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

philologos · 18-02-2013 12:53PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No Phil - you do not accept it 'only when people walk through their argument step by step' - you demand we show you where in your Holy Book it says x,y or z but are utterly deaf when we say that your Holy Book is not everyone's Holy Book and it's strictures should not be enforced on all of Civil society. No more than the Koran should be.

You genuinely believe in the Bible but when you advocate imposing it's strictures on those who genuinely do not believe in it - that is tyranny.
But you can't see this or hear the arguments.

I've explained my view in respect to civil law clearly. What we're discussing now is how should the Christian churches deal with it or how should Scripture be interpreted.

I have no interest going over territory I've already covered.

marienbad · 18-02-2013 12:54PM

philologos wrote: »

You should read what I've said about it first perhaps.

Probably better if you take your own advice Phil and read what others say. The fact is what what you have said on here is that you are a religion of One and only your interpretation is the correct one and where you can you want that interpretation enshrined in law.

You don't even have the strength to let your beliefs stand on there own merits but most co-opt secular forces to to bolster them for you. And in that you are no different that any other shaman or mullah since time immemorial.

Happily the tide of history is against you.

Bannasidhe · 18-02-2013 01:07PM

philologos wrote: »

I've explained my view in respect to civil law clearly. What we're discussing now is how should the Christian churches deal with it or how should Scripture be interpreted.

I have no interest going over territory I've already covered.

- and in your view Civil Law should not use the term 'Marriage' for legal same sex unions that are legally in every other respect the same as opposite sex legal unions because your Holy Book says 'marriage' is only between a man and a woman.

That is not discussing how the 'churches' deal with it - that is advocating imposing your definition based on your interpretation of your Holy Book on all of civil society.
This is advocating religiously inspired Tyranny.

You want this discussion to be about the churches or theology - sadly in life we rarely get what we want, but if we try sometimes we just might get what we need...and you need to see that it is no longer acceptable for one religious ethos to be imposed upon the Civil State.

It has been made clear that not one advocate for same-sex marriage has any interest in any religious organisation being forced to perform these ceremonies so any discussion on them doing so is an internal matter...

Your response was an interpretation of one legal opinion which stated that marriage equality may conflict with the religious beliefs of some State employees and this alone justifies continuing inequality.

How is that not religiously inspired tyranny?

philologos · 18-02-2013 01:09PM

marienbad wrote: »

Probably better if you take your own advice Phil and read what others say. The fact is what what you have said on here is that you are a religion of One and only your interpretation is the correct one and where you can you want that interpretation enshrined in law.

You don't even have the strength to let your beliefs stand on there own merits but most co-opt secular forces to to bolster them for you. And in that you are no different that any other shaman or mullah since time immemorial.

Happily the tide of history is against you.

Again you've just proven you've not read my posts on that subject.

Bannasidhe: it's disappointing that you've ignored that I said that the civil state can define marriage in whatever way they want but the main issue was liberty for others who disagree.

Now I disagree with redefining marriage but if it passed I'd regard it as I regard the abortion laws here.

marienbad · 18-02-2013 01:28PM

philologos wrote: »

Again you've just proven you've not read my posts on that subject.

Bannasidhe: it's disappointing that you've ignored that I said that the civil state can define marriage in whatever way they want but the main issue was liberty for others who disagree.

Now I disagree with redefining marriage but if it passed I'd regard it as I regard the abortion laws here.

Instead of lecturing on comprehension try answering a few posts now and then instead of constant avoidance tactics. It shows so little faith in the strength of your own beliefs.

philologos · 18-02-2013 01:35PM

marienbad wrote: »

Instead of lecturing on comprehension try answering a few posts now and then instead of constant avoidance tactics. It shows so little faith in the strength of your own beliefs.

If I've said something already and you're misrepresenting my position it's valid to ask why are you assuming stuff about me when I've not said what you claim I have.

Bannasidhe · 18-02-2013 01:57PM

philologos wrote: »

Again you've just proven you've not read my posts on that subject.

Bannasidhe: it's disappointing that you've ignored that I said that the civil state can define marriage in whatever way they want but the main issue was liberty for others who disagree.

Now I disagree with redefining marriage but if it passed I'd regard it as I regard the abortion laws here.

Oh, but I have read them - even the theology tangents - and what I read strikes me as an argument for why you believe your religious beliefs trump my civil liberties.

Re: ' I said that the civil state can define marriage in whatever way they want but the main issue was liberty for others who disagree.'
You want State employees to be allowed to cherry pick which part of their job description they can adhere to and which part they can legally ignore but are strangely silent when asked if this largess should be extended to all State employees or just Christians.

How on Earth do you expect State services to function if one can simply say -'oh sorry, I can't do that bit of my State job as it conflicts with my religious beliefs.' ?

What you want is for State employees to be given the legal right to ignore/disobey those aspects of Civil Law which conflict with their religion.
Once again, I put it to you that this is religious inspired tyranny.

philologos · 18-02-2013 02:09PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Oh, but I have read them - even the theology tangents - and what I read strikes me as an argument for why you believe your religious beliefs trump my civil liberties.

Re: ' I said that the civil state can define marriage in whatever way they want but the main issue was liberty for others who disagree.'
You want State employees to be allowed to cherry pick which part of their job description they can adhere to and which part they can legally ignore but are strangely silent when asked if this largess should be extended to all State employees or just Christians.

How on Earth do you expect State services to function if one can simply say -'oh sorry, I can't do that bit of my State job as it conflicts with my religious beliefs.' ?

What you want is for State employees to be given the legal right to ignore/disobey those aspects of Civil Law which conflict with their religion.
Once again, I put it to you that this is religious inspired tyranny.

They aren't tangents. Discussing Christian belief and the place of sexuality is more on topic than what you've posted.

The State can legalise it, I will still disagree. The main aspiration I have is to live a peaceful quiet life living as a witness to the Gospel. The only thing I hope the State does is give sufficient conscience clauses. If they don't I still encourage obedience to the gospel and graciously dealing with conflict while not compromising Jesus and accepting the costs if they come.

Peregrinus · 18-02-2013 02:12PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How on Earth do you expect State services to function if one can simply say -'oh sorry, I can't do that bit of my State job as it conflicts with my religious beliefs.' ?

What you want is for State employees to be given the legal right to ignore/disobey those aspects of Civil Law which conflict with their religion.
Once again, I put it to you that this is religious inspired tyranny.

It’s only “tyranny” if it adversely affects people in a significant way, e.g. by preventing them from marrying. And obviously it will only do that if all or nearly all state employees take that view. Which is unlikely, given that support for gay marriage is widespread, and we have no reason to think that the civil service is a bastion of revanchist dominionist Christianity.

I share your concern about civil servants opting out in this way. But I think we need to articulate a better case against it that calling it “tyranny”, because it really doesn’t look a lot like tyranny, and I think that kind of hyperbolic language is likely to be counterproductive.

Assume for a moment that only a small proportion of registrars feel this way, and that they can be accommodated without inconveniencing the same-sex couples who wish to marry. This isn't a wildly unrealistic assumption, since most marriages will still be opposite-sex, so there'll be plenty for work for the scrupulous registrars, and plenty of registrars happy to preside over same-sex marriages.

Right, on that assumption, is it offensive to accommodate the scrupulous registrars? And, if so, why?

Bannasidhe · 18-02-2013 02:19PM

philologos wrote: »

They aren't tangents. Discussing Christian belief and the place of sexuality is more on topic than what you've posted.

The State can legalise it, I will still disagree. The main aspiration I have is to live a peaceful quiet life living as a witness to the Gospel. The only thing I hope the State does is give sufficient conscience clauses. If they don't I still encourage obedience to the gospel and graciously dealing with conflict while not compromising Jesus and accepting the costs if they come.

Should the Civil State extend these 'conscience clauses' to Muslims? Or Buddhists? Or Jews? What about Roman Catholics? Should a Roman Catholic doctor employed by the NHS be allowed to refuse to prescribe contraception?
Do you think that members of these religions do not sincerely believe in their religions too?

Compromising Jesus? I am still waiting for you to show me one word that was actually written by Jesus - I think you mean compromising what Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul etc had to say...

Re: 'The main aspiration I have is to live a peaceful quiet life living as a witness to the Gospel' - I just want to be treated as an equal citizen by the Civil State. I am not advocating that you be prevented living by the gospel - I am objecting to others who do not share your desire being forced to live by that gospel.

philologos · 18-02-2013 02:28PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Should the Civil State extend these 'conscience clauses' to Muslims? Or Buddhists? Or Jews? What about Roman Catholics? Should a Roman Catholic doctor employed by the NHS be allowed to refuse to prescribe contraception?
Do you think that members of these religions do not sincerely believe in their religions too?

Compromising Jesus? I am still waiting for you to show me one word that was actually written by Jesus - I think you mean compromising what Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul etc had to say...

Re: 'The main aspiration I have is to live a peaceful quiet life living as a witness to the Gospel' - I just want to be treated as an equal citizen by the Civil State. I am not advocating that you be prevented living by the gospel - I am objecting to others who do not share your desire being forced to live by that gospel.

Yes the conscience clauses should be extended to all faith groups on this issue. I'm not arguing for special privilege just for Christians.

We have eyewitness accounts concerning Jesus that corroborate and fulfil the Tanakh criteria for Messiahship. It isn't a convincing argument. What I'd like those with a compromising theology to do is show me the Biblical case that it doesn't say that marriage is a man or a woman or that sexual relationships outside of such a marriage are acceptable.

I've been clear on my position on the State and I'm not going to dwell on it.

Bannasidhe · 18-02-2013 02:36PM

philologos wrote: »

Yes the conscience clauses should be extended to all faith groups on this issue. I'm not arguing for special privilege just for Christians.

We have eyewitness accounts concerning Jesus that corroborate and fulfil the Tanakh criteria for Messiahship. It isn't a convincing argument. What I'd like those with a compromising theology to do is show me the Biblical case that it doesn't say that marriage is a man ir a woman or that sexual relationships outside of such a marriage are acceptable.

I've been clear on my position on the State and I'm not going to dwell on it.

Eyewitness accounts are notorious for their discrepancies - the fact remains that there is not one text in existence written by Jesus himself - what there are are text written by others reporting what Jesus allegedly said. So we are back to interpretations...

No, you don't want to dwell on the State position as it shows up your desire to force the State to treat it's citizens unequally to satisfy your interpretation of what it says in one book.

philologos · 18-02-2013 02:45PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Eyewitness accounts are notorious for their discrepancies - the fact remains that there is not one text in existence written by Jesus himself - what there are are text written by others reporting what Jesus allegedly said. So we are back to interpretations...

No, you don't want to dwell on the State position as it shows up your desire to force the State to treat it's citizens unequally to satisfy your interpretation of what it says in one book.

1) I have no desire to force anyone to do anything as I've made clear in my posts despite your desire to claim otherwise.

2) Your potshots on the Bible are totally unconvincing. All the New Testament texts affirm the same Gospel and they were all written in a lifetime of the events happening.

NuMarvel · 18-02-2013 02:57PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Assume for a moment that only a small proportion of registrars feel this way, and that they can be accommodated without inconveniencing the same-sex couples who wish to marry. This isn't a wildly unrealistic assumption, since most marriages will still be opposite-sex, so there'll be plenty for work for the scrupulous registrars, and plenty of registrars happy to preside over same-sex marriages.

Right, on that assumption, is it offensive to accommodate the scrupulous registrars? And, if so, why?

If we substituted same-sex with mixed race in that scenario, we'd agree, in no uncertain terms, that it would be offensive to accommodate such registrars. No reasonable employer would even consider accommodating them.

So, if a hypothetical registrar who is genuinely and deeply against the notion of mixed race marriage wouldn't be accommodated, why should a register against same sex marriage be accommodated?

Bannasidhe · 18-02-2013 02:58PM

philologos wrote: »

1) I have no desire to force anyone to do anything as I've made clear in my posts despite your desire to claim otherwise.

2) Your potshots on the Bible are totally unconvincing. All the New Testament texts affirm the same Gospel and they were all written in a lifetime of the events happening.

1. Then what was all of the bruhaha about that so-called 'legal opinion' you posted? And yes, you want the State to deny same-sex couples the use of the term 'marriage'.

2. What pot shots? I took no pot shots - I simply pointed out that when you are referring to the word of Jesus that you are in fact referring to the words of Mark, Luke, John, Matthew, Paul etc which is not at all the same thing.

'and they were all written in a lifetime of the events happening' = proof please?

There is no proof of when exactly the gospels were written - just conjecture such as contained here: http://carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-by-whom

Plus, according to this Mark and Luke were disciples of Peter meaning we are dealing with two out of the 4 being, at best, third hand accounts...

philologos · 18-02-2013 02:59PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

If we substituted same-sex with mixed race in that scenario, we'd agree, in no uncertain terms, that it would be offensive to accommodate such registrars. No reasonable employer would even consider accommodating them.

So, if a hypothetical registrar who is genuinely and deeply against the notion of mixed race marriage wouldn't be accommodated, why should a register against same sex marriage be accommodated?

And if you head back a few pages you've been given several reasons why that analogy is daft.

If we're going to head round and round and round in circles what's the point of this thread at all?

Bannasidhe · 18-02-2013 03:00PM

philologos wrote: »

And if you head back a few pages you've been given several reasons why that analogy is daft.

If we're going to head round and round and round in circles what's the point of this thread at all?

To challenge you Phil.

IT-Guy · 18-02-2013 03:06PM

Phil you say this (bold my emphasis):

philologos wrote: »

The State can legalise it, I will still disagree. The main aspiration I have is to live a peaceful quiet life living as a witness to the Gospel. The only thing I hope the State does is give sufficient conscience clauses. If they don't I still encourage obedience to the gospel and graciously dealing with conflict while not compromising Jesus and accepting the costs if they come.

yet go on to say this (bold my emphasis):

philologos wrote:

What I'd like those with a compromising theology to do is show me the Biblical case that it doesn't say that marriage is a man ir a woman or that sexual relationships outside of such a marriage are acceptable

Firstly I'm rather stunned that you need written approval from your God before you can condone gay marriage. Thankfully the state isn't reliant on biblical interpretation to say what it's citizens can and cannot do and in the case of conflict, state wins.

Secondly the first quote above is in direct conflict with the second with regards to wanting to live a quiet life!

Delighted to be able to say you're allowed to as are gay couples, gay marriage is a recognition of that.

NuMarvel · 18-02-2013 03:13PM

philologos wrote: »

And if you head back a few pages you've been given several reasons why that analogy is daft.

If we're going to head round and round and round in circles what's the point of this thread at all?

It sounds daft to you, but what about the registrar who genuinely believes that mixed race marriages shouldn't be allowed. Are they exempt from freedom of conscience? And if so, why?

philologos · 18-02-2013 03:17PM

IT-Guy wrote: »

Phil you say this (bold my emphasis):

yet go on to say this (bold my emphasis):

Firstly I'm rather stunned that you need written approval from your God before you can condone gay marriage. Thankfully the state isn't reliant on biblical interpretation to say what it's citizens can and cannot do and in the case of conflict, state wins.

Secondly the first quote above is in direct conflict with the second with regards to wanting to live a quiet life! Delighted to be able to say you're allowed to as are gay couples, gay marriage is a recognition of that.

No it isn't. I'll give you some notation to show you why:

Morality != law

NuMarvel · 18-02-2013 03:21PM

philologos wrote: »

Morality != law

Out of curiosity, what does "!=" mean? I've seen you use it a few times.

Corkfeen · 18-02-2013 03:24PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what does "!=" mean? I've seen you use it a few times.

It basically means 'does not equal'.

Benny_Cake · 18-02-2013 03:25PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what does "!=" mean? I've seen you use it a few times.

Not equal to. It's Java / C syntax - a lot of software developers here on Boards!

IT-Guy · 18-02-2013 03:42PM

philologos wrote: »

No it isn't. I'll give you some notation to show you why:

Personal Morality != law

Fixed your notation there Phil! This has the potential to go off in an interesting tangent as I think most laws have their basis in accepted, universal morality. Your personal morality shouldn't be reflected in law yet you choose to argue in favor of civil disobedience/conscientious objection for those that disagree. It strikes me as the subversive attitude one would take if feeling oppressed without any sense of irony!

marienbad · 18-02-2013 04:16PM

philologos wrote: »

If I've said something already and you're misrepresenting my position it's valid to ask why are you assuming stuff about me when I've not said what you claim I have.

You are opposed to civil marriage for gay couples ? Is that correct ?

aloyisious · 19-02-2013 12:46PM

PinkNews item and vote result on several motion before the council.

County Kerry councillors are to be asked to back a motion supporting equal marriage, at its next meeting. The motion was tabled by Labour Councillor, Gillian Wharton-Slattery, after she was approached by members of the gay community, asking why the motion had not been passed yet. “They talked to me about how other councils had tabled and passed similar motions… And they asked why it hadn’t been done here too”, she told the Journal.

Ms Wharton-Slattery is dearful that councillors will break from the party line, despite support from the majority of political parties. “It is an individual choice at the end of the day. I haven’t lobbied fellow councillors as I will let the democratic process exist in the chamber. People will make up their own minds. I have a sneaky feeling it could be in trouble getting through.”

She did say, however that she would remain “cautiously hopeful” that it would pass. “I would be delighted for the 5.5 per cent of the population of Kerry that are gay for the motion to go through. We will have marriage equality eventually in this country. It would be nice to see what different councillors have to say on the matter.”

The vote is to be taken on Monday afternoon. One councillor, Danny Healy-Rae, told the Irish Examiner that he would vote against the motion on Monday, because he had “serious concerns” about gay couples adoption children. “I’m not against gay people, or anything like that. That’s their business, but I would be very worried in regard to adoption. If adoption was out of it, it would be a different story altogether,’’ he said.
.........................................................................................................................................................
Update on vote.

Healy-Raes are divided as council votes to back same-sex marriage.

MAJELLA O'SULLIVAN – 19 FEBRUARY 2013

A COUNTY councillor has told how she was "emotionally bullied" in the lead-up to a vote on marriage rights for gays. Councillors in Kerry yesterday supported the married mother of two's motion by an 18 to seven majority, becoming the 14th local authority in the State to support same-sex marriages.Labour's Gillian Wharton-Slattery had to switch off her phone as she "couldn't take" another call criticising her support for same-sex couples. One councillor abstained and another was absent.

The Healy-Rae family were split on the motion. Danny Healy-Rae was one of seven councillors who voted against because he believed homosexual marriage was not "natural", but he added that he had "nothing whatsoever against gay or lesbian people". His son, Johnny Healy-Rae, supported the motion.

Similar motions have been passed by Dublin, Cork and Waterford city councils and by South Dublin, Fingal, Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown, Wexford, Kilkenny and Louth county councils. Four town and borough councils – Ardee, Mullingar, Castlebar and Clonmel – have also voted in favour.

Ms Wharton-Slattery said: "It's been a very stressful and emotional week, but I'm delighted I got the support of the majority of my colleagues." She said pressure was put on her to "water down" her motion, and she had received a "rigorous going-over" from people over the issue. But she said she was proud to have brought the motion before the council. "One person said I'd never get elected again when I started 'dancing with gays in the chamber'."

The motion was seconded by Sinn Fein's Toireasa Ferris, who hoped she would not be "ash-amed and disgusted" by how members voted, making the council "a laughing stock for the second time in a month", a reference to Danny Healy-Rae's controversial drink-drive permit motion at the last meeting.

Members of Ciarrai Amach, an organisation for gays and lesbians in Kerry, were in the public gallery during the debate. The group's chairman, Martin Greenwood, said he was delighted with the result. "We were not sure it was going to go our way, but the vote is an indication we're moving forward. This is great news," he said.

The issue will go before the Constitution Convention on April 13 and 14, and a recommendation will then be made to Government.

The council also voted unanimously to oppose any measures that would not uphold the right to life of the unborn and the equal right to life of the mother.

maguffin · 14-03-2013 07:48AM

This thread has been snoozing for awhile...maybe this will nudge it a little.....

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Vatican-buys-Europes-biggest-gay-bathhouse-and-sauna-197292981.html

CollardGreens · 15-03-2013 06:59AM

This man has been there, done that - and this is what he says.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD5mFQkenqI

JimiTime · 15-03-2013 09:41PM

CollardGreens wrote: »

This man has been there, done that - and this is what he says.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD5mFQkenqI

Shhhhhhh. Didn't you know theres no such thing as those who gave up their homosexual lives. Only those anecdotes which further LGBT goals are allowed in these discussions!*

*May contain sarcasm

Kiwi in IE · 16-03-2013 02:42AM

JimiTime wrote: »

Shhhhhhh. Didn't you know theres no such thing as those who gave up their homosexual lives. Only those anecdotes which further LGBT goals are allowed in these discussions!*

*May contain sarcasm

I would love to be able to spend a day in the mind of someone who thinks that the sexuality and personal relationships of other consenting adults are their business so I could gain some understanding of how and why they have come to think this.

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

Comments