Bannasidhe wrote: » 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.
philologos wrote: » Jesus preaches (..........)in Scripture.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » 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.
Nodin wrote: » So its perfectly ok to quote Leviticus when it suits. With ye now.
qrrgprgua wrote: » 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.
Bannasidhe wrote: » The Pope is an unelected absolute ruler of a multinational organisation who claims to speak for God himself and whether one agrees with him or not, his position is one of international influence and his 'opinion' (he is after all meant to be infallible when it comes to matter of doctrine and an anti-Gay marriage stance is official RCC policy) does carry weight.
philologos wrote: » I'm simply explaining how your understanding of what Christians have historically believed about the Torah is mistaken. ....
qrrgprgua wrote: » Marriage from a Christian point of view will always be between a man and a woman who go on to form a Family.
Nodin wrote: » A straight "yes" or "no" on the question of whether or not it was legitamate to quote leviticus against homosexuality would have sufficed.
Corkfeen wrote: » Another example of attempting to influence legislation is this particular case which was extremely unethical at the same time..http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/25/catholic-church-schools-gay-marriage
philologos wrote: » I think it's worth explaining why you're mistaken. People can quote Leviticus, but they should do so considering the actual context of the passage within the Bible. Since Jesus and the Apostles affirm previous teaching concerning sexuality then yes, it's entirely legitimate. Christians under the New Covenant see uncleanness as the sin that comes from within (Mark 7). Therefore that's how Christians understand uncleanness. However, if you asked me if the penalty for sin is death in the New Covenant, I would say no, even though it was in Ancient Israel. Why? - Jesus died in my place on the cross so I can be forgiven, I should desire the same for all.
qrrgprgua wrote: » The Teaching of Marriage is not a Dogma the Pope invented ex-Cathedra. Its a teaching that has been held for the last 2000 years. The Pope is elected. But not matter which Pope we have the teaching is the exact same. The Pope is standing up for our faith.
qrrgprgua wrote: » Its not unethical to teach your children your faith. Its not unethical for your Children to live their Faith. There is not age limit on faith. What if tomorrow my wife and I were killed and (god forbid) my Children were put up for Adoption. The way Gay Marriage is going these couples want equal rights on all levels, including being able to Adopt. I would never allow my kids to be raised by a gay couple. A child should (if possible) have the best environment and that is to have a Father and a Mother if possible. A Gay couple can't provide the best environment to raise a Child.
Nodin wrote: » So its yes but no but yes. Grand.
Corkfeen wrote: » It is unethical to utilise students for a campaign against marriage, most of whom don't have an opinion on the matter. There's a reason why this provoked a government investigation into the matter as you are not supposed to use a classroom to campaign on political issues.
philologos wrote: » It's yes. It's entirely legitimate to look to Leviticus along with other scripture in respect to sexuality. One just has to consider the context.
qrrgprgua wrote: » That's it.. Its not just a Political issue. Its a deeply Religious Issue. They can investigate all they like. If you ask any Child in Ireland on the Street what is marriage you know what the answer will be. I have no problem with 2 men or 2 women living together. Or have civil rights to protect their relationship, tax, inheritance etc.. But to say that a Gay couples relationship can be called a marriage and is equal to a Normal Male/Female marriage is wrong. Its not.
Bannasidhe wrote: » and what exactly is the context as it appears to me and many others that the context is cherry pick the bits that support the viewpoint one is espousing and ignore all the other bits.
philologos wrote: » Again misunderstanding very clearly that the Bible has two covenant agreement. One with the nation of Israel which has now been fulfilled. Another for both Jews and Gentiles through Jesus Christ. There are also other covenants between Adam and God, Noah and God, and Abraham and God. Christianity has been clear about this since its beginning (Hebrews chapter 8 for example), and Judaism has been clear that this would happen when the Messiah came (Jeremiah 31:31-34). The Bible needs to be considered as a whole, and passages that are within it need to be considered in terms of where they are in the narrative. That's just good reading of a text.
Bannasidhe wrote: » You haven't answered my question. Exactly how does one determine which parts of the text are valid and which can be ignored? Why is it acceptable to quote Leviticus to support an anti-gay 'lifestyle' stance but ignore the same text when it refers to beard trimming, diet and composition of fabrics in clothing? If Christianity was as clear as you maintain it is there would not be the need for me and many others to query exactly how ye determine which bits of the Bible are considered relevant and which bits arn't.
Nodin wrote: » ....but marriage is not the property of religion. You can say that whatever church can refuse to perform the ceremony, but they've no right to stop anyone else.
The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack
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?
Bannasidhe wrote: » The Pope can speak only for Roman Catholics.
Bannasidhe wrote: » So is your definition of marriage that is exists only to facilitate procreation?
Bannasidhe wrote: » Obama is the democratically elected head of State charged with protecting a constitution that clearly separates church and State and enshrines equality and civil liberties for all U.S. citizens Gilmore is a democratically elected member of the Dail charged with representation and ensuring equality under the law or all of the citizens of Ireland regardless of their race, religion or sexual orientation. Both men we commenting on a debate occurring within the jurisdictions they were elected to govern and within which they can and do enact legislation. The Pope is an unelected absolute ruler of a multinational organisation who claims to speak for God himself and whether one agrees with him or not, his position is one of international influence and his 'opinion' (he is after all meant to be infallible when it comes to matter of doctrine and an anti-Gay marriage stance is official RCC policy) does carry weight.
token56 wrote: » This right here is the crux of the issue. No one wants to/should want to force any religious organisation to perform any ceremony that they dont want to. But marriage is not a term owned by any religion as stated above. What gay marriage deals with is the definition of marriage by the state in the eyes of a secular nation like Ireland. In Ireland until 2004 marriage by the state was not defined as being between a man and women and the only relevant part of the constitution was the infamous part of Article 41 So in the Irish Constitution marriage is intrinsically linked with family. Until the civil registration act in 2004 the definition of a marriage and therefore family was simply interpreted to be that with heterosexual couples until this was put into law. But what is the purpose of the family and how is a family defined? That is the most divisive issue here. Now families dont have to contain kids but for the most part they do and most people would agree are important to the purpose of a family and is key to the argument here. So are kids in a family with a heterosexual couple better off in some way than in a family with homosexual couples? Religious organisations would obvious be inclined to sway towards one side but from an objective point of view what is the answer? How is better even measured here and what are the criteria for evaluating how good a family is? Research is being done in trying to evaluate this and results certainly seem to indicate there not being much of a difference. There is quite a large body of work in the area so my conclusion is based on a general sifting of them thus far. But for those interested even have a look at the original paper below and a couple of other relevant ones citing it.http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&hl=en&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&cites=6671784867694423843&scipsc=So in a secular society the question becomes is there any reason to prefer one definition of family over another. Because if not and homosexual families are equally as good as heterosexual families then homosexual couples are being discriminated against by not being allowed marry and create a family. The issue of whether or not a couple can actually procreate themselves to create a family with kids is a straw-man.
