Nick Park wrote: » True. But it does nicely illustrate the absurdity of joining Church and State.
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.
Peregrinus wrote: » Yes. Surely the fundamental problem here is not the Anglican church's position on sexuality and sexual orientation; it's the fact that the Anglican church's position on sexuality and sexual orientation might in any way be more influenced by this little boy's hypothetical future sexual identification than by that of any other Christian. There are serious discussions to be had about the theology of sexuality, but speculating about the future sexual identification of a particular four-year-old boy, apart from being inherently distasteful, doesn't have anything to contribute to those discussions.
Peregrinus wrote: » It is, though. I get that the Episcopal Church of Scotland isn't established. But the Church of England - which, obviously, is a much more signficant player in global Anglicanism is established, and (if he is spared) Prince George will one day have a symbolic, but nevertheless significant, role in relation to that church. The important point here isn't that Holdwsorth is not a member of the CofE; it's that George is. And furthermore he will one day be the head of the CofE. And the CofE, as the established church in England, will be expected to celebrate his marriage. And, yeah, it would obviously create a bit of a quandary if, when that day comes, his marriage is to another man. All of which is most unfair to George. Growing up gay, if that were to be the case, would be difficult enough with it raising constitutional issues about the relationship of crown and church. Even the fact that it's a theoretical possibility leads to unpleasant, distasteful public speculation by senior churchmen about the future sexual self-identification of a four-year-old child. No, just no! I'm with Nick on this. The fact that someone might think that this boy's sexual orientation might be influential in the evolution of Anglican theology of sexuality strongly suggest that the Church of England's connection with the crown isn't healthy for the Church of England, or for the wider Anglican communion.
DickSwiveller wrote: » I was hoping this would be an interesting thread in which people could discuss an interesting issue. Unfortunately it has been hijacked by the insufferable new atheists who can't debate in a civil manner.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Hi all. Since the introduction of gay marriage has come and gone I wonder what the effects have been from a Christian perspective. Lots of people opposed gay marriage for lots of reasons. So what have been the worst effects of gay marriage since its introduction?
aloyisious wrote: » The USSC has overturned the ruling by a State court that a baker was wrong to refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple's wedding. The USSC ruled that the State Court ruling affected the baker's constitutional rights.
Peregrinus wrote: » Yes, although on limited grounds specific to the circumstances of the case before them, as I understand it. Neither side is getting the general statement of principle that they hoped (or feared, depending on your point of view).
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » I didn't really understand that. Does it mean the lower court did something wrong?
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Or can the supreme court decide to rule on a specific case but not on the general principle so it can't be used as precedent?
Peregrinus wrote: » Yes. In the view of 5 of the Supreme Court justices (a majority(: - The Colorado Civil Rights Commission was or appeared (from comments made in the proceedings) to be motivated in the decision it made by a hostility to, or at least a dismissal of, the free exercise of religion; - When the Commission's decision was appealed to the Colorado courts, they failed to spot this or to consider it properly; - Therefore they failed to follow the correct principles in deciding this case, and their decision must be set aside. Crucially, the Supreme Court did not say that if the Commission/Court had gone about this the right way, they would have affirmed the baker's right to refuse the order for the cake. Nor did it say that they wouldn't have. This case is a precedent for saying that courts and tribunals must apply the law properly - specifically, US constitutional law regarding the free exercise of religion. But we already knew that, so this isn't a new precedent.
aloyisious wrote: » So it might be open to the Commission to rehear the case if the couple wished to re-submit a case to it for consideration again with a degree of hindsight as to what is proper in law now.
aloyisious wrote: » There's been discussion in the Irish LGBT community about the addition of extra letters to the original 4-strong group of letters that became synonymous with queer society. The additions are Q, I and A. I see from this New York Times article that the symbol + has been added to the group in the US. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/style/lgbtq-gender-language.html I can imagine that there will be a transfer of the additions to occasional use in type use here, over the limited use they already have here, and which some members of the community think is descriptively unnecessary. I have no problem with the additions except for the type-space needed to include the whole, as against LGBT which is shorter than the word queer itself. The actual use of the whole in speech would be a mouthful so I can't see the whole becoming part of slang and used in society generally. Shorter-letter groups are handier in colloquial speech and not misunderstood as to reference, unlike naff. There's even mention in print and speech of extra colours being added to the rainbow flag to be inclusive of some of the above additional letters & symbols.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » . . . . What’s the Christian perspective on greater details and letters?
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Q, I and A. Questioning, intersex and what? (Asexual?). I know some people get wound up about these subdivisions. But I think it’s adding details as society in general learns about the queers in general. What’s the Christian perspective on greater details and letters?
aloyisious wrote: » Good question. Christianity should have as much interest in the letters & symbols as any other part of Irish society in how Ireland is examining and processing it's LGBT societal advances. Being christian is not anathema to queers . . . I see LGBTQIA+ being a mouthful and hindering when it comes to oral use of language. It's almost algebraic in formulation. Personally, at a personal level I see no difference now between queer and LGBT [shorter, handier, understood & in general use]. BTW, that's my personal opinion as a Practicing christian, and not a practicing Christian, in society. I hope that provides some clarity
Peregrinus wrote: » Well, there is a serious point here. Whatever about other Christian traditions, the Catholic ethical tradition is 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.) From this perspective labelling somebody as “LBGTQ” (or whatever) seems reductive - it reduces them simply to what they do. 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 embrace what you can do, what you can become, what you are called to be, 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, e.g., gay, and identifies with “LBGTQ” or similar, 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 moral tradition which simply doesn’t have the language for talking about an LBGTQ 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 person. 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.
JimiTime wrote: » Given that a Christians identity is in Christ first and foremost, then the idea of a language that also defines you as homosexual is completely at odds. Thats not saying that you can't be Christian and also be same sex attracted, but you certainly can't identify yourself with the homosexual community but also with Christ. So I understand the Roman Catholic linguistics here. If you happen to be same sex attracted, but are Christian, then that same sex attraction is not your identity. Sure, it can be used to define a fact about an aspect of you, a very specific aspect. 'I am a Christian' is your identity', I am same sex attracted', is simply a description of a very precise aspect of you but it certainly doesn't define you. It is very different to saying 'Im Christian and gay', in terms of the connotations, the pride, the identity etc. I think it does nobody any favours to butter it up. You cannot let sin define you and Christ also. We all sin, but we don't all let ourselves be defined by our sin. If I happen to be a man who likes to sleep with other mens wives before Christ calls me to repentance, then I cannot then identify with Christ and adultery after being called. As God said to the adulterous woman after he saves her from stoning, 'Go, and sin no more'. As Paul said to the church at Corinth: 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 English Standard Version (ESV) 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous[a] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Peregrinus wrote: » Well, that's not the same point. It's not that the Catholic church doesn't talk of a Christian as a homosexual; it doesn't talk of anyone as a homosexual. And that's not based on any view of how Christians ought to behave (obviously), or even on any view as to the moral dimension of homosexuality. It's based on an understanding of what it is to be human, which is that we can't be reduced to just our acts. We can't be defined by what we do, and therefore a person may engage in homosexual acts but it's inadequate to call him "a homosexual"; a person may commit murder but he is more than "a murderer"; etc. And this goes not just for morally problematic acts; a person who heals the sick is always much more than a healer, for example. And someone of heterosexual orientation is not going to be spoken of as "a heterosexual".
aloyisious wrote: » By this part of your's above [Thats not saying that you can't be Christian and also be same sex attracted, but you certainly can't identify yourself with the homosexual community but also with Christ] I take it that you mean sexually-active homosexuals when you wrote the 2nd sentence in your quote [rather than merely being same-sex attracted which would include engaging socially with other homosexuals in groups or locations outside of sexual activity] OR do you think that even such non-sexual social activity is also non-Christian merely because it involves meeting with other homosexuals? I'd read "identify yourself with the homosexual community" as including simple social meetings.
I'm not sure what you mean by language that also identifies one as homosexual as being at odds with [presumably] christianity? Do you mean the letters and symbol I wrote about [I presume so] being used to identify the various strands of queer society, rather than Polari?
I see that you see that being same-sex attracted can be a description of a definition of an aspect of one's identity BUT that it does not define the totality of one's identity.
smacl wrote: » Surely a person's identity, whether religious or sexual, is for them and no one else to declare. It is not subject to qualification by any third party. So for example, if someone nominates themselves as Catholic on the census, then they're considered Catholic. Similarly if someone declares they're gay and a Catholic. While this might be morally problematic for the Church, that problem seems to rest more with the church than the gay Catholic.
JimiTime wrote: » Meeting other homosexuals is not a sin. Meeting and talking to people is perfectly fine. However context is important. Jesus himself is our example. He met and ate with many prostitutes, thieves etc. But he wasn't hanging out with them passing round the dutchie. He met them and ministered to them, giving them a better way. Offering them salvation FROM their sin not IN their sin. He never said, 'You are an adulterer, I dig it. Whatever suits you.' He did not offer them affirmation, but transformation. As he does to all of us. Like the example earlier, he said 'Go, and sin no more'. I refer to declaring oneself gay in a modern context as it pertains to the notion of pride, the 'This is who and what I am' attitude. The affiliation with its community and its affirmation as a perfectly fine way of life. Now if thats what you identify with, then thats your business. However, it is diametrically opposed to God and what he declares righteous and sinful. So the idea that you can have one foot in affirming sin, while trying to identify with Christ is simply untenable. If someone is saying I'm Gay and Christian to simply colloquially refer to his being same sex attracted, I would find that most unusual. If I have been freed in Christ, why would I wish to identify with the sin I struggle with? Again, we must remember the context here. No, I don't see it as being any part of your 'identity' in Christ anymore than being greedy is. The only time it becomes part of your identity is when you yourself identify with it. The vast majority struggle with one sin or another, but don't use it to identify themselves. Again, to a non Christian, the concept of sin is meaningless.
