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

I've never really got around the difference between the various Christian churches on their biblical understanding of what God meant when it comes to marriage, except that they think it's all about procreation, as in being Pro-Creation, the making of babies.

The RC church has a ban in it's priests, those who entered the priesthood in an unmarried state, getting married after entry. I've never understood that stance as it bars priests from procreation. I'm not sure of the RC church's stance on married priests from other Christian churches transferring across into some roles within the RC church, though I understand such transfers are on the basis that they must refrain from sexual relations with their married partner and stay celibate from then on.

The other Christian religions have no problem with married priests or clergy, whether married before or after entering the priesthood. This now includes women as well as men.

It's almost like the churches, due to their various understanding of what God said about marriage, have an á la carte approach to it.

Re civil marriage and the churches, it seem's that in their opinion, marriage is solely for heterosexual couples as it's about precreation of babies. The churches can't get their head around the FACT that homosexual couples, with a bit of help from other males and females (straight and gay) can precreate, solely because it's NOT how they see procreation being done in God's preferred or traditional manner, as they understand and read it. It's like we are back at the flat earth era of the church understanding of knowledge. It'll take time for the church theologians to get their heads atround the new concept of conception and marriage, and get it past the various bishops meetings (committee meeting) before a vote, or maybe even several, to decide it's OK. The RC church may take a century or more to change it's position on marriage, if it ever does.

lazygal

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon,

I've offered my argument for why I believe that the Bible forbids sexual relationships outside of a marriage between a man and a woman here.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Good afternoon,
Are those who don't have religious marriages married? Are two men or women who get married in a civil or secular ceremony unmarried?

Much thanks,
Lazygal.

Good afternoon!

God created all people everywhere for His good purposes.

God created the world and declared what was good into it. God's standards are given to us because He loves us and He wants what is good for us. We can of course choose to rebel against Him and His standards if we choose. I trust that He knows far better about what is genuinely good for us.

I find that this argument becomes excessively shrill. It doesn't need to be.

The fact is lots of of people repent and change their lives for Jesus to walk more closely with Him. That is sacrificial for many people who struggle with many things.

The same standard applies to us all. Other standards which are equally challenging to others are given. In the same way I too as a single person live in the acknowledgement that sexual expression is for marriage.

I don't believe that sexual immorality is a greater sin for the homosexual than the heterosexual. I do know that God's word applies to all equally.

I find that any accusation of God and claims that He is not good ultimately point to the futile and sinful rebellion we make against Him. We are the twisted ones. The case is acknowledging that we need to repent and trust in Jesus.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon,

I've offered my argument for why I believe that the Bible forbids sexual relationships outside of a marriage between a man and a woman here.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

So sexual relationships outside of a marriage are forbidden so by extension gay people (which god made) can't express any sexual relations since they can't get married (in the eyes of some people who hold outdated viewpoints)

So god made gay people to torture them and so they MUST suppress their natural desires?

Once again we're back to a situation of a rather mean spirited or twisted god, unless god has made an error?

robdonn wrote: »

Is it possible for somebody to summarise all the reasons why the church cannot include same-sex marriages as part of Christian marriage from God's word alone?

Good afternoon,

I've offered my argument for why I believe that the Bible forbids sexual relationships outside of a marriage between a man and a woman here.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Here's another interesting article about good disagreement in the church about same-sex marriage.

I don't think that disagreement is possible though. Mainly because the Bible is explicit that sexual immorality is a sin in God's sight. Secondly, I think the reason why people re asking for good disagreement in the church is in order to get people to admit that this is a secondary issue rather than being explicitly contrary to what God has spoken in His Word so they can introduce marriage liturgy or rites for same-sex relationships.

My thoughts on this issue are quite clear. The church should be governed by what God has spoken rather than conforming to this world. Church and state should be separated and I think that means that the church should hold to Christian marriage.

Let me know what your thoughts are.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

As you believe that the church (presumably you mean the C of I you are in, given that the article is about the C of S) should hold unto what the bible traditionally say's about God's sayings on marriage and you have accepted the difference between church and state on marriage (several times on threads here, thank you) it's clearly for the members to decide that for themselves.

The good disagreement argument sound's like a "let sleeping dogs lie" policy to avoid the church being torn apart and achieve change over the long term. If there is no meeting of minds within the C of S (or the C of I) on what some now apparently see as a different reading on what God meant about marriage, then the answer is obvious. Stay and abide with the majority or leave and start afresh with the new understanding of God and marriage - this part of 1st sentence from the last sub-para in the larger 1st Para sounds relative to a possible schism: so that it does not become a barrier that stops us from journeying together.

Another part of the article includes this: [Simply put, it is about being able to articulate why someone believes what they do and the implications that their belief has on other Christians and on non-Christians around the world]. It seem's to me that that part is not about marriage but about the church message to people generally regardless of their faith or belief inside or outside Christianity. That put's a different spin on the article beyond just the marriage according to God you mentioned, but that the article is about the acceptance of Gay people within the C of S (or C of I if you prefer) generally, a much larger issue.

Being that humans are debating a very dearly held part of C of S scripture, I doubt, as you apparently do, if there could ever be a good disagreement on the issue. I think that if the C of S has a schism on the issue of faith and not just marriage (though marriage might well be labelled the cause) the C of I might well face the same here. Beyond that I have no thoughts on the issue and wish you well.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

In all due respect I've said none of those things.

We need to be honest with one another's positions.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

I never said you did,
But it is the case that god created gay people, but yet his teachings are for gay people to be treated as lessor to other people. Thats a rather odd position for god to take.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

In all due respect I've said none of those things.

We need to be honest with one another's positions.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

As one of a number of Christians on this forum, it is a tad presumptuous to assume that Cabaal is speaking about you, or any one person, specifically.

Cabaal wrote: »

i'd be curious about this wrong,
It seems messed up that "god creates gay people", "god looks down on gay people and wants them treated badly".

Good morning!

In all due respect I've said none of those things.

We need to be honest with one another's positions.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

robdonn wrote: »

Is it possible for somebody to summarise all the reasons why the church cannot include same-sex marriages as part of Christian marriage from God's word alone?

i'd be curious about this too,
It seems messed up that "god creates gay people", "god looks down on gay people and wants them treated badly".

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Here's another interesting article about good disagreement in the church about same-sex marriage.

I don't think that disagreement is possible though. Mainly because the Bible is explicit that sexual immorality is a sin in God's sight. Secondly, I think the reason why people re asking for good disagreement in the church is in order to get people to admit that this is a secondary issue rather than being explicitly contrary to what God has spoken in His Word so they can introduce marriage liturgy or rites for same-sex relationships.

My thoughts on this issue are quite clear. The church should be governed by what God has spoken rather than conforming to this world. Church and state should be separated and I think that means that the church should hold to Christian marriage.

Let me know what your thoughts are.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Is it possible for somebody to summarise all the reasons why the church cannot include same-sex marriages as part of Christian marriage from God's word alone?

Good morning!

Here's another interesting article about good disagreement in the church about same-sex marriage.

I don't think that disagreement is possible though. Mainly because the Bible is explicit that sexual immorality is a sin in God's sight. Secondly, I think the reason why people re asking for good disagreement in the church is in order to get people to admit that this is a secondary issue rather than being explicitly contrary to what God has spoken in His Word so they can introduce marriage liturgy or rites for same-sex relationships.

My thoughts on this issue are quite clear. The church should be governed by what God has spoken rather than conforming to this world. Church and state should be separated and I think that means that the church should hold to Christian marriage.

Let me know what your thoughts are.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

aloyisious wrote: »

Ref question 1. My answer is that it was their Christian ethos that was relevant. especially in this thread and this forum. The family, inclusive of the father, following the ethos of Christ behaved in a Christian manner towards the bisexual son and brother. What else is to explain there as it's directly linked to God's grace as mentioned by absolom. I think that that grace is part of the Christian ethos the family has, with it's inclusion of God as it's figurehead, a basic building block on which Christianity is based. ..... Question 2. My opinion on the story? simply great, period!

Well there we go... despite the fact that the story mentions nothing whatsoever about the possibility that the family might be Christian, it's definitely nice to think nice things about people.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Pardon me for using your post to post the below. It answers a multiple question post from an O/P.

Ref the questions posted by absolom in his attached post; But maybe aloyisious can explain how the Christianity of the Travellers in the link he gave is relevant to the story (and perhaps his opinion on the story he linked generally) which would give us an insight into why he thinks it played a part in the acceptance of LGBT members within that particular family; maybe God's grace was why Hughie's father came to terms with his sexuality? ----

Ref question 1. My answer is that it was their Christian ethos that was relevant. especially in this thread and this forum. The family, inclusive of the father, following the ethos of Christ behaved in a Christian manner towards the bisexual son and brother. What else is to explain there as it's directly linked to God's grace as mentioned by absolom. I think that that grace is part of the Christian ethos the family has, with it's inclusion of God as it's figurehead, a basic building block on which Christianity is based. ..... Question 2. My opinion on the story? simply great, period!

glued wrote: »

Do you think using ancient script, to base your morals on, is rather unwise? Some churches seem more keen than others on remaining 'biblically faithful'. But what does that term even mean? I've worn clothes than have been woven from two different fabrics; according to Leviticus that's a massive no, no. I'm sure the passages about slavery, death and many more immoral issues have been quoted here ad nausea so there is no need for me to quote any more.

Good afternoon!

Is it wise to trust the words of a timeless God who has demonstrated Himself to be faithful to both His Word and His people on a repeated basis? Yes. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever more (Hebrews 13:8). He will come to judge the living and the dead.

The question might be asked is it wise not to listen to this God?

From searching through this thread Leviticus has already come up. I'd be interested to discuss on slavery or anything else you've raised on another thread.

Biblically faithful means simply putting God's Word in the driving seat of churches, it means congregations who read the Bible regularly and allow it to shape their lives. It means that people are listening and becoming more like Christ each day. It means that where the world objects to God that the church will listen more rather than less intently to what He has to say into our world.

I hope that helps.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

robdonn wrote: »

Comments like this are unhelpful.

That's not necessarily true... It may well remain to be seen.

glued

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

On reading the article I didn't see anything related to Christianity in it. Like any group travellers may or may not have Christian belief. I don't think there's any evidence to say Traveller automatically means Christian.

I think posting links is good if the poster can relate them to Christianity.

For example Scotland's Episcopal Church is in the middle of codifying same sex marriage ceremonies. That's going to cause big issues for people who hold to a traditional understanding of what the Bible teaches but it will be great for those who want the church to conform to secular society. The US Episcopal Church were suspended from the Anglican Communion in January for this. I am naturally on the opposing side as I think churches ought to be Biblically faithful.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Do you think using ancient script, to base your morals on, is rather unwise? Some churches seem more keen than others on remaining 'biblically faithful'. But what does that term even mean? I've worn clothes than have been woven from two different fabrics; according to Leviticus that's a massive no, no. I'm sure the passages about slavery, death and many more immoral issues have been quoted here ad nausea so there is no need for me to quote any more.

Delirium

aloyisious wrote: »

As for answering any questions raised by absolom, he know's I do not want to be drawn into more rowing with him here. I believe that that is his only aim in his posting faux questions for me to respond to and that he is only interested in annoying, baiting and angering me. For that reason, I believe he is a troll.

MOD NOTE

Please do not call other posters trolls.

If you believe them to be trolling, please report posts where they are engaging in such behaviour.

Thanks for your attention.

Absolam wrote: »

Notwithstanding your belief in mythical animals, it leads one to wonder about the motivation behind your post.

Comments like this are unhelpful.

aloyisious wrote: »

As for answering any questions raised by absolom, he know's I do not want to be drawn into more rowing with him here. I believe that that is his only aim in his posting faux questions for me to respond to and that he is only interested in annoying, baiting and angering me. For that reason, I believe he is a troll.

Speaking for myself I don't want you rowing with me anywhere :-). I don't know what you think faux questions are, but I assure you my question was entirely genuine. If you find the thought of answering it annoys, baits or even angers you you're certainly free not to answer, though you'd have to ask why such a straightforward question is so troubling to you. Notwithstanding your belief in mythical animals, it leads one to wonder about the motivation behind your post.

Cabaal wrote: »

To be fair this thread is about the Christianity and the LGBT community, it is well known that travelers are seriously religious group in Irish society...far more then the average Joe non-traveller.

It doesn't take much to conclude that any anti-LGBT sentiment they hold as a group certainly is likely to have influences from the way the church views LGBT people.

There is relevant here to this thread in my view,

Good morning!

On reading the article I didn't see anything related to Christianity in it. Like any group travellers may or may not have Christian belief. I don't think there's any evidence to say Traveller automatically means Christian.

I think posting links is good if the poster can relate them to Christianity.

For example Scotland's Episcopal Church is in the middle of codifying same sex marriage ceremonies. That's going to cause big issues for people who hold to a traditional understanding of what the Bible teaches but it will be great for those who want the church to conform to secular society. The US Episcopal Church were suspended from the Anglican Communion in January for this. I am naturally on the opposing side as I think churches ought to be Biblically faithful.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

aloyisious wrote: »

Absolom is the sole member I named as a poster of faux questions to me, for the sole purpose of annoying, baiting and angering me and for that reason it is him I named as a troll.

Matthew 7:1

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

My intention isn't to troll. It is to have good and gracious conversations about how Christianity relates to LGBT issues.

We have a rather active LGBT forum on boards.ie. This thread is in the Christianity forum so it is reasonable to expect the threads to relate to Christianity.

To be fair this thread is about the Christianity and the LGBT community, it is well known that travelers are seriously religious group in Irish society...far more then the average Joe non-traveller.

It doesn't take much to conclude that any anti-LGBT sentiment they hold as a group certainly is likely to have influences from the way the church views LGBT people.

There is relevant here to this thread in my view,

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

My intention isn't to troll. It is to have good and gracious conversations about how Christianity relates to LGBT issues.

We have a rather active LGBT forum on boards.ie. This thread is in the Christianity forum so it is reasonable to expect the threads to relate to Christianity.

I think that's a fair expectation.

If you think I'm trolling please report my post to the moderation team on this forum and I'll submit to their judgement.

As for me I only long for good conversations about the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ who was crucified and was raised from the dead for the forgiveness of sins and eternal life for those who repent and trust in Him.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Absolom is the sole member I named as a poster of faux questions to me, for the sole purpose of annoying, baiting and angering me and for that reason it is him I named as a pest.

Edit: In relarton to how I view absolom, I'll exchange the word troll for the word pest.

Good morning!

My intention isn't to troll. It is to have good and gracious conversations about how Christianity relates to LGBT issues.

We have a rather active LGBT forum on boards.ie. This thread is in the Christianity forum so it is reasonable to expect the threads to relate to Christianity.

I think that's a fair expectation.

If you think I'm trolling please report my post to the moderation team on this forum and I'll submit to their judgement.

As for me I only long for good conversations about the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ who was crucified and was raised from the dead for the forgiveness of sins and eternal life for those who repent and trust in Him.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

solodeogloria asked why lgbt matters are being discussed on a christian forum. I pointed out my post was about a traveller father accepting that his traveller son is bisexual and that Travellers are strongly christian in belief.

solodeogloria is aware that the title of this thread on the Christianity forum is The Gay Megathread and that LGBT matters are debated on an LGBT thread. If he has a problem with the way the forum is being run, he can easily contact the board.ie moderators about it.

As for answering any questions raised by absolom, he know's I do not want to be drawn into more rowing with him here. I believe that that is his only aim in his posting faux questions for me to respond to and that he is only interested in annoying, baiting and angering me. For that reason, I believe he is a pest.

Matt Markinson wrote: »

But this is not a Christian forum, it's a forum for discussing anything connected to Christianity.
Travellers are known to be religious and are often hated by large sections of Irish society.

That they're often hated by large sections of Irish society (a pretty bold allegation in fairness), probably isn't all that relevant.

But maybe aloyisious can explain how the Christianity of the Travellers in the link he gave is relevant to the story (and perhaps his opinion on the story he linked generally) which would give us an insight into why he thinks it played a part in the acceptance of LGBT members within that particular family; maybe God's grace was why Hughie's father came to terms with his sexuality?

Matt Markinson

But this is not a Christian forum, it's a forum for discussing anything connected to Christianity.
Travellers are known to be religious and are often hated by large sections of Irish society.

aloyisious wrote: »

I like this as a report on the future of Irish LGBT travellers. I don't watch the show in any of it's nation-locations, just saw the mention in the Indo: http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/television/tv-news/hughie-maughans-dad-comes-to-terms-with-big-brother-stars-sexuality-34799218.html.

The next link is from 2014 but i assume/hope the partnership is ongoing: https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi86_nf_abNAhXDDcAKHczJDxIQFggdMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.paveepoint.ie%2Ftag%2Flgbt%2F&usg=AFQjCNEmh_PwjjcP0ZSgFM8gAktMAlOhpQ

Good morning!

What is this thread for? Discussing the intersection between Christianity and LGBT issues or general LGBT discussion?

If it's the latter then surely we have a forum for this?

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria