nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

PDN

Certain individuals seem to be somewhat obsessed with the subject of homosexuality. To avoid the Forum being over-run with numerous threads on this subject, I am launching a MegaThread similar to the ones we already have on other subjects.

Please note that the Forum Charter still applies to megathreads - so try to treat each other with respect and courtesy, even if the subject is one that makes you hot and bothered.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

aloyisious

Galway_Old_Man wrote: »

Err, no they're not.

That might depend on whichever Vatica spokesperson one chooses to quote.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Interesting idea, that a quota (unknown) of gay people may be so due to medicinal misadventure on the part of others, so to speak. Persons with unknown side-effects of medicines on their gene make-up.

Interesting idea that if you go back far enough, the very existence of two sexes in the first place may be due to a chemical adventure very early on, if you think of it that way. Though even more interesting what people would choose to do if we discovered there was a genetic 'switch' for sexuality that we could use chemicals/medicine to flip whenever we want...

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm not sure how some people within the rainbow spectrum would take to the medicinal misadventure idea, as they are using medicines at a personal singular level to affect a particular effect on their bodies through hormonal changes. The idea that it might have been a medicinal misadventure which caused their present state of body might be upsetting to them.

Surely if someone is using chemicals to reinvent themselves as they want to be, they're going to be fairly equanimous about the idea that it's chemicals that made them the way they are in the first place?

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

That might depend on whichever Vatica spokesperson one chooses to quote.

Probably not... the official position from the Vatican is fairly clear. it doesn't prevent Catholics from holding other positions, but anyone speaking on behalf of the Holy See is likely to stick to dogma I would think.

Peregrinus

aloyisious wrote: »

Interesting idea, that a quota (unknown) of gay people may be so due to medicinal misadventure on the part of others, so to speak. Persons with unknown side-effects of medicines on their gene make-up.

Well, it was only an example and, as I said, not a very realistic one. If sexual orientation is the produce of the expression of a particular gene or genes, and if we do not know what causes genes to express, then it’s possible that the expression is the consequence of a choice that someone made, and that choice could be a choice about what medicine to take.

But it could equally be a choice about what food to eat, or what drink to drink, or where to go, or when to go asleep, or to take part in a stress-inducing activity, or to avoid one, or . . . well, anything, really.

Or, the trigger factor might have nothing to do with anybody’s choice. It could be the weather conditions that you experience at a particular stage of development, or exposure to a particular kind of pollen, or . . . again, anything.

And all this is predicated on an assumption that we keep dutifully stating, but not exploring - “If sexual orientation is the produce of the expression of a particular gene or genes”. We have some reason to think that there is a genetic factor which influences sexual orientation, but we really can’t say how big that factor is, by comparison with non-genetic factors. Your sexual orientation is an aspect of your psychology, and everything we know suggests that genetics have a real, but nevertheless limited, influence on psychology; we have no reason to think that sexual orientation is predominantly a matter of genetic inheritance. So all of this discussion about what causes genes to express is predicated on an assumption which, maybe, is not very true.

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm not sure how some people within the rainbow spectrum would take to the medicinal misadventure idea, as they are using medicines at a personal singular level to affect a particular effect on their bodies through hormonal changes. The idea that it might have been a medicinal misadventure which caused their present state of body might be upsetting to them.

No, hold on. Couple of things here. First, if there’s a “rainbow spectrum”, then we’re all on it - that’s the whole point of a spectrum, really - even if we smugly congratulate ourselves on being firmly at one end of the spectrum. And only a few of us on the spectrum are using medicines to achieve a particular effect through hormonal changes. (And most of those, I guess, are bodybuilders or sportspeople, and their use of hormones is unrelated to their location on the spectrum.)

But the other, and more serious, point is that the notion of “rainbow spectrum” generally refers not to sexual orientation but to gender identity, which is not the same thing at all. Gay men do not embark on hormonal or surgical treatment in order to realise their identity as women; gay men identify as men. It’s transgender people who seek to alter their bodies hormonally or surgically to align them with their psychological gender identity. And whatever about sexual orientation having a genetic basis, the question of whether gender identity has a genetic basis is a whole different one.

aloyisious wrote: »

I can appreciate how some people with a very strong belief in the words of the bible might see that as an explanation for the differenc between the word and the facts of life: human action was/is the causal fact and to hear/read their views on the idea. I'm wondering if they might think the idea is purely hypothetical.

I’m not entirely sure what you’re saying here (and that may be my fault). But it may be relevant to note here that the Catholic ethical tradition, at any rate, has always been very reluctant to define people in terms of their actions - it’s much more comfortable speaking about “homosexual acts”, for example, than it is speaking about a “homosexual person”. (And this goes for all aspects of the human condition, not just sexuality.)

On the one hand, you can see this as a positive; nobody is defined by their acts - neither by their worst acts, nor by their best acts. In this tradition, what you do is only part of the story - what you are must also take account of what you can do, what you can become, the ways in which you can grow and flourish. And this makes for a very high, optimistic, positive view of what it is to be human.

On the other hand, this can be a problem, particularly when it comes to sexuality. If somebody experiences themselves as gay, and identifies as gay, this is typically just as central to their perception of who they are as the fact that they are male, or female, or Irish, or Italian, or whatever. And a Catholic moral tradition which simply doesn’t have the language for talking about a gay person is going to look like one which has, literally, nothing meaningful to say to, or about, them.

The whole business of sexual orientation as an aspect of human personhood is really difficult to address in the language that Catholic ethics uses. You’ll find church documents talking about “persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies” and “homosexual inclinations” or “people who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction towards persons of the same sex”. These look like terribly evasive and uncomfortable ways of talking about a gay man or a gay woman. They treat homosexuality as something that happens to you, rather than as an aspect of who you are. Given this, is it any wonder that the Church and gay people frequently find themselves talking past one another? They’re not even speaking the same language, much of the time.

So when the church talks about “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” being “objectively disordered”, it doesn’t think it’s saying that gay people are intrinsically disordered. But that’s what gay people are hearing.

aloyisious

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, it was only an example and, as I said, not a very realistic one. If sexual orientation is the produce of the expression of a particular gene or genes, and if we do not know what causes genes to express, then it’s possible that the expression is the consequence of a choice that someone made, and that choice could be a choice about what medicine to take.

But it could equally be a choice about what food to eat, or what drink to drink, or where to go, or when to go asleep, or to take part in a stress-inducing activity, or to avoid one, or . . . well, anything, really.

Or, the trigger factor might have nothing to do with anybody’s choice. It could be the weather conditions that you experience at a particular stage of development, or exposure to a particular kind of pollen, or . . . again, anything.

And all this is predicated on an assumption that we keep dutifully stating, but not exploring - “If sexual orientation is the produce of the expression of a particular gene or genes”. We have some reason to think that there is a genetic factor which influences sexual orientation, but we really can’t say how big that factor is, by comparison with non-genetic factors. Your sexual orientation is an aspect of your psychology, and everything we know suggests that genetics have a real, but nevertheless limited, influence on psychology; we have no reason to think that sexual orientation is predominantly a matter of genetic inheritance. So all of this discussion about what causes genes to express is predicated on an assumption which, maybe, is not very true.

No, hold on. Couple of things here. First, if there’s a “rainbow spectrum”, then we’re all on it - that’s the whole point of a spectrum, really - even if we smugly congratulate ourselves on being firmly at one end of the spectrum. And only a few of us on the spectrum are using medicines to achieve a particular effect through hormonal changes. (And most of those, I guess, are bodybuilders or sportspeople, and their use of hormones is unrelated to their location on the spectrum.)

But the other, and more serious, point is that the notion of “rainbow spectrum” generally refers not to sexual orientation but to gender identity, which is not the same thing at all. Gay men do not embark on hormonal or surgical treatment in order to realise their identity as women; gay men identify as men. It’s transgender people who seek to alter their bodies hormonally or surgically to align them with their psychological gender identity. And whatever about sexual orientation having a genetic basis, the question of whether gender identity has a genetic basis is a whole different one.

I’m not entirely sure what you’re saying here (and that may be my fault). But it may be relevant to note here that the Catholic ethical tradition, at any rate, has always been very reluctant to define people in terms of their actions - it’s much more comfortable speaking about “homosexual acts”, for example, than it is speaking about a “homosexual person”. (And this goes for all aspects of the human condition, not just sexuality.)

On the one hand, you can see this as a positive; nobody is defined by their acts - neither by their worst acts, nor by their best acts. In this tradition, what you do is only part of the story - what you are must also take account of what you can do, what you can become, the ways in which you can grow and flourish. And this makes for a very high, optimistic, positive view of what it is to be human.

On the other hand, this can be a problem, particularly when it comes to sexuality. If somebody experiences themselves as gay, and identifies as gay, this is typically just as central to their perception of who they are as the fact that they are male, or female, or Irish, or Italian, or whatever. And a Catholic moral tradition which simply doesn’t have the language for talking about a gay person is going to look like one which has, literally, nothing meaningful to say to, or about, them.

The whole business of sexual orientation as an aspect of human personhood is really difficult to address in the language that Catholic ethics uses. You’ll find church documents talking about “persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies” and “homosexual inclinations” or “people who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction towards persons of the same sex”. These look like terribly evasive and uncomfortable ways of talking about a gay man or a gay woman. They treat homosexuality as something that happens to you, rather than as an aspect of who you are. Given this, is it any wonder that the Church and gay people frequently find themselves talking past one another? They’re not even speaking the same language, much of the time.

So when the church talks about “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” being “objectively disordered”, it doesn’t think it’s saying that gay people are intrinsically disordered. But that’s what gay people are hearing.

!. I accept and agree with you in segment one of yours where it involves medicines. I'm not involving any other substances or effects by nature in what i wrote. I did have in mind the thalidomide scandal when I wrote about medicinal side effects.

2. Ref segment 2, i was referring to Transgender Persons when I wrote part of the rainbow spectrum, and not the entirety of the human race. Maybe I could have been more forthright by writing LGBT spectrum instead but believed using Rainbow Spectrum, like in the flag, would have fulfilled the purpose.

3. Re segment 3, actions are acts and some christians and persons of other or no faiths do not make the definition you have made on the same. Some believe that by merely being homosexual means one is/has to be an active homosexual involved in same-sex acts. I have to disagree with you that people differentiate between the two, some obviously don't/won't/can't, as if the homosexual just can't say NO and mean it.

I agree with you where it comes to the interpretation of language, and therefore probably of the terms "intrinsically disordered" or "objectively disordered" because those specific terms are being used objectively by clergy from within the Vatican and elsewhere in utterances they want to be published in the media where the public can read them. Telling or describing a person "you're disordered" leaves the O/P wondering "did he/she just call me disordered" eg unwell just because I'm homosexual? What response should one expect having made such a statement? an invite to sit down here and discuss what you meant by that and your understanding of me or homosexuals in our totality, instead of just sexual" or instead a blunt "get the **** away from me" response. Some people seemingly just can't get over the fact that homosexuals exist with all the other possible personal definitions that other people have and think of them merely as sexual beings.

Utterances here by others seem to define Christians as sinners if they merely involve themselves in sexual acts or thoughts, so I can't help but wonder what they define homosexuals as, when they can't even get over their own sexual feelings.

You've wakened a gene inquiry world for me. I'll have to set aside time to look into and dig deeper into the gene/s and genetic make-up science of humans in specific to what is known about their effects on the physiological and/or psychological growth of homosexual humans. I'd like to think such info would have been obtained through a mass examination of humans (hundreds) over an (at least) two-year regardless of gender, with specific question and reply data to be pulled out of the general question morass later for examination on homosexuals involved in the examination to see if there was any new physiological and/or psychological data revealed in the examinations to show why people were homosexual instead of straight, through comparisons with similar data on the other persons in the examination.

aloyisious

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/world/thousands-march-through-warsaw-in-gay-rights-parade-792283.html

Delirium

aloyisious wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/world/thousands-march-through-warsaw-in-gay-rights-parade-792283.html

It would be appreciated if when posting, a post contained more than a mere link.

What is it you wished to add to the discussion with the link?
And, what is the relevance to Christianity?

aloyisious

Delirium wrote: »

It would be appreciated if when posting, a post contained more than a mere link.

What is it you wished to add to the discussion with the link?
And, what is the relevance to Christianity?

Thank's for the fair inquiry. I should have given the article some context vis a vie Poland's reported national spirituality. It seemed to me that the public opinion on LGBT people might be changing in Poland, which has a Christian bias against Polish LGBT people being seen as equal to other Polish citizens when it comes to citizens rights due to one's sexuality.

I thought the apparent improval in relations between Polish citizens, as in the parade not being attacked and dispersed by hooligan elements were worth noting.

I hope the above is a good enough response, esp to the person who PM'd me informing me that he had been in contact with Boards about my post and asking me what my post had to do with Russia [a Christian country] and Chechnya [a non-christian ethos nation] which were NOT mentioned BY ME in MY POST ABOUT the article.

Poland's neighbour, Russia, has a strong anti-lgbt bias and with laws against anti-traditional behaviour as well, though probably not as strong as the anti-lgbt bias and law operated in Chechnya.

I've edited my 2nd last para above to include the capitalized six words above, in light of the response to my original unedited post by the poster below.

lazybones32

aloyisious wrote: »

Thank's for the fair inquiry. I should have given the article some context vis a vie Poland's reported national spirituality. It seemed to me that the public opinion on LGBT people might be changing in Poland, which has a Christian bias against Polish LGBT people being seen as equal to other Polish citizens when it comes to citizens rights due to one's sexuality.

I thought the apparent improval in relations between Polish citizens, as in the parade not being attacked and dispersed by hooligan elements were worth noting.

I hope the above is a good enough response, esp to the person who PM'd me informing me that he had been in contact with Boards about my post and asking me what my post had to do with Russia [a Christian country] and Chechnya [a non-christian ethos nation] which were not mentioned in the article.

Poland's neighbour, Russia, has a strong anti-lgbt bias and with laws against anti-traditional behaviour as well, though probably not as strong as the anti-lgbt bias and law operated in Chechnya.

The article you linked had no mention of what you've posted here. I look forward to you drawing an obscure link between a Polish march and Irish Christians and making out as if that was your primary intention for posting in the first place. Get busy mining! And don't forget to quote sources...

aloyisious

lazybones32 wrote: »

The article you linked had no mention of what you've posted here. I look forward to you drawing an obscure link between a Polish march and Irish Christians and making out as if that was your primary intention for posting in the first place. Get busy mining! And don't forget to quote sources...

I'm sorry that I posted about the Polish LGBT parade as I hadn't realised that the Gay Megathread was solely about Irish Christians. Ta for pointing that out to me. As for the relevancy of the article I posted to the apparently changing opinions of Polish people in respect to their fellow [LGBT] citizens, the link seems obvious to me; the seeking of equality in both the eyes of the law and the eyes of the people.

In respect of the two other countries and nations and their beliefs which I mentioned in my last post, It's worth pointing out that I never mentioned anyone by title or name in respect of their introduction to the debate. I won't be doing any mining of any sort, ta very much.

Absolam

I think maybe a discussion of the march might be more relevant in the Politics or LGBT fora? There's nothing particularly relevant to Christianity's relationship with homosexuality either in the article or in the fact that the march took place, which is probably why you're not getting a great reaction to dropping the link in the thread. The seeking of equality in both the eyes of the law and the eyes of the people would be more of a political issue than anything, I think?

aloyisious

LGBT marches for equality are also known as Pride Marches. The use of the word "pride" there is to signify that the marchers are NOT ashamed of being LGBT people or of their sexuality. With or without the inclusion of the word "pride" the aim and intent of the LGBT people on the march remains the same; the seeking of equality with fellow citizens and not to be denied such on the grounds of one's sexuality. The shame angle on sexuality came from others reading of the bible, creation and the word of God.

When the reasoning for denial of and opposition to such equality is based on one's religious or biblical beliefs, then the denial steps outside the political sphere into the religious sphere. Unless there is some claim that the religious beliefs of people do not now or in the past have any input into how they feel about homosexual people and the LGBT people seeking to overturn the denial of equal rights to them, then I can see no reason for them to dislike or object to the inclusion of LGBT marches for equality on this thread.

I doubt if it is the case that not even one Polish person of RC persuasion would object [on RC faith beliefs] to Polish LGBT citizens having the same rights as them.

I doubt very much if anyone can put up an argument that the self-same denial of right to equality between Irish LGBT citizens and other Irish citizens here in the past had absolutely no religious input based on the bible, creation and the word of God, as is the present case in Poland.

Absolam

Sure. Maybe those opinions, in the first place, rather than a link to an article about a march that doesn't mention Christianity might have gotten a few more people onboard with talking about what you think though?

For what it's worth, I think 'the shame angle on sexuality' isn't exclusive to homosexuality, or even Christianity. Controlling sexuality has historically been a means of controlling populations, and that shame factor is visible through many cultures and many religions. The current Christian perspective of "love the sinner hate the sin" I'm sure you'll agree is a more tolerant perspective than has prevailed in previous centuries, and many predominantly Christian societies are more tolerant than many other societies today.

As for rights to equality, I think that's a fairly blurry line you're treading; Ireland has shown that even predominantly Christian societies can confer civil rights like marriage whilst reserving religious rites like marriage, so I'm dubious about how much value there is in pitching a discussion of civil liberties in a thread on religious positions. There's some overlap sure, but there are clear distinctions too.

I'd suggest that whilst you're now offering opinions on subjects unconnected to the march in Poland that may bear discussion, you haven't made a case that the march in Poland has any overlap with them. Political positions may be informed by religious opinions, but they're obviously not determined by them.

aloyisious

In the case of Poland, I'd demur from agreeing with an opinion-holder who says religious ethos has not determined the way homosexual rights are determined in that country and who also holds the differing opinion that political positions may be informed by religious opinion and there's some overlap. Thank's for noting the relevance of the opinion I offered; that religious opinion definitely affects decisions made in reference to civil rights.

I am unsure what other opinions it is others believe I am offering on subjects unconnected to the march in Poland. Perhaps the people with that belief would care to state what those other opinions are? We wouldn't want any deflection away from the overlap of religious think on civil rights, would we?

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

In the case of Poland, I'd demur from agreeing with an opinion-holder who says religious ethos has not determined the way homosexual rights are determined in that country and who also holds the differing opinion that political positions may be informed by religious opinion and there's some overlap. Thank's for noting the relevance of the opinion I offered; that religious opinion definitely affects decisions made in reference to civil rights. I am unsure what other opinions it is others believe I am offering on subjects unconnected to the march in Poland. Perhaps the people with that belief would care to state what those other opinions are? We wouldn't want any deflection away from the overlap of religious think on civil rights, would we?

I don't believe I (or anyone) actually said any of that... but what I did say is that the march doesn't seen at all relevant to the opinions you're putting forward. Pretty much the opinions you offered here seems rather unrelated to the march, to be honest. Which is to say, the article doesn't mention anything about "The shame angle on sexuality came from others reading of the bible, creation and the word of God.", or "denial of and opposition to such equality is based on one's religious or biblical beliefs", or "the self-same denial of right to equality between Irish LGBT citizens and other Irish citizens here in the past had absolutely no religious input based on the bible, creation and the word of God".

These are all opinions you might put forward, and even attempt to argue, they just don't seem to have anything to do with the link you dropped.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

I don't believe I (or anyone) actually said any of that... but what I did say is that the march doesn't seen at all relevant to the opinions you're putting forward. Pretty much the opinions you offered here seems rather unrelated to the march, to be honest. Which is to say, the article doesn't mention anything about "The shame angle on sexuality came from others reading of the bible, creation and the word of God.", or "denial of and opposition to such equality is based on one's religious or biblical beliefs", or "the self-same denial of right to equality between Irish LGBT citizens and other Irish citizens here in the past had absolutely no religious input based on the bible, creation and the word of God".

These are all opinions you might put forward, and even attempt to argue, they just don't seem to have anything to do with the link you dropped.

Perhaps one might reply to me as to why the march took place in the first place?

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Perhaps one might reply to me as to why the march took place in the first place?

One might I'm sure. One other (or perhaps even a few!) might ask what the march had to do with Christianity, given no mention no made of it was made in the article. And then another one might, in the spirit of Christian charity, suggest that you'd probably get more productive engagement if you just offered your opinion instead of dropping a link, since the only correlation you seem to be able to make is there's Christians there. Along with the non Christians.

Anyways, all that aside, you've already said yourself that you think the purpose of the march was to seek equality in the eyes of the law and the eyes of the people. That's not a Christian issue, it's a political issue.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

One might I'm sure. One other (or perhaps even a few!) might ask what the march had to do with Christianity, given no mention no made of it was made in the article. And then another one might, in the spirit of Christian charity, suggest that you'd probably get more productive engagement if you just offered your opinion instead of dropping a link, since the only correlation you seem to be able to make is there's Christians there. Along with the non Christians.

Anyways, all that aside, you've already said yourself that you think the purpose of the march was to seek equality in the eyes of the law and the eyes of the people. That's not a Christian issue, it's a political issue.

Could one legitimately extrapolate from your [Anyways, all that aside, you've already said yourself that you think the purpose of the march was to seek equality in the eyes of the law and the eyes of the people. That's not a Christian issue, it's a political issue] that voters should put aside personal religious beliefs when called upon to decide on issues of equality in civil rights in a christian charitable manner?

Do you think that that was what happened in the debate and vote on LGBT equality vis a vie the rights other citizens already had here?

Do you think that there should a christian charitable spirit in play in Poland when deciding on civil rights issues which conflict with personal religious beliefs as guided and learned under RC Church teaching?
[I'm mindful that Poland's population is over 90% RC Christian in belief so reckon that would make for a fairly large component part of the voting population being similarly minded].

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Could one legitimately extrapolate from your [Anyways, all that aside, you've already said yourself that you think the purpose of the march was to seek equality in the eyes of the law and the eyes of the people. That's not a Christian issue, it's a political issue] that voters should put aside personal religious beliefs when called upon to decide on issues of equality in civil rights in a christian charitable manner?

If you want to try I'll watch with interest.

aloyisious wrote: »

Do you think that that was what happened in the debate and vote on LGBT equality vis a vie the rights other citizens already had here?

Well, I certainly didn't notice them mention it on the march in Poland. Did you?

aloyisious wrote: »

Do you think that there should a christian charitable spirit in play in Poland when deciding on civil rights issues which conflict with personal religious beliefs as guided and learned under RC Church teaching? [I'm mindful that Poland's population is over 90% RC Christian in belief so reckon that would make for a fairly large component part of the voting population being similarly minded].

I think, given your assertions about Poland that there were probably Christians on the march. Do you think their Christian charitable spirit wasn't in play?

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

If you want to try I'll watch with interest.
Well, I certainly didn't notice them mention it on the march in Poland. Did you?

I think, given your assertions about Poland that there were probably Christians on the march. Do you think their Christian charitable spirit wasn't in play?

Hmm,,, I suppose you are right in your extrapolations, given the Polish populace make-up, there probably were charitable non-lgbt Christian Poles on the march as well as LGBT Christian Poles. You're probably right too about charitable non-christians from other faith beliefs being on the march.... One wouldn't want to define LGBT people as being non-Christian merely because they are LGBT, it wouldn't be charitable, would it?

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

You're probably right too about charitable non-christians from other faith beliefs being on the march.... One wouldn't want to define LGBT people as being non-Christian merely because they are LGBT, it wouldn't be charitable, would it?

I think it's a pretty massive leap to suddenly imagine that anyone would ever define LGBT people as being non-Christian merely because they are LGBT, whether they were charitable or not. It sounds a bit like an attempt to create an argument no one is offering just to kick back against it. I'm sure there's a name for that sort of thing, it just escapes me at this moment. Can you think what it might be that you were doing there?

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

I think it's a pretty massive leap to suddenly imagine that anyone would ever define LGBT people as being non-Christian merely because they are LGBT, whether they were charitable or not. It sounds a bit like an attempt to create an argument no one is offering just to kick back against it. I'm sure there's a name for that sort of thing, it just escapes me at this moment. Can you think what it might be that you were doing there?

If you do a bit of research on the RC church positions on LGBT and homosexual people [seeing as how both are co-mingled in modern thought] being christians or Christians, i think you will find it was not a massive leap for the RC church clergy and/or it's headquarters staffers in the Vatican to make. I know that you are an excellent user of the keyboard and the internet and that you can research that RC leap yourself without help by me. I wouldn't want to bias your capabilities or thoughts by providing research data myself.

It's possible that you could also refresh your memory on the name which escaped your grasp by using the various internet lexicons.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

If you do a bit of research on the RC church positions on LGBT and homosexual people [seeing as how both are co-mingled in modern thought] being christians or Christians, i think you will find it was not a massive leap for the RC church clergy and/or it's headquarters staffers in the Vatican to make.

Oh, I think we all know quite well that none of them have made any such leap at all, for reasons that would be perfectly obvious to anyone with the faintest idea of the most basic facts about the Church.

I'm afraid your leap is absolutely a product of your own imagination, delivered without any consideration whatsoever for facts but rather based entirely on your own apparent need for a strawman to rail against.

That was the word... strawman! I knew it would come to me if I looked at your post again

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

Oh, I think we all know quite well that none of them have made any such leap at all, for reasons that would be perfectly obvious to anyone with the faintest idea of the most basic facts about the Church.

I'm afraid your leap is absolutely a product of your own imagination, delivered without any consideration whatsoever for facts but rather based entirely on your own apparent need for a strawman to rail against.

That was the word... strawman! I knew it would come to me if I looked at your post again

We: the ultimate in deflection.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

We: the ultimate in deflection.

Yeeeeesss.... that seems to address what I said. Sure

aloyisious

I came across an item involving a US Catholic Bishop and his instructions to priests in his diocese on how to act in regard to LGBT funerals, so as it's outside Ireland maybe a Moderator can let me know if its ok to post it here.

Absolam

These instructions? They seem mostly to be in accordance with Catholic teaching...ish. I think he may be presuming that anyone in a same sex-marriage is necessarily sinning, and whilst that's probably not a massive presumption I don't think the wider Church is likely to agree that the presumption should be acted on, even if it agreed the measures he's describing are appropriate if those people are sinning. He also seems to be taking the view that living openly in a same sex marriage is being a manifest sinner (as in sinning publicly and deliberately, which it kind of could be...), and allowing such a person ecclesiastical funeral rites would give scandal to the faithful (which it probably would if any of the faithful gave it any thought). I suspect the Vatican is more inclined to liberal interpretation of repentance these days though, so it probably wouldn't take much to allow such a funeral; the very act of expressing a desire for ecclesiastical funeral rites might be construed as sufficient sign of penitence.

aloyisious

Thoughts of a senior Anglican minister, the Very Rev Kelvin Holdsworth in The Independent [UK Paper] Christians should pray for Prince George to be gay, says senior Scottish reverend.

Christians should pray for Prince George to be gay in order to force the Church of England to support same-sex marriage, a senior Anglican minister has said. The Very Rev Kelvin Holdsworth wrote in a blog post that Christians should hope that “the Lord blesses George with the love of a fine young gentleman” to help the progression of LGBTQ+ rights in the church.
He wrote: “If people don’t want to engage in campaigning in this way, they do in England have another unique option, which is to pray in the privacy of their hearts (or in public if they dare) for the Lord to bless Prince George with a love, when he grows up, of a fine young gentleman. “A royal wedding might sort things out remarkably easily, though we might have to wait 25 years for that to happen. Who knows whether that might be sooner than things working out by other means?”

Rev Holdsworth is a LGBTQ+ campaigner and the provost of St Mary's Cathedral in Glasgow, a Scottish Episcopal Church, the Church of England’s sister institution. Currently same-sex couples are not allowed to marry in the Church of England, while The Scottish Episcopal Church voted to allow priests to decide for themselves.

Rev Holdsworth told The Independent that as leader of the Church of England, it is ultimately up to the Archbishop of Canterbury to decide the Church's stance on same-sex marriage. “The question is really one for the Archbishop of Canterbury," he said. The Archbishop announced that he was "delighted" that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle would get married, despite Ms Markle being divorced. Both same-sex marriages and divorcees getting married in church are frowned on by the same church law.

Rev Holdsworth's blog post has prompted controversy, with former chaplain to the Queen, Rev Gavin Ashenden, describing it as praying "the child out of the intentions of God." Rev Ashenden told Christian Today: "It is an unkind and destabilising prayer. It is the theological equivalent of the curse of the wicked fairy in one of the fairy tales.
“To co-opt the Royal children to service a narrow sexual agenda seems particularly tasteless.”
Rev Holdsworth's comments urging Christians to pray for the four-year-old future monarch and head of the Church of England to be gay was part of a list of suggestions to force LGBTQ+ inclusion in the Church of England.

smacl

Very odd behaviour to express for your preference for some else's child's sexual orientation to further your own agenda. If you were to flip it and pray that a child was not gay, no doubt you'd get labelled a homophobe. It seems like a wholly inconsiderate statement to me on more than one level.

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

Very odd behaviour to express for your preference for some else's child's sexual orientation to further your own agenda. If you were to flip it and pray that a child was not gay, no doubt you'd get labelled a homophobe. It seems like a wholly inconsiderate statement to me on more than one level.

True.

But it does nicely illustrate the absurdity of joining Church and State.