaghetti in my Chinese? Isn't that Italian? Where are my chips?

fran17

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Your posts here seem to say the opposite.

Run along back to the Youth Defence forums, now.

so now that abortion is in you've moved onto homosexuality.you'll be defending paedophiles next you scurrilous dog.

mrsbyrne

AerynSun wrote: »

Well, given that the Church is not simply a club... there's a lot of wiggle room on this one. Is the Church only for people who do not EVER sin? I'd say a pretty significant proportion of the membership should then seriously consider 'just retiring'. That's my take on it.

So - while I myself have left the Church... I support my LGBT friends who have remained as members. There are couples amongst them, and fair play to them for hanging in there when their relationships are not only not recognised but derided by many in the Church. I'm not sure how Christian it is for people to refuse to offer them the sign of peace... when sure aren't there loads of heterosexual people in that same Church who are doing all manner of sinful things that are just less noticeable because they're sitting next to partners of the opposite sex.

In my view, gay sex isn't 'intrinsically disordered', and as such is not a sin. But that's my view.

Who said the Church is only for people who never ever sin?I've never heard a Catholic saying that.
Sure that's what we have confession for.
The Church, like every other Club is full of members who are, at the end of the day, only human. Sinners, hypocrites snobs and bigots.
The LGBT community is full of sinners snobs hypocrites and bigots too. Not too christian some of them either.
I don't think anyone has said otherwise.
People get the cold shoulder from other club members for all sorts of reasons. Marital infidelity, stealing lying cheating domestic abuse. The list goes on and on. Its not just for being gay.
People who have left their marriage and are now living with someone else could say they are equally persecuted by the club rules.
LGBT don't have the exclusive rights to griping here.