Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
07-08-2020, 10:20   #16
Justin Credible Darts
Registered User
 
Justin Credible Darts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,506
Oh you mean them books of mumbo jumbo written by men and altered over time, that people think is the word of a fictitious being.

If someone is the sort of person to hate another because it says it in an ancient book, then that person is using that mumbo jumbo as a front to hide behind to explain their own bigotry and hatred.
Justin Credible Darts is online now  
Advertisement
07-08-2020, 12:12   #17
El_Duderino 09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 13,248
The religions change over time. They have to wait until the change doesn't matter anymore but I'm confident that the Catholics will change to the point that they'll say they were never really opposed to the gays.

An example is that divorced people were not welcome in Catholic mass in the past. Now it's absolutely no issue. They just have to protest an play the victim and then change their tune in their own time. The usual thing.
El_Duderino 09 is online now  
07-08-2020, 13:14   #18
smacl
Moderator
 
smacl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 13,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazygal View Post
The churches are in a bind though. Change the rules and they admit they don't have doctrine based on divine revelation but can modernise and adapt bsed on what mere mortals deem appropriate.
True for most but not all Christian churches and it seems to come down to emphasis. There are those in the clergy who stress compassion over dogma and declared as pro-choice and for gay marriage in recent referendums. While this represents a very small minority, it does suggest that it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Christian tradition can change over time. More likely perhaps is that the moral gulf that separates the people of this country and the majority of the church hierarchy will continue to make the church increasingly irrelevant to most people and it will lose what remaining influence it has as a result.
smacl is offline  
07-08-2020, 13:48   #19
magicbastarder
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 31,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by nthclare View Post
I swing both ways myself and I enjoy it, it's great.
protestant *and* catholic? i'm pretty sure the RC church would frown on that.
magicbastarder is online now  
07-08-2020, 15:11   #20
Hotblack Desiato
See you @ Milliway's -Socially distanced
 
Hotblack Desiato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by smacl View Post
I suspect one of the major reasons the church is dying out in this country and elsewhere is it has failed to stay aligned with the needs of a modern society.
A part of it no doubt, but I suspect lack of faith is much more significant. A few people join other churches but not many.

Quote:
The main appeal with Christianities regressive attitude to sex and sexuality these days seems to largely lie with the homophobic and misogynistic elements of the far right.
Ain't that the truth. It was kinda funny though how often we were told that the opposition to marriage equality and repeal had nothing to do with religion...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Credible Darts View Post
Thing is gay couples are as likely to adopt as much as straight couples
This was not possible at all until very very recently.

Quote:
in fact more likely to be accepted for adoption with all this political correctness these days
That's rather a fanciful claim, got any sources for that at all?

Quote:
The church hated gays when it suited them, and are as likely to make out their doctrine is accepting now if it suited the church's cause.These people are professional liars.
It's called "mental reservation"
The RC church certainly isn't accepting of gay people. Homosexuality is still regarded as "intrinsically disordered" and homosexuals are not permitted to marry in the church (so therefore, no sex allowed ever.) So any nicey fluffy stuff a particular cleric might come out with from time to time has to be weighed up against the official line, which hasn't changed at all.

Quote:
I despise the church as a whole, even if there are some decent individuals connected to it.
As the RCC has no desire to fully open its records to ensure justice for abuse victims, stop protecting hierarchy who covered up, and make full financial recompense, I don't know how any decent individual could remain connected to it whether as a lay person or cleric.

Quote:
the optimist in me sort of hopes I am wrong and there is a god
A god who you didn't worship and who is pretty pissed off at you? Ehh no thanks

Quote:
There is this myth you need religion or god to be a decent person.
You can have decency, empathy, compassion, and love for your fellow humans
What gets me is that people are so brainwashed they call these "christian values", which is nonsense because they far pre-date christianity, and christian churches throughout their history have very frequently behaved in exactly the opposite manner.

Quote:
There was never any agnostic crusades, no atheist inquisitions, all that type of stuff was left for the so called religious people.
go figure
Someone will now mention Hitler (catholic who never renounced god), Stalin (ex-seminarian) etc...

I'd give them Mao and Pol Pot and no doubt a few others, but these guys were all pushing an ideology of their own which bore many of the hallmarks of religion, and like religion did not appreciate the existence of other ideologies competing for the unquestioning adoration of the populace.
Hotblack Desiato is offline  
Advertisement
07-08-2020, 15:21   #21
Odhinn
Registered User
 
Odhinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 6,017
The RC view is that sex should be for reproduction, hence no contraceptives etc. That means that sex between same sex couples can never be "right", unless the church changes its teaching on sexual matters overall.
Odhinn is offline  
07-08-2020, 15:28   #22
Bannasidhe
Moderation is the key.
 
Bannasidhe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,815
For the record may I point out that homosexuality and the production of offspring are not mutually exclusive.

Homosexuals can, do, and have produced biological progeny.

If it was all about the production of children religions would be against proven infertile people, post-menopausal women having sex. Yet, they are pretty silent on that.

They have an issue with enjoying sex, sex they claim is only justified with the aim of having children, it is dirty, nasty and a biological imperative for men (the 'they can't control themselves' trope), and punishment for women (the 'original sin' trope).
Having sex with a member of the same gender isn't even pretending to be about reproduction. It is purely about the enjoyment.
Bannasidhe is offline  
07-08-2020, 16:39   #23
smacl
Moderator
 
smacl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 13,593
You'd also have to question the role of a male only clergy and commitment to life long abstinence in the RCC. Not exactly going to promote a healthy attitude to sex and sexuality, women's reproductive rights or family planning. Nor for that matter does it seem sensible that any of us should heed the advice in these issues from a bunch of middle aged men with no first hand experience of the subject.
smacl is offline  
07-08-2020, 23:49   #24
AllForIt
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 4,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
Because the connection between sex and reproduction was a much bigger dimension of sex for early societies than it is for us. And because, with high rates of child mortality, reproduction is not something that can be taken for granted. And because, with everyone's welfare, and even survival, being closely bound up with the welfare and success of the extended family and of the clan, successful reproduction was not a purely private concern.

So the main objection to homosexuality was that it didn't give rise to little kiddies. And, since that was so obviously the whole point of sex, that was a distortion or perversion of sex. And, since having little kiddies was a really important thing for the group, it was a really bad, dangerous distortion or perversion.

There was a second dimension to this, which was that in the early days the Abrahamic religions (and other religions in the neighbourhood) had no concept of an afterlife, or no clear concept. Whatever survived of you after death - your legacy, your continued existence, your importance to other people and to the world - resided in your descendants. So having descendants was really important; it was the point of living. So, again, because homosexuality wasn't reproductive it was seen as nihilistic; a rejection of your own value, or of the value of your own life. That was very disturbing.

Not all religions were necessarily down on gay sex, as such. There could be a social, and even religious, place for gay sex provided it didn't stop men from forming heterosexual partnerships and having kids. (The role of gay sex in classical Greek society is often pointed to to illustrate this.) But the idea of being gay, of having a fixed or even exclusive preference for same-sex relationships, was really transgressive.
It was only when religion came into play that any of these attitudes were ever of any concern to anyone.
AllForIt is offline  
Advertisement
07-08-2020, 23:53   #25
DubInMeath
Registered User
 
DubInMeath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 3,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by smacl View Post
You'd also have to question the role of a male only clergy and commitment to life long abstinence in the RCC. Not exactly going to promote a healthy attitude to sex and sexuality, women's reproductive rights or family planning. Nor for that matter does it seem sensible that any of us should heed the advice in these issues from a bunch of middle aged men with no first hand experience of the subject.
True but there are plenty of other religions where the ordained can marry and a lot of them and their followers aren't exactly much different. Only have to look at the likes of the wee frees and the likes in the north and Scotland, and that's even before moving onto the basket cases in America.
DubInMeath is offline  
(2) thanks from:
08-08-2020, 11:58   #26
smacl
Moderator
 
smacl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 13,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubInMeath View Post
True but there are plenty of other religions where the ordained can marry and a lot of them and their followers aren't exactly much different. Only have to look at the likes of the wee frees and the likes in the north and Scotland, and that's even before moving onto the basket cases in America.
Fair point, allowing people to marry certainly isn't any kind of panacea to cure bigotry and intolerance. At the same time, those precluded from all sexual activity, even if by their own choice, will be left with a skewed and incomplete understanding of the subject. There are also the doubtless frustrations and stresses caused by denying what is a fundamental biological imperative which in turn could lead to some rather damaging biases and behavior, particularly when viewed in the context of historical clerical abuse.

I'm of the opinion that what ultra conservative married clergy and those dedicated to a life of abstinence have in common is an unhealthy amount of self denial. You'd have to wonder how many of both are also struggling with being gay.

Christianity is a very broad church and there are without a doubt members of the clergy who are wonderful well adjusted people. Those few that I know first hand are also staunch opponents of homophobia in any shape or form and coincidentally also married. While I don't share their beliefs, that doesn't stop them from being wonderful people in my eyes.
smacl is offline  
08-08-2020, 14:53   #27
DubInMeath
Registered User
 
DubInMeath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 3,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by smacl View Post
Fair point, allowing people to marry certainly isn't any kind of panacea to cure bigotry and intolerance. At the same time, those precluded from all sexual activity, even if by their own choice, will be left with a skewed and incomplete understanding of the subject. There are also the doubtless frustrations and stresses caused by denying what is a fundamental biological imperative which in turn could lead to some rather damaging biases and behavior, particularly when viewed in the context of historical clerical abuse.

I'm of the opinion that what ultra conservative married clergy and those dedicated to a life of abstinence have in common is an unhealthy amount of self denial. You'd have to wonder how many of both are also struggling with being gay.

Christianity is a very broad church and there are without a doubt members of the clergy who are wonderful well adjusted people. Those few that I know first hand are also staunch opponents of homophobia in any shape or form and coincidentally also married. While I don't share their beliefs, that doesn't stop them from being wonderful people in my eyes.
Oh I'm not saying it's not an issue, especially since it only came about due to money and land. Makes the required sex talk for a church marriage even more ridiculous.
DubInMeath is offline  
10-08-2020, 01:23   #28
Hotblack Desiato
See you @ Milliway's -Socially distanced
 
Hotblack Desiato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bannasidhe View Post
Having sex with a member of the same gender isn't even pretending to be about reproduction. It is purely about the enjoyment.
So "chore gay sex" is not a thing?
Hotblack Desiato is offline  
10-08-2020, 01:32   #29
Guy:Incognito
Registered User
 
Guy:Incognito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 36,894
They seem to go fairly quiet on parts that they can't legally enforce anymore. All of a sudden the word of God doesn't seem so absolute and doesn't have to be enforced. The many reasons why people should be put to death. How come they don't insist on adulterous men and women being executed?
Guy:Incognito is offline  
Thanks from:
10-08-2020, 04:36   #30
Peregrinus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 19,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by smacl View Post
Fair point, allowing people to marry certainly isn't any kind of panacea to cure bigotry and intolerance. At the same time, those precluded from all sexual activity, even if by their own choice, will be left with a skewed and incomplete understanding of the subject. There are also the doubtless frustrations and stresses caused by denying what is a fundamental biological imperative which in turn could lead to some rather damaging biases and behavior, particularly when viewed in the context of historical clerical abuse.

I'm of the opinion that what ultra conservative married clergy and those dedicated to a life of abstinence have in common is an unhealthy amount of self denial. You'd have to wonder how many of both are also struggling with being gay . . .
All very arguable. But the OP talks about "religions" in general, not just Christianity. Plus, even within Christianity, as noted there are diverse attitudes and practices with regard to celibacy. Plus plus, even within Christian traditions that assign importance to celibacy, the celibacy thing is a (comparatively) late arrival; they were down on homosexuality right from the get-go, whereas a veneration for celibacy didn't arrive until a few centuries later, and it was more centuries again before celibacy became universal in the ruling church hierarchy. So while celibacy may in various ways have entrenched or intensified negative attitudes to homosexuality, it's not the root cause. And I think there is value in acknowledging the points about celibacy but looking past them, at other more fundamental factors.
Peregrinus is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet