Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
  • 28-07-2012 3:31pm
    #1
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭


    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.


«134567…220

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    It could be useful to broaden it out to Christian attitudes to sexuality as a whole.


  • Options
    #3
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    philologos wrote: »
    It could be useful to broaden it out to Christian attitudes to sexuality as a whole.

    Never thought I'd say this but I agree with Phil.


  • Options
    #4
    Snappy Smurf
    Registered Users Posts: 194 ✭✭Snappy Smurf


    The Gay Megathread sounds like some major event in the gay calender.


  • Options
    #5
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Grand - Let's kick it off so.

    Marriage is not solely a religious institution, and as such - nobody has the right to dictate whether two consenting adults of the same sex can marry or not. Religious institutions have no right to interfere with legislation on same-sex marriage.

    Same-sex marriage is ultimately no different than 'traditional marriage' in any practical sense.

    Homosexuality is perfectly natural, and poses no dangers to society.


  • Options
    #6
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Grand - Let's kick it off so.

    Marriage is not solely a religious institution, and as such - nobody has the right to dictate whether two consenting adults of the same sex can marry or not. Religious institutions have no right to interfere with legislation on same-sex marriage.

    Same-sex marriage is ultimately no different than 'traditional marriage' in any practical sense.

    Homosexuality is perfectly natural, and poses no dangers to society.

    I don't know that religious institutions are interfering with legislation.

    People have a right to voice their opinion, and religious people are as entitled to that right as anyone else.

    It would be hypocrisy of the highest order to suggest that Barack Obama or film stars have the right to use their celebrity and influence to declare their support for gay marriage, but that bishops or businessmen should not have the right to express their opposition to gay marriage.

    Marriage, to many people, is by definition between a man and a woman.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    PDN wrote: »
    I don't know that religious institutions are interfering with legislation.

    This comment doesn't warrant a response.
    PDN wrote: »
    People have a right to voice their opinion, and religious people are as entitled to that right as anyone else.

    People can voice their opinions all they like - it's when they try to actively obstruct civil rights is when it becomes a problem.
    PDN wrote: »
    It would be hypocrisy of the highest order to suggest that Barack Obama or fim stars have the right to use their celebrity and influence to declare their support for gay marriage, but that bishops or businessmen should not have the right to express their opposition to gay marriage.

    No, it absolutely isn't. Because as I've already pointed out, marriage is not solely a religious institution. Now the Church can oppose holding same-sex ceremonies (as archaic as such a view is), but they have absolutely no right to try and influence legislation of a civil affair.
    PDN wrote: »
    Marriage, to many people, is by definition between a man and a woman.

    Many people still believe that the Earth was made 6,000 years ago. Who cares? Marriage predates all modern religions. They can define marriage within their own religious sects all they like - but they do not get to define what marriage is in a universal form, which includes civil marriage.

    In the same respect - the KKK can tell it's members not the marry black women all they want, but they have absolutely no right whatsoever to try dictate to the rest of the population what race to marry. There is zero different between the two scenarios.


  • Options
    #8
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,844 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    PDN wrote: »
    People have a right to voice their opinion, and religious people are as entitled to that right as anyone else.

    Of course they do, but they don't have the right to voice their opinion and run away from any debates which could arise.


  • Options
    #9
    qrrgprgua
    Registered Users Posts: 786 ✭✭✭qrrgprgua


    1. Lets not forget the Bible during this discussion.

    2. Lets not forget its the ACTS that are a sin.. Its not having a homosexual tendency. Sexuality is not a Sin.


    Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.[3](Leviticus 18:22 KJV) If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.[4](Leviticus 20:13 KJV)
    Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. (27) In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
    Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, arsenokoitēs, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers, none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)


  • Options
    #10
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    dlofnep wrote: »
    This comment doesn't warrant a response.
    It would warrant a response if anyone is claiming that religious bodies are interfering with legislation (as opposed to simply expressing an opinioon). But maybe nobody is making such a claim.

    If religious bodies were interfering with legislation (eg by bribing or blackmailing TDs or something) then that should be exposed.
    People can voice their opinions all they like - it's when they try to actively obstruct civil rights is when it becomes a problem.
    Agreed, but I'm unaware of any specific examples of this with regard to the subject under discussion (as opposed to vague generalisations).
    No, it absolutely isn't. Because as I've already pointed out, marriage is not solely a religious institution. Now the Church can oppose holding same-sex ceremonies (as archaic as such a view is), but they have absolutely no right to try and influence legislation of a civil affair.
    I see. So you are claiming that a politician or a film star who shares your opinion is entitled to voice his opinion, but that a bishop or a Christian businessman who doesn't share your opinion is not entitled to voice their opinion.

    As a democrat and a secularist I am appalled and disgusted at such a totalitarian and bigotted viewpoint.
    Many people still believe that the Earth was made 6,000 years ago. Who cares?
    You do apparently, because you raised that subject. However, it is off-topic in this thread so I advise you to take it to the Creationism megathread.
    Marriage predates all modern religions. They can define marriage within their own religious sects all they like - but they do not get to define what marriage is in a universal form, which includes civil marriage.
    In a democracy, people's views on marriage do matter. And if a sufficient number of people feel a certain way then governments tend to listen.

    Of course that presupposes that we live in a democracy where people are allowed to air their views, not just those who happen to agree with you.
    In the same respect - the KKK can tell it's members not the marry black women all they want, but they have absolutely no right whatsoever to try dictate to the rest of the population what race to marry. There is zero different between the two scenarios.
    We stand a better chance of having a reasoned discussion in this thread if you address the subject at hand rather than peurile trolling about racism or the KKK.

    Who is dictating to anyone in the area of marriage legislation?


  • Options
    #11
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    qrrgprgua wrote: »
    1. Lets not forget the Bible during this discussion.

    ............


    O. Ok......

    "19 Whenever a woman has a discharge and the discharge from her body is of blood, she will remain in a state of menstrual pollution for seven days. "Anyone who touches her will be unclean until evening.20 "Anything she lies on in this polluted state will be unclean; anything she sits on will be unclean.21 "Anyone who touches her bed must wash clothing and body and will be unclean until evening."
    http://www.veritasbible.com/newjerusalem1989/read/Leviticus_15

    Thats in Leviticus too, and I'm fairly sure that neither catholic nor the majority of protestants invoke it for any purpose on a regular basis....any reason why not?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    Of course they do, but they don't have the right to voice their opinion and run away from any debates which could arise.

    The only person so far that has appeared to suggest suppressing debate etc is dlofnep. Do you have something to contribute to this discussion?


  • Options
    #13
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Nodin wrote: »
    O. Ok......

    "19 Whenever a woman has a discharge and the discharge from her body is of blood, she will remain in a state of menstrual pollution for seven days. "Anyone who touches her will be unclean until evening.20 "Anything she lies on in this polluted state will be unclean; anything she sits on will be unclean.21 "Anyone who touches her bed must wash clothing and body and will be unclean until evening."
    http://www.veritasbible.com/newjerusalem1989/read/Leviticus_15

    Thats in Leviticus too, and I'm fairly sure that neither catholic nor the majority of protestants invoke it for any purpose on a regular basis....any reason why not?

    Because it is totally asinine to quote rules out of Leviticus as if they were binding in a debate regarding sexual behaviour in the 21st Century.


  • Options
    #14
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    qrrgprgua wrote: »
    1. Lets not forget the Bible during this discussion.

    2. Lets not forget its the ACTS that are a sin.. Its not having a homosexual tendency. Sexuality is not a Sin.

    Then let those who believe the Bible is the word of God abide by it's instructions. The point being made by many here is that just because one believes in the Bible, or the Koran, or the Torah, is the word of God it does not grant them the right to impose those beliefs on non-believers or judge their actions (e.g. using the word 'abomination' to describe sexual relations between 2 consenting adults carried out in the privacy of their own bedroom).
    Nor does it grant them the right to advocate that the civil state denies equality to those of it's citizens who do not conform to the tenets of a particular religious viewpoint.

    I believe in religious freedom. I believe that an individual has the right to believe or not believe in a particular religious doctrine according to the dictates of their conscience. I do not believe that any individual or organisation has the right to insist that everyone should abide by their particular religious beliefs or to condemn those whose consciences lead them to hold differing views as sinners.


  • Options
    #15
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    PDN wrote: »
    Because it is totally asinine to quote rules out of Leviticus as if they were binding in a debate regarding sexual behaviour in the 21st Century.


    ...quite, but I reckon you'd be better off pointing that out to others rather than myself.


  • Options
    #16
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    PDN wrote: »
    Who is dictating to anyone in the area of marriage legislation?
    Pope Benedict said Monday that gay marriage was one of several threats to the traditional family that undermined "the future of humanity itself."

    The pope made some of his strongest comments against gay marriage in a new year address to the diplomatic corps accredited to the Vatican in which he touched on some economic and social issues facing the world today.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/09/us-pope-gay-idUSTRE8081RM20120109


  • Options
    #17
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Nodin wrote: »
    ...quite, but I reckon you'd be better off pointing that out to others rather than myself.

    You were the one who asked the question. Weren't you? I answered your question.


  • Options
    #18
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/09/us-pope-gay-idUSTRE8081RM20120109

    So the Pope addressed an opinion. As did Brack Obama. As has Eammon Gilmore.

    While I disagree strongly with many of the Popes's opinions, he has a perfect right to express them.

    Do you understand the difference between someone expressing an opinion, and someone dictating the behaviour of others?


  • Options
    #19
    qrrgprgua
    Registered Users Posts: 786 ✭✭✭qrrgprgua


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/09/us-pope-gay-idUSTRE8081RM20120109

    The Pope can't do anything to change or alter the Christian teaching on Marriage. Which will always and will always remain between a Man and a Women.

    He is not dictating anything. He is preaching the teaching that the church holds, as passed on by the apostles

    Its not going to Change.


  • Options
    #20
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    PDN wrote: »
    You were the one who asked the question. Weren't you? I answered your question.


    Yet it was perfectly clear why I was asking the question, and it was in response to a post that quite clearly was trying to - in your words - "quote rules out of Leviticus as if they were binding in a debate regarding sexual behaviour in the 21st Century".


  • Options
    #21
    Snappy Smurf
    Registered Users Posts: 194 ✭✭Snappy Smurf


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Grand - Let's kick it off so.

    Marriage is not solely a religious institution, and as such - nobody has the right to dictate whether two consenting adults of the same sex can marry or not. Religious institutions have no right to interfere with legislation on same-sex marriage.

    Same-sex marriage is ultimately no different than 'traditional marriage' in any practical sense.

    Homosexuality is perfectly natural, and poses no dangers to society.

    Come off it son. Marriage is totally other to a same sex union.

    A man and a woman can make baby and start a family. Left to their own device, two men or two women can't make baby.

    Marriage is of benefit to society - it makes new people and provides the ideal means to bring them up in security and with the benefits to human development of having a father and mother. There is no comparison with gay unions.

    Say what you like but people do recognise the value and worth of marriage. Same sex persons already have a legal recognition of their unions, that should be enough. Demanding marriage is based on ideology.

    The day two men or two women can make baby WITHOUT extraordinary means (and a third person), then we can all it marriage.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Nodin wrote: »
    Yet it was perfectly clear why I was asking the question, and it was in response to a post that quite clearly was trying to - in your words - "quote rules out of Leviticus as if they were binding in a debate regarding sexual behaviour in the 21st Century".

    I think PDN was getting at your misunderstanding of covenant theology. I.E - That the Levitical ceremonial laws were binding on the people of Israel, they have been fulfilled through Jesus Christ. See Mark 7 if you want to see what Jesus claimed concerning uncleanness.

    That is if you're actually interested.


  • Options
    #23
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    PDN wrote: »
    So the Pope addressed an opinion. As did Brack Obama. As has Eammon Gilmore.

    While I disagree strongly with many of the Popes's opinions, he has a perfect right to express them.

    Do you understand the difference between someone expressing an opinion, and someone dictating the behaviour of others?

    If he had expressed the opinion as Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger, private citizen of Germany I would not have an the slightest issue but he did not. In the guise of Pope Benedict XVI as leader of a major world religion he expressed an official Roman Catholic policy to an audience of international diplomats.

    Do you understand the difference between the man as private individual and the man as figurehead and representative?


  • Options
    #24
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    qrrgprgua wrote: »
    The Pope can't do anything to change or alter the Christian teaching on Marriage. Which will always and will always remain between a Man and a Women.

    He is not dictating anything. He is preaching the teaching that the church holds, as passed on by the apostles

    Its not going to Change.

    The Pope can speak only for Roman Catholics.


  • Options
    #25
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    philologos wrote: »
    I think PDN was getting at your misunderstanding of covenant theology. I.E - That the Levitical ceremonial laws were binding on the people of Israel, they have been fulfilled through Jesus Christ. See Mark 7 if you want to see what Jesus claimed concerning uncleanness.

    ................

    And the whole " Thou shalt not lie with mankind" is or isn't covered....?


  • Options
    #26
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    If he had expressed the opinion as Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger, private citizen of Germany I would not have an the slightest issue but he did not. In the guise of Pope Benedict XVI as leader of a major world religion he expressed an official Roman Catholic policy to an audience of international diplomats.

    Do you understand the difference between the man as private individual and the man as figurehead and representative?


    Given the names mentioned already, are you suggesting that public figures like Obama and Gilmore should not express their opinions? When Obama expressed his personal opinion supporting gay marriage I was happy to hear it. (That I happened to largely agree with what he said should be beside the point). I am also happy that he has been granted the freedom to express his opinion just like any citizen in a democracy.


  • Options
    #27
    qrrgprgua
    Registered Users Posts: 786 ✭✭✭qrrgprgua


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    The Pope can speak only for Roman Catholics.


    Who did you think he was speaking for?


  • Options
    #28
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Snappy Smurf wrote: »
    Come off it son. Marriage is totally other to a same sex union.

    A man and a woman can make baby and start a family. Left to their own device, two men or two women can't make baby.

    Marriage is of benefit to society - it makes new people and provides the ideal means to bring them up in security and with the benefits to human development of having a father and mother. There is no comparison with gay unions.

    Say what you like but people do recognise the value and worth of marriage. Same sex persons already have a legal recognition of their unions, that should be enough. Demanding marriage is based on ideology.

    The day two men or two women can make baby WITHOUT extraordinary means (and a third person), then we can all it marriage.

    So is your definition of marriage that is exists only to facilitate procreation?


  • Options
    #29
    qrrgprgua
    Registered Users Posts: 786 ✭✭✭qrrgprgua


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    So is your definition of marriage that is exists only to facilitate procreation?

    It exists at a number of levels. Naturally a gay couple can't have a child. A Gay couple cuts out a Mother figure or a Father figure to a Child if they adopt.

    Marriage from a Christian point of view will always be between a man and a woman who go on to form a Family.

    How come women don't compete against men in the Olympics or in football? Because Men and Women are different. You can't negate biology.

    Marriage is basic human reality.


  • Options
    #30
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Nodin wrote: »
    And the whole " Thou shalt not lie with mankind" is or isn't covered....?

    Jesus preaches against sexual immorality in the New Testament, and indeed it is confirmed in other New Testament Scripture.

    Simply put, God's standards remain, however their implications differ. For example the Old Covenant said that all who have violated God's standards are worthy of His wrath, the New Covenant teaches that Jesus has come into the world to rescue man from their sin, therefore we can be forgiven and others can be also.

    Christians should still avoid uncleanness, but true uncleanness comes from the sinful desires that dwell within us:
    Mark 7:20-23 wrote:
    And He said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

    The reason why Jews practiced ceremonial laws was to live distinctively from the Gentiles. Christians are called to be distinct through how they live as a result of the death and resurrection of Jesus (see 1 Peter).

    Everything in the Bible points towards Jesus. It doesn't make sense to isolate passages without considering the context which they fall in terms of the metanarrative that is explained in Scripture.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    qrrgprgua wrote: »
    Who did you think he was speaking for?

    Certainly not all Christians as you implied. His viewpoint has no baring on the beliefs of Non-Roman Catholic Christians some of whom actually see him as the anti-Christ.

    http://www.pacinst.com/antichri.htm

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/michele-bachmanns-church-says-the-pope-is-the-antichrist/241909/

    http://www.ianpaisley.org/antichrist.asp

    http://www.bebaptized.org/popeantichrist.htm


Advertisement