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)

1…6970727475…218

Comments

  • #2132
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #2133
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭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.


  • #2134
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    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.


  • #2135
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    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?


  • #2136
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #2137
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    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.


  • #2138
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    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?


  • #2139
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    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.


  • #2140
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    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.


  • #2141
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #2142
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    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.


  • #2143
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    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.


  • #2144
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    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:confused:


    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.


  • #2145
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    I don't recall your assertion above being established:confused:

    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.


  • #2146
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    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.


  • #2147
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    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


  • #2148
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #2149
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    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?


  • #2150
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    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?


  • #2151
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #2152
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    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.


  • #2153
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    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?


    This thread is for the discussion of Christian views on homosexuality - I don't think it would be helpful to expand it to sexuality in general. Given the general disdain that these megathreads are held in (a necessary evil in my view) I'd rather not to have to merge even more threads into this.


  • #2154
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    I'm surprised that this story wasn't mentioned here yet, it seems to have caused quite a bit of debate among evangelicals in the UK and America:
    A prominent evangelical pastor has taken the highly unusual step of publicly declaring his support for monogamous same sex relationships in a decision which will send shockwaves through Britain’s evangelical community.

    Reverend Steve Chalke, head of the Oasis Church in Waterloo, made the public declaration in a lengthy article on his charity’s own website explaining his theological reasoning for abandoning opposition to gay relationships.

    His article is available (abridged & full versions) here, and he explains it in person here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOvmllyABGA


    I hadn't heard of the man before, but he seems to be quite a prominent figure and it shows that these issues are being debated in some surprising places.


  • #2155
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,066 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    The opening post of this thread is by PDN and read's: The Gay MegaThread
    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.

    Aloyisious quote: From that I understand it's about all manner of Gay-related topics and open for comment on or about them.


  • #2156
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    aloyisious wrote: »
    The opening post of this thread is by PDN and read's: The Gay MegaThread
    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.

    Aloyisious quote: From that I understand it's about all manner of Gay-related topics and open for comment on or about them.

    It's also about Christianity. I think the courtesy argument is very very valid.


  • #2157
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    philologos wrote: »
    I think the courtesy argument is very very valid.

    So do I, yet I have read in this very thread that I am, among other things, a pervert and akin to a pedophile. The validity of my family is questioned, my relationship with my OH is likened to that of a man and his pet dog and my parenting is devalued by being judging not as good as that provided by a married man and woman.

    Yes, the courtesy argument is very very valid - it also cuts both ways.


  • #2158
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I was rather explicit that in making the argument that a man and his labrador cannot be married that I'm stating that not all categories of relationship are the same thing.

    That position doesn't require me to state that a LGBT relationship == a relationship between a man and a labrador, nor was that the point I was making.

    I cleared that up a long time ago. It isn't my fault if you choose to misinterpret what I've said.


  • #2159
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Benny_Cake wrote: »
    I'm surprised that this story wasn't mentioned here yet, it seems to have caused quite a bit of debate among evangelicals in the UK and America:



    His article is available (abridged & full versions) here, and he explains it in person here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOvmllyABGA


    I hadn't heard of the man before, but he seems to be quite a prominent figure and it shows that these issues are being debated in some surprising places.

    Got there a good few posts ago.

    He's not shy of controversy. He also denied penal substitution a few years ago which also caused much controversy.

    There's been a lot of responses to what he has said in the last few weeks here from the Evangelical Alliance and other Christian churches.


  • #2160
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    philologos wrote: »
    I was rather explicit that in making the argument that a man and his labrador cannot be married that I'm stating that not all categories of relationship are the same thing.

    That position doesn't require me to state that a LGBT relationship == a relationship between a man and a labrador, nor was that the point I was making.

    I cleared that up a long time ago. It isn't my fault if you choose to misinterpret what I've said.

    Perhaps, as a courtesy, you should consider your choice of language and recognise that equating the relationship between two loving adults in a very human relationship and a man and his pet - no matter how you intended it - could cause offense.

    Nor was I the only one who 'misinterpreted' and commented on your man and his lab comment so you were not as explicit as you seem to believe you were.

    Do you have a problem with courtesy being shown by all sides? :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • #2161
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    philologos wrote: »
    I was rather explicit that in making the argument that a man and his labrador cannot be married that I'm stating that not all categories of relationship are the same thing.

    That position doesn't require me to state that a LGBT relationship == a relationship between a man and a labrador, nor was that the point I was making.

    I cleared that up a long time ago. It isn't my fault if you choose to misinterpret what I've said.
    It isn't our fault if we need to remind you of the points you chose to fail to address either.


Advertisement