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

philologos wrote: »

I've answered the vast majority of your posts already, and I don't repeat myself.

And the questions asked by others? You only linked to documents, BTW, you didn't answer any of my questions yourself, rather, you referred me to third parties.

lazygal wrote: »

Now you're back,maybe you can address the questions asked of you?

I've answered the vast majority of your posts already, and I don't repeat myself.

philologos wrote: »

Benny_Cake: could you clarify what this thread is for. Is it for discussing Christian views on sexuality or is it for putting anything related to homosexuality.

There's a fine line surely between what should be on the LGBT forum and what should be here?

Now you're back,maybe you can address the questions asked of you?

Links234 wrote: »

Wow, just read this. Actor Jim Nabors married his partner after 38 years!

Imagine being together with someone you love for 38 years before having the possibility of getting married. It's absolutely unconscionable, but a sad reality that so many LGBT couples face.

Benny_Cake: could you clarify what this thread is for. Is it for discussing Christian views on sexuality or is it for putting anything related to homosexuality.

There's a fine line surely between what should be on the LGBT forum and what should be here?

Links234

Wow, just read this. Actor Jim Nabors married his partner after 38 years!

Now that he is in his 80s, Nabors felt the need to "solidify something" since he and Cadwallader had no rights as a couple, adding that, at his age, he should not wait.

Imagine being together with someone you love for 38 years before having the possibility of getting married.

It's absolutely unconscionable, but a sad reality that so many LGBT couples face.

JimiTime wrote: »

I know you are not an ignorant person in general, so I'm guessing you've a twist you'd like to share in relation to the above. Feel free to share it.

No twist. The language you have said is not in the Bible. Which should be obvious, there was no word homosexual until the 19th century.

Well we all know what is going to happen. You are going to quote a Biblical passage that doesn't actually say explicitly state that homosexual sex is sinful and then simply say that the most common interpretation of that passage is that homosexual sex is sinful.

And then I'll simply point out that actually that is one of different possible interpretations, and that other Christians take different interpretations. And then point out that you do this with Biblical passages all the time.

Matthew 24
33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

A Bible passage that clearly is not saying that the second coming will arise before the people Jesus is speaking to have died. Oh wait, what does "generation" mean :P

Zombrex wrote: »

Sure there is. For a start there is no where in the Bible that says homosexual sex is sinful.

I know you are not an ignorant person in general, so I'm guessing you've a twist you'd like to share in relation to the above. Feel free to share it.

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't recall your assertion above being established

Well no, if you did you would no longer be a Christian. I argue that something that modern Christians believe is non-Biblical, you argue it is Biblical you just have look at it in this particular way (interpretation X), and you go back to happily being a Christian and thinking all your Christian beliefs are Biblical supported. But then that is exactly what pro gay-marriage Christians do.

JimiTime wrote: »

Anyway, the bible is the go to guide for Christians. There may be certain issues that are more open to interpretation than others, but essentially, a Christian is not being a Christian, if they willfully go against the Bible. In the context of this thread, there is no wiggle room in terms of the bible position on homosexual sex being sinful, and essentially

Sure there is. For a start there is no where in the Bible that says homosexual sex is sinful. That is a conclusion drawn based on particular language used in the Bible. And again these conclusions will changed based on the interpretation of said language.

For example, if I said the Bible explicitly states that the second coming will take place before everyone Jesus or Paul was talking to has physically died you would simply point out that the Bible doesn't actually say that specifically. It says something that could be interpreted that way (and that is by far the most logical interpretation), but by virtue of being non-legalistic language, could be interpreted another way. And guess what, modern Christians today interpret it another way.

As I keep pointing out, if you are prepared to do this with other matters of faith it seems illogical to condemn people who do that with homosexuality.

Zombrex wrote: »

And we have already had a big long discussion about how that is a flawed assertion.

I don't recall your assertion above being established

Anyway, the bible is the go to guide for Christians. There may be certain issues that are more open to interpretation than others, but essentially, a Christian is not being a Christian, if they willfully go against the Bible. In the context of this thread, there is no wiggle room in terms of the bible position on homosexual sex being sinful, and essentially, all Christians who assert the non-biblical view are not being Christian is doing so. If honest Christians want to present a biblical case for homosexual sex no being sinful, then they are more than welcome to present it for discussion here. The very fact that some homosexuals who want to be Christians and have homosexual relationships look to try skew the bible that allow them to pretend that the two are compatible should attest that its the go to place.

JimiTime wrote: »

Actually, even One True Church folk appeal to the same source. That is, The Bible. If the bible contradicts your position, then your position is not Christian.

And we have already had a big long discussion about how that is a flawed assertion.

We can argue about a whole host of things that you believe that I believe contradict the Bible. You don't stop calling yourself a Christian, and there is no objective way for me to demonstrate to you that what you believe is unchristian.

I for example don't think there is anyway that someone can seriously believe that the failure of the second coming to have occurred yet is compatible with the Bible. But I'm sure you find a way, probably based on select interpretations of certain words and phrases in the Bible and by virtue of the fact that well the alternative is that Christianity isn't true, which is a difficult position for a Christian, isn't it.

So it becomes some what pointless to claim that the Christian position is the position of the Bible.

Zombrex wrote: »

No, her logic says that due to creationists existing there is no Christian position on evolution. Which is true.

There is a scientific position on evolution because you can objectively measure what is or isn't the scientific position. You cannot objectively measure what the Christian position is or isn't because it is not defined in terms that can be objectively measure.

You can say that in your opinion it is not compatible with Christianity to view same sex marriages as moral.

Actually, even One True Church folk appeal to the same source. That is, The Bible. If the bible contradicts your position, then your position is not Christian. Its actually EASIER to show a Christian position on homosexuality than to delve into the science of evolution.

Benny_Cake

Mod note: I'm giving this out as a general warning to all concerned - the next person to bring labradors, poodles, Lhasa Apsos or any other variety of household pet into this discussion will be infracted. The first person to do so made it as an off the cuff sort of remark that didn't seem as if it was intended to cause offence, but it is getting offensive and childish. Cut it out, and that goes for everyone.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Oh dear Jimi. You really are having trouble accepting the fact that there are Christians who do not share your interpretation of what it means to be a Christian or on what views constitute Christian.

If this unified, codified, all singing from the same hymn sheet, Christianity exists, as you and Phil not only claim - but speak on behalf of - there would be only one Christian denomination - but there isn't.

Get used to that fact.

I don't mind you holding the position that once there exists dissenters, there is no 'Christian' view etc. However, you seem to be staying away from where this logic takes you in regards everything else. Judging by the declarations you made elsewhere about 'phycological positions' about homosexuality etc, when there are Psychologists who hold dissenting views, then its clear you are internally inconsistent.

JimiTime wrote: »

Who are you to tell a labrador lover that his love is less than yours?

It is when Christians say things like this that make me think they are missing the woods for the trees.

The Labrador can't say that his love is greater than yours, and as such cannot consent to a marriage, like wise marrying the Effie Tower or your potatoes peeler.

Marriage performs a particular role in society, it is the recognition that a bond forms between two people where the state should recognize the role that other person plays in the life of the primary person.

This includes everything from the state automatically concluding that person A is happy that person B minds their children, right up to saying that Person A would wish Person B to decide if they are to pull the plug on the coma machine.

Christians seem to ignore all this, ignore what a marriage actually is, probably because they know that there is no reason in this context why a person has to be a man and a woman.

It is clear though in this context that the Person B cannot be a dog, or a toothbrush, or a local landmark. It is also clear that having one person recognized as your life partner who you respect to decide matters about your life is easier than nominating 3 people, or 6 people, which creates a very different relationship between the parties.

When someone says they married Big Ben I don't know what "married" means in that context because I've no idea what role Big Ben plays in this set up. Who is the next of kin? Who is the person who is guardian of the children? Who must we ask for permission to open the bank account. Even if someone says I married my 15 wives I still have issue with that in terms of working out what "married" means in this context. Who is the next of kin for example? Do all the wives have to decide on a course of action?

When someone says they married their gay partner of 15 years I know exactly what "married" means.

The insistence some Christians have that a marriage between a man and a woman is some how a fundamentally different arrangement than between a man and a man is so silly it is extremely damaging to the Christian position, because it just sets up pro-gay marriage supporters with an easy fish in a barrel list of all the ways it is exactly the same.

JimiTime wrote: »

Who are you to tell a labrador lover that his love is less than yours?

Its no one's place to tell a gay couple their love is less than that in my marriage. Who are Christians to decide on the value of love?

JimiTime wrote: »

The only nonsense, is your position, and your insistance that it makes sense. Your logic says that due to creationists existing, there is no scientific position on evolution.

No, her logic says that due to creationists existing there is no Christian position on evolution. Which is true.

There is a scientific position on evolution because you can objectively measure what is or isn't the scientific position. You cannot objectively measure what the Christian position is or isn't because it is not defined in terms that can be objectively measure.

You can say that in your opinion it is not compatible with Christianity to view same sex marriages as moral.

Bannasidhe

JimiTime wrote: »

The only nonsense, is your position, and your insistance that it makes sense. Your logic says that due to creationists existing, there is no scientific position on evolution.

You have two options in order to be coherent:
1. Stop making theological declarations.

2. Back up your theological declarations with some informed argument. (FYI. Theres some people over here who do such and such, is not an argument)

As has been said many pages ago. WE ALL KNOW that there are people calling themselves Christians who believe all kinds of things from hating Ireland, to stocking up weapons for a nuclear holocaust. That DOES NOT mean that there is no Christian position on these things. Your position is simply mental. Especially since you insist that it makes sense.

Also FYI. There IS an extremely concise Christian position on homosexual behaviour. It declares that it is sinful. If you would like to challenge the Christian position, by all means bring your theological argument to the thread. All you've done thus far though, is said that there are people out there who go against the Christian position, who profess themselves Christian. Like already said, if you believe that this means that there is no Christian position based on this (Which you're free to do of course, however silly it is), then in order to be consistent, you must also believe that there is no psychological position on homosexuality not being a mental illness, as there are some in the profession who declare it is (Remember, using your logic, we don't even have to look at the case. Simply find dissenters, and thats it and say to you, 'Take it up with them'.).

Your position is absolute folly. I'm a wee bit surprised that you still think its even slightly valid.

Oh dear Jimi. You really are having trouble accepting the fact that there are Christians who do not share your interpretation of what it means to be a Christian or on what views constitute Christian.

If this unified, codified, all singing from the same hymn sheet, Christianity exists, as you and Phil not only claim - but speak on behalf of - there would be only one Christian denomination - but there isn't.

Get used to that fact.

lazygal wrote: »

Almost as ridiculous as someone thinking if gay people can marry, those wanting to marry their pets will start a campaign. Or that gay marriage and/or love is comparable to loving a Labrador.

Who are you to tell a labrador lover that his love is less than yours?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Jimi - that is the biggest pile of horse droppings I have read in a long time.

What don't you understand about this.

You and Phil insist there is a 'Christian' position on homosexuality which is opposed to Gay Marriage. Yet, the Episcopalian Church recently voted in favour of performing gay marriages in their churches

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/10/us/episcopal-same-sex-unions/index.html

They are Christians.

They do not agree with you or Phil.

Therefore there is no 'Christian' position.

The only nonsense, is your position, and your insistance that it makes sense. Your logic says that due to creationists existing, there is no scientific position on evolution.

You have two options in order to be coherent:
1. Stop making theological declarations.

2. Back up your theological declarations with some informed argument. (FYI. Theres some people over here who do such and such, is not an argument)

As has been said many pages ago. WE ALL KNOW that there are people calling themselves Christians who believe all kinds of things from hating Ireland, to stocking up weapons for a nuclear holocaust. That DOES NOT mean that there is no Christian position on these things. Your position is simply mental. Especially since you insist that it makes sense.

Also FYI. There IS an extremely concise Christian position on homosexual behaviour. It declares that it is sinful. If you would like to challenge the Christian position, by all means bring your theological argument to the thread. All you've done thus far though, is said that there are people out there who go against the Christian position, who profess themselves Christian. Like already said, if you believe that this means that there is no Christian position based on this (Which you're free to do of course, however silly it is), then in order to be consistent, you must also believe that there is no psychological position on homosexuality not being a mental illness, as there are some in the profession who declare it is (Remember, using your logic, we don't even have to look at the case. Simply find dissenters, and thats it and say to you, 'Take it up with them'.).

Your position is absolute folly. I'm a wee bit surprised that you still think its even slightly valid.

NuMarvel

philologos wrote: »

This could be relatively simply protected against by putting robust conscience clauses in the legislation to protect those who disagree.

But you're failing to adequately explain why such protections are only needed now, with the introduction of same sex marriage. Has there been no potential for disagreement before now? I'd be very very surprised if that was the case.

By your assessment, the UK's current civil partnership laws make it identical to marriage, so surely there are some who disagree already. And even if there aren't, there's definitely potential for disagreement in the area of how divorce or unmarried or single parents are treated. And that's just when we look at one religion's view of sexual ethics. When we incorporate other topics and other religions, the sheer numbers alone mean there must already be instances of someone's professional duties conflicting with their faith.

Bannasidhe

JimiTime wrote: »

And it was revealed that your position was completely inconsistant, as well as you disingenuously making theological declarations like, 'There is no Christian postion on homosexuality', then running from your declarations by declaring, 'Oh, I wouldn't know about that, but if there are some people who say they are christian and disagree, that means there is no Christian position'. Like it was pointed out before, its no different to saying, 'There is no Scientific position on the shape of the earth, because these guys over here, who say they are scientists, say its flat'. If you do not have the interest in the theological discussion on the matter, then don't make theological declarations and run away. Then you have the nerve to make light of Phils learned position on it.

Jimi - that is the biggest pile of horse droppings I have read in a long time.

What don't you understand about this.

You and Phil insist there is a 'Christian' position on homosexuality which is opposed to Gay Marriage. Yet, the Episcopalian Church recently voted in favour of performing gay marriages in their churches

Episcopal priests will be allowed to conduct services blessing same-sex relationships under a policy approved Tuesday at the church's national convention in Indianapolis.
The convention's House of Bishops approved the provisional policy 111-41 with three abstentions Monday, clearing it for consideration by the House of Deputies, which approved it Tuesday evening.

The policy was approved in the House of Deputies, following more than an hour of debate, by 78% of the voting lay members and by 76% of clergy.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/10/us/episcopal-same-sex-unions/index.html

They are Christians.

They do not agree with you or Phil.

Therefore there is no 'Christian' position.

Links234

philologos wrote: »

Again, it shows that the people who thanked your post don't understand what I'm saying.

I think you don't understand what everyone else is saying

"Glorifying" same sex marriage in the classroom? what utter nonsense. NOBODY is asking for it to be "glorified" or held aloft or raised upon high or promoted or anything of the sort! in no conceivable way would it be. a teacher might, possibly, have to acknowledge the legality of it, but that's in no way the same thing. just like acknowleding there are pork products or that it is perfectly legal to buy pork products is not glorifying or promoting pork.

that is NOT the counterpoint denying same sex marriage is legal and refusing to teach pupils what might be on the curriculum that reflects it's legal status.

and you still haven't told us what you mean by "glorifying"

because it seems to me that anything other than blanket denial that same sex marriage is legal in your ridiculous scenario is glorifying?

philologos wrote: »

Actually, no I don't as I've very very clearly pointed out so far.

No, you've said you want the status quo, ie the 'glorification' of man/woman marriage taught in state schools. Do you think people will turn gay if we teach them its a perfectly normal thing for two adults in love to marry in a state ceremony?

tommy2bad wrote: »

No phil what it means is you can't go around saying that pork is evil or homosexuality is evil or eating pork is evil or practicing homosexuality is evil.
To compare teaching that marriage in a civil context covers both same and opposite sex couples to forcing Muslims to eat pork is just ridiculous.

Almost as ridiculous as someone thinking if gay people can marry, those wanting to marry their pets will start a campaign. Or that gay marriage and/or love is comparable to loving a Labrador.

lazygal wrote: »

I understand exactly what you're saying. You want your world view 'glorified' regardless of all reasonable argument to the contrary. People who want gay people to be equal have a conscience too, you know.

Actually, no I don't as I've very very clearly pointed out so far.

philologos wrote: »

Where did I say any of this about the classroom context?

Again, it shows that the people who thanked your post don't understand what I'm saying.

I was asked about pork by another poster as an example.

Refusing to glorify same-sex marriage in the classroom as a Christian is quite on the same level as refusing to glorify the consumption of pork in the classroom as a Jew or a Muslim.

This could be relatively simply protected against by putting robust conscience clauses in the legislation to protect those who disagree.

I understand exactly what you're saying. You want your world view 'glorified' regardless of all reasonable argument to the contrary. People who want gay people to be equal have a conscience too, you know.

MrPudding

philologos wrote: »

3) I'm not spinning anything. Aidan O'Neill QC's legal submission to the Coalition for Marriage shows that there is a risk that legalising this will have an adverse affect on Christians and those of other religions in British society. Do you expect me to be indifferent when that is the case?

Really? Does it? Show it to me.

MrP

tommy2bad wrote: »

No phil what it means is you can't go around saying that pork is evil or homosexuality is evil or eating pork is evil or practicing homosexuality is evil.
To compare teaching that marriage in a civil context covers both same and opposite sex couples to forcing Muslims to eat pork is just ridiculous.

Where did I say any of this about the classroom context?

Again, it shows that the people who thanked your post don't understand what I'm saying.

I was asked about pork by another poster as an example.

Refusing to glorify same-sex marriage in the classroom as a Christian is quite on the same level as refusing to glorify the consumption of pork in the classroom as a Jew or a Muslim.

This could be relatively simply protected against by putting robust conscience clauses in the legislation to protect those who disagree.

tommy2bad

No phil what it means is you can't go around saying that pork is evil or homosexuality is evil or eating pork is evil or practicing homosexuality is evil.
To compare teaching that marriage in a civil context covers both same and opposite sex couples to forcing Muslims to eat pork is just ridiculous.