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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)
Options
Comments
-
aloyisious wrote: »As I've said before, recognizing and accepting what one is
Nobody has to accept being identified as a homosexual. I'm not identified as a heterosexual. Heterosexual is not who or even what I am. Its simply a small detail about a particular part of me.and not engaging in the practice other people see as usual, by being abstinent from the practice, is not [IMO] being what you described [sinful] rather the opposite where it comes to the word of Jesus as in 'Go and sin no more' he proclaimed. 'Repent' he proclaimed. If they ain't sinning, they ain't sinners.
Everyone is a sinner. And all need to repent. If a person happens to find the same sex attractive, but does not let that give birth to sin, then they obviously do not need to repent of a sin they didn't commit.If I recall right, the bible [as per the word of god] mentioned men who sleep with men as being an abomination. If said practice is not being followed by a homosexual, then he/she ain't sinning.
Jesus took the law to an even higher standard:
Matthew 5:27-28 English Standard Version (ESV)
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
But yes, you are correct, if a person is not engaging in a particular sin, then they do not have to repent of it, obviously.The worst that can be said about that person is that he/she is a recovering homosexual. You seem to see abstinence in homosexual sexual activity as not being the same to not sinning any more, merely because the homosexual recognizes and accepts what he/she is [in your words - a sinner]. It seem's you choose to see them as being unrepentant as a result. They don't even have to sit with other homosexuals.
I wouldn't describe them as 'recovering homosexuals', any more that I'd call someone a 'recovering adulterer'.
If a person accepts their identity in Christ and reject sin, then they need not identify as a recovering anything. I'm not a 'recovering sinner'. I am a sinner who is saved by the grace of Jesus Christ. A Christian who struggles with same sex attraction is not a 'recovering homosexual', they are simply Christians saved by the same grace any other sinner is.You've also mentioned Jesus sitting with sinners and that that didn't make him a sinner. I say ditto to a homosexual sitting with other homosexuals and, in a similar fashion to Jesus, being abstinent and not engaging in a sinful practice show's the homosexual is NOT a sinner. It seem's to me that you will never be able to see any self-accepting and same-sex sexually-abstinent homosexual as a non-sinner [in the way Jesus said of repenting and not sinning no more].
'Self accepting'? There is no problem with a person recognising their issues and accepting that they have a problem. That type of inner reflection is very important for anyone.You choose, no matter what any homosexual could do in the way of following what you say is the word of Jesus, to see the recognition and acceptance of being, in your words, a sinner as an automatic sinful practice in itself when it comes to homosexuals, a continuation of homosexual activity, instead of being the start to repentance. It seem's to me that it's you who has the problem with homosexuality, not Jesus, who's word you claim to be following. Your's above refers [The bit you may be confused about is the idea of making sex your identity]. I suggest it is you who is choosing to be confused in an unconfused way.
There is no confusion. Jesus was a Torah observant Jew, who took the law to an even higher standard. Its all about Jesus, and nothing to do with any subjective feelings I have. Its simply an honest reading of the facts we have. Jesus does not call us to be heterosexual, he calls us to be Holy. So whether your struggle is with homosexual sin, heterosexual sin, greed, idolatry etc, the call is to come out of your sin and find your identity with Jesus. This idea that you must identify according to your sexual preference is a modern phenomenon. A Christian is asked to find their identity in Jesus, in the fruits of the spirit, and reject the flesh.
Galatians 5
16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy,[d] drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do[e] such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.0 -
Nobody has to accept being identified as a homosexual. I'm not identified as a heterosexual. Heterosexual is not who or even what I am. Its simply a small detail about a particular part of me.
Everyone is a sinner. And all need to repent. If a person happens to find the same sex attractive, but does not let that give birth to sin, then they obviously do not need to repent of a sin they didn't commit.
But yes, you are correct, if a person is not engaging in a particular sin, then they do not have to repent of it, obviously.
'Self accepting'? There is no problem with a person recognising their issues and accepting that they have a problem. That type of inner reflection is very important for anyone.
There is no confusion. Jesus was a Torah observant Jew, who took the law to an even higher standard. Its all about Jesus, and nothing to do with any subjective feelings I have. Its simply an honest reading of the facts we have. Jesus does not call us to be heterosexual, he calls us to be Holy. So whether your struggle is with homosexual sin, heterosexual sin, greed, idolatry etc, the call is to come out of your sin and find your identity with Jesus. This idea that you must identify according to your sexual preference is a modern phenomenon.[/I]
Your mention of [This idea that you must identify according to your sexual preference is a modern phenomenon] clashed with your identifying homosexuals as such without any reference to other parts [large or small] of their character excepting where it comes [IYO] to their not being christian. You were point blankly stating that a homosexual could NOT be a christian on the basis that they had self-identified as being homosexual and were thus sinners.
You HAD been describing homosexuals as sinners regardless of whether or not he/she/they have been involved in same-sex sexual activity [the abomination mention in the bible] so for you to come out with this - If a person happens to find the same sex attractive, but does not let that give birth to sin, then they obviously do not need to repent of a sin they didn't commit - now [IMO] could be a kindness if you were to keep it permanently in mind. I'm hopeful that quoting back to you your mention of Jesus sitting with prostitutes not making him a sinner had some effect.
I will always see myself as christian because I see that as part of my character, the same way I see being homosexual as part of my character, the second not axiomatic to the first. Cheer's.0 -
aloyisious wrote: »Your mention of [This idea that you must identify according to your sexual preference is a modern phenomenon] clashed with your identifying homosexuals as such without any reference to other parts [large or small] of their character excepting where it comes [IYO] to their not being christian. You were point blankly stating that a homosexual could NOT be a christian on the basis that they had self-identified as being homosexual and were thus sinners.
From the start I have been clear. If you find your identity in sin, you are not in Christ. I never said someone who is same sex attracted could not be Christian, I said somebody who finds their identity in sin is not Christian. I'm a 'gay Christian' has connotations which I laid out early on. There are many that look to corrupt Gods message to affirm their particular sin.You HAD been describing homosexuals as sinners regardless of whether or not he/she/they have been involved in same-sex sexual activity
We are ALL sinners. If you believe that I said that those who are attracted to the same sex are guilty of homosexual sin regardless of their actions, then could you show me where I allegedly said it?I'm hopeful that quoting back to you your mention of Jesus sitting with prostitutes not making him a sinner had some effect.
My concern with you mentioning that in this context is that you don't get it. Jesus met people in their sin all the time, but always called them out of their sin, not affirmed them in it. When the men did not stone the adulterous woman, he said 'Go and sin no more'. He had mercy and grace, an example we should all follow, but he did not affirm her sin. She was not an 'adulteress Christian', but simply a Christian.
1 Corinthians 6
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[c] 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such WERE some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Notice that. WERE. Past tense.I will always see myself as christian because I see that as part of my character, the same way I see being homosexual as part of my character, the second not axiomatic to the first. Cheer's.
What you or I see ourselves as doesn't matter if there is an objective truth that contradicts it. Its what Jesus see's us as that means something. There are many that call themselves Christians that indulge in all sorts of unchristian behaviour. A famous example would be Westboro baptist church.
If you are somebody who affirms sin, then you are contradicting God, and are rebelling against his spirit for the sake of the flesh. By very definition, you cannot follow Christ and be in open rebellion against him at the same time.
If you are somebody who does indeed follow Jesus and rejects sin, then I question the wisdom of identifying yourself by a sin you struggle with. I also would bare in mind, that there are many who seek to affirm homosexuality in christian circles. People like Matthew Vines, those involved with 'The Queen James Bible' etc come to mind. Calling oneself a 'gay christian' confuses the narrative, and may deceive people into thinking that you are advocating the idea that following Christ and affirming homosexuality are compatible.
Matthew 7
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’0 -
From the start I have been clear. If you find your identity in sin, you are not in Christ. I never said someone who is same sex attracted could not be Christian, I said somebody who finds their identity in sin is not Christian. I'm a 'gay Christian' has connotations which I laid out early on. There are many that look to corrupt Gods message to affirm their particular sin.
We are ALL sinners. If you believe that I said that those who are attracted to the same sex are guilty of homosexual sin regardless of their actions, then could you show me where I allegedly said it?
My concern with you mentioning that in this context is that you don't get it. Jesus met people in their sin all the time, but always called them out of their sin, not affirmed them in it. When the men did not stone the adulterous woman, he said 'Go and sin no more'. He had mercy and grace, an example we should all follow, but he did not affirm her sin. She was not an 'adulteress Christian', but simply a Christian.
1 Corinthians 6
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[c] 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such WERE some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Notice that. WERE. Past tense.
What you or I see ourselves as doesn't matter if there is an objective truth that contradicts it. Its what Jesus see's us as that means something. There are many that call themselves Christians that indulge in all sorts of unchristian behaviour. A famous example would be Westboro baptist church.
If you are somebody who affirms sin, then you are contradicting God, and are rebelling against his spirit for the sake of the flesh. By very definition, you cannot follow Christ and be in open rebellion against him at the same time.
If you are somebody who does indeed follow Jesus and rejects sin, then I question the wisdom of identifying yourself by a sin you struggle with. I also would bare in mind, that there are many who seek to affirm homosexuality in christian circles. People like Matthew Vines, those involved with 'The Queen James Bible' etc come to mind. Calling oneself a 'gay christian' confuses the narrative, and may deceive people into thinking that you are advocating the idea that following Christ and affirming homosexuality are compatible.
Matthew 7
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
I'm not sure that someone whose theology is screwed up (assuming identifying as a gay christian is a screwed up theology) means a person isn't a Christian.
Is a person who is born again yet believes still that their works increase their chances of being saved not a Christian? Just because their theology is screwed up (assuming a works theology is a screwed up one.
If one is born again and can't be unborn again (assuming that is a correct theology) then their having a screwed up theology is neither here nor there. Our correct theology doesn't save us0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »I'm not sure that someone whose theology is screwed up (assuming identifying as a gay christian is a screwed up theology) means a person isn't a Christian.
Is a person who is born again yet believes still that their works increase their chances of being saved not a Christian? Just because their theology is screwed up (assuming a works theology is a screwed up one.
If one is born again and can't be unborn again (assuming that is a correct theology) then their having a screwed up theology is neither here nor there. Our correct theology doesn't save us
Affirming sin is not a matter of theological belief. We are talking about camels not gnats.
Do you believe the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who practice homosexuality, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers or swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God?0 -
Advertisement
-
From the start I have been clear. If you find your identity in sin, you are not in Christ. I never said someone who is same sex attracted could not be Christian, I said somebody who finds their identity in sin is not Christian. I'm a 'gay Christian' has connotations which I laid out early on. There are many that look to corrupt Gods message to affirm their particular sin.
We are ALL sinners. If you believe that I said that those who are attracted to the same sex are guilty of homosexual sin regardless of their actions, then could you show me where I allegedly said it?[/I]
Dear JimiTime. Perhaps you can let me know how a same-sex attracted person is not a homosexual? Do you perhaps see them through different prisms? You have stated in your posts that a homosexual is a sinner, merely by him/her being honest and accepting about being homosexual. You described that as finding their identity in sin. All your references to sinners and sin were in relation to homosexuals and homosexuality.
Your attempts to muddy the waters by asking me to show you where you said those who are attracted to the same sex are guilty of homosexual sin regardless of their actions fail. If you recognize and accept the fact that a person who is attracted to the same sex is homosexual, there can [using your definition of sin in reference to homosexuals] be no allegedly about what you wrote as you have written homosexuals are sinners. Anyone who admit's, even to self, he/she is same-sex attracted has to fall within your definition of a sinner. If you choose not to recognize, or even deny, that a same-sex attracted parson is homosexual then you are engaging in obvious self-delusion.
I await your next written definition of what a homosexual's sexuality is with interest.0 -
Affirming sin is not a matter of theological belief. We are talking about camels not gnats.
Of course its a matter of theology. From theology flows how we ought to live.
The question, I suppose, is whether or not a persons theology stacks up (and it is the person, ultimately, who reaps the reward of their theology). We are certainly on dangerous ground if we rest our position on a verse or a word (on this rock .. anyone?)
Do you believe the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who practice homosexuality, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers or swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God?
Given Christians are capable of sexual immorality and thievery and adultery - whilst being Christians, there is more to this than meets the eye.
There is a huge diversity of view in the Christian church. On every matter under the Sun. And those views are genuinely held. If someone genuinely holds homosex (let's say, for simplicity's sake, within the confines of a firm relationship) not sinful then how are they to be considered not Christians?
Does your theology insist that God would not permit someone to genuinely hold such a theology. That they couldn't rest in it? From whence that idea?
The question of what's a gnat and whats a camel probably rests on how much a person knowingly suppresses the conviction that what they are doing is sinful as much as it does on their being an absolute league table of sin.0 -
I suppose these two people on the Dublin parade fall into JimiTime's sinful unchristian category.0
-
aloyisious wrote: »I suppose these two people on the Dublin parade fall into JimiTime's sinful unchristian category.
Not knowing the two people involved in the picture, it's highly likely that neither you nor Jimi have any idea whether they identify as 'homosexual' or not. There are people within Christian churches who argue for the inclusion of same sex couples. Many such campaigners are not themselves attracted to people of the same gender. That is, of course, a completely separate issue from that of how someone identifies.
Reading the last few posts in this thread, it seems as if you and Jimi are arguing past each other, rather than addressing what each other are saying.
Jimi is saying that our sexuality does not determine our identity. I think he makes a very valid point. According to this way of thinking, homosexuality (and heterosexuality, for that matter) is not what somebody is - it is what someone does.
You keep going on about people who are attracted to someone of the same sex. As far as I can see, both you and Jimi are in agreement that such a person, if they abstain from same-gender sexual activity, is in good standing as a Christian. The difference is that you want to label them as a 'homosexual' and Jimi disagrees.
As for whether they label themselves as 'homosexual' or not - that would appear to be argument over semantics. Christianity is not about what labels we put on ourselves (including the label of 'Christian') it is about our relationship with Jesus Christ and our commitment to following Him (which obviously carries implications about behaving in certain ways).0 -
Not knowing the two people involved in the picture, it's highly likely that neither you nor Jimi have any idea whether they identify as 'homosexual' or not. There are people within Christian churches who argue for the inclusion of same sex couples. Many such campaigners are not themselves attracted to people of the same gender. That is, of course, a completely separate issue from that of how someone identifies.
Reading the last few posts in this thread, it seems as if you and Jimi are arguing past each other, rather than addressing what each other are saying.
Jimi is saying that our sexuality does not determine our identity. I think he makes a very valid point. According to this way of thinking, homosexuality (and heterosexuality, for that matter) is not what somebody is - it is what someone does.
You keep going on about people who are attracted to someone of the same sex. As far as I can see, both you and Jimi are in agreement that such a person, if they abstain from same-gender sexual activity, is in good standing as a Christian. The difference is that you want to label them as a 'homosexual' and Jimi disagrees.
As for whether they label themselves as 'homosexual' or not - that would appear to be argument over semantics. Christianity is not about what labels we put on ourselves (including the label of 'Christian') it is about our relationship with Jesus Christ and our commitment to following Him (which obviously carries implications about behaving in certain ways).
Sorry Nick, JT has stated that to identify as homosexual is sinful and he includes homosexuals who accept who and what they are even though they are abstinent of same-sex sexual activity as - in his words - an affiliation making them non-christian as a result. Saying [even to one-self] I fancy another male in a sexual way is [IMO] a point-blank admission that one is homosexual. If that's not both an admission and an affiliation in JT's book, I don't know what is. A JT quote: Thats not saying that you can't be Christian and also be same sex attracted, but you certainly can't identify yourself with the homosexual community but also with Christ:unquote.
I don't understand how a homosexual can take the homosexual out of one's identity to be christian in the way JT seems to think it can be done in order to satisfy his definition of what repentance is. JT say's repentance is the route but say's accepting one is homosexual is sinful by itself. JT's of the opinion that thoughts would suffice to be sinful in a homosexual way. How does a sinner confess to a sin without mentioning the sin, the "excuse me father, I had thoughts about having sex with another man" moments, let alone any admission to actually having had sex with another man?
I used the analogy of a recovering homosexual in regard to a sexually-abstinent homosexual as being necessary for repentance to him and initially he seemed to recognize that that would be necessary, then wrote that he disagreed with it.
He has only started using the words same-sex attraction when it comes to referring to homosexuals in the last page or so and ascribed the introduction of that two-word term to me. To me they are the same thing so I can't explain why he started using the term same-sex attraction. I won't even bother.
Re the picture, I used it to illuminate a question I put to JT some pages back about people who accept their homosexual kin for what they are and asked him if their action in standing with their homosexual kin would put them within his definition of being unchristian, due to alliance with those whom he declared as sinful and non-christian.
I am NOT in any way choosing, referring or implying that the two people in the photo are in any homosexual. It's all about the message on their poster, inclusion of homosexual kin in the church of christ.0 -
Advertisement
-
Came across this article today by chance and thought of this conversation.
https://www.christian.org.uk/features/gay-christian-label-dilutes-gospel/?hp0 -
Came across this article today by chance and thought of this conversation.
https://www.christian.org.uk/features/gay-christian-label-dilutes-gospel/?hp
Had a look/still looking at it. I suggest you delete the https:// AND the /?hp from your link. I copied it all and it didn't work with those parts in the link until I, piece by piece, deleted them. It's a UK Christian Institute magazine.0 -
I find this interesting with regard to the Queen as Protector Of The Faith, a branch of the Christian religion and wonder how she will have to view the matter. Her cousin, Lord Ivar Mountbatten, is marrying his fiancée and partner James Coyle at a private chapel on Wednesday. Lord Mountbatten was formerly married for 16 years to Penny his wife with whom he had 3 daughters. Before that marriage, he told her he was bisexual. He came out publicly in 2016. Penny will be giving him away at the wedding, an idea thought of by their daughters.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5849971/Royal-familys-gay-wedding-story-Queens-cousin-Lord-Ivar-Mountbatten.html0 -
The man is a third cousin, once removed, of the present English queen. This is about the least interesting aspect of the story.aloyisious wrote: »I find this interesting with regard to the Queen as Protector Of The Faith, a branch of the Christian religion and wonder how she will have to view the matter. Her cousin, Lord Ivar Mountbatten, is marrying his fiancée and partner James Coyle at a private chapel on Wednesday. Lord Mountbatten was formerly married for 16 years to Penny his wife with whom he had 3 daughters. Before that marriage, he told her he was bisexual. He came out publicly in 2016. Penny will be giving him away at the wedding, an idea thought of by their daughters.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5849971/Royal-familys-gay-wedding-story-Queens-cousin-Lord-Ivar-Mountbatten.html0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »The man is a third cousin, once removed, of the present English queen. This is about the least interesting aspect of the story.
I kept in mind, having being reminded by other posters here in the past, that this thread is in the Christian forum so mentioned that link upfront as relevant. I was also thinking about, shall we say, the way that men and women of public figurehood or a certain era/age would have felt obliged to follow the straight married life path for public appearance in the established way and that the age-old way was changing. There may be a chance that people directly linked to HRH could, in the future, be more open about possible relationships as a result of the ice being broken.
Friends of mine followed that path here before ending their marriages to their spouses in non-amicable ways due to a natural "how could you" manner response from a feeling of betrayal and being deceived from spouse and children.
He, being of the establishment, so to speak, seems to have originally toed the line but following on from change of public opinion on marriage, has now felt able to be publicly honest on his personal situation. It's also, IMO, naturally good that his ex and his daughters have taken to the situation well.0 -
Mountbatten identifies as bisexual, so his entering into a same-sex relationship now doesn't necessarily imply that his previous opposite-sex marriage was inauthentic, dishonest, a "cover", or anything of the kind. We don't know when or how he disclosed his bisexuality to his wife, but her attitude to his present relationship might suggest that it hasn't come as a complete suprise to her, and she doesn't feel that she has been deceived or treated badly. I completely get that in many cases the history will have been very different and/or the case will be one of homosexuality rather than bisexuality. Spouses will understandably feel deceived, bewildered, angry, betrayed, etc - not because of the later same-sex relationship but because they now fear their own relationship to have been based on something inauthentic or dishonest. It must be a devastating experience.
But many families - including many Christian families - will have stories of this kind and, honestly, I don't see the queen's rather distant cousinhood to Mountbatten, and her position in relation to the Church of England, as having a huge relevance here. There must be many Christians who have entered into a heterosexual marriage based either on a failure to recognise or accept their own orientation, or on at attempt to deny or manage it, and as time passes that may present painful choices and huge challenges to them, to their families and to their wider Christian communities. You don't need to be a third cousin once removed to Queen Elizabeth for this issue to present itself.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Mountbatten identifies as bisexual, so his entering into a same-sex relationship now doesn't necessarily imply that his previous opposite-sex marriage was inauthentic, dishonest, a "cover", or anything of the kind. We don't know when or how he disclosed his bisexuality to his wife, but her attitude to his present relationship might suggest that it hasn't come as a complete suprise to her, and she doesn't feel that she has been deceived or treated badly. I completely get that in many cases the history will have been very different and/or the case will be one of homosexuality rather than bisexuality. Spouses will understandably feel deceived, bewildered, angry, betrayed, etc - not because of the later same-sex relationship but because they now fear their own relationship to have been based on something inauthentic or dishonest. It must be a devastating experience.
But many families - including many Christian families - will have stories of this kind and, honestly, I don't see the queen's rather distant cousinhood to Mountbatten, and her position in relation to the Church of England, as having a huge relevance here. There must be many Christians who have entered into a heterosexual marriage based either on a failure to recognise or accept their own orientation, or on at attempt to deny or manage it, and as time passes that may present painful choices and huge challenges to them, to their families and to their wider Christian communities. You don't need to be a third cousin once removed to Queen Elizabeth for this issue to present itself.
The story ran that she was aware from before their wedding that he was, at least, bisexual. Some men and women [I cant say all] who are LGBT and have married an opposite-sex partner and then come out later as LGBT would have declared themselves as being bisexual initially and then followed that up later with saying they were same-sex attracted. It's part of the slow self-admission way LGBT folk get to recognition of who and what they are, as it's initially a shock to the system. I get your point about the other partner in the original marriage feeling that the person he/she wedded acted with mal faith throughout their whole marriage, including any responsibility towards offspring born within the marriage.
There's a split between the English branch of the Anglican church and those branches abroad on the issue of LGBT folk being part of the church. The same may also apply to home parishes. In respect of the Queen, or the heir to the throne, with it's allied [Fid Def] duties to the church, there would be [it seems to me] a chance that the faith differences between the different branches of that church might reach schism point should the royals officially recognize the presence of LGBT folk within that church.
By officially I include even acknowledgement of the O/P's situation, as people [from both straight and LGBT sides] would see that as an official or de facto recognition of the new marriage/wedding, even if it WERE NOT SO.0 -
aloyisious wrote: »Lord Ivar Mountbatten, is marrying his fiancée and partner James
Fiancé, no?Life ain't always empty.
0 -
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »Fiancé, no?
Yes. didn't cop the 2nd e error in fiancé. Took me a while to re-find the accent device. They seem to have been an item for some time so I stuck in the word partner as well.0 -
The Irish Society for Christian Civilisation - Irish TPF has written a letter and is asking the public to sign a F/B petition to Archbishop Diarmuid Martin to dis-invite Fr James Martin SJ from the World Meeting of Families event here this August. They are upset by what they see as Fr Martin's opposition to the church's teaching on human sexuality. In 2017 Pope Francis appointed Fr Martin as a consultant to the Vatican's Secretariat for Communications. Fr Martin writes for, and is editor-at-large for, the Jesuit magazine America.
Fr John Zuhlsdorf thinks Fr Martin is homosexual and secretly hates himself and this explains why Fr Martin is "obsessed" with homosexuals. http://voxcantor.blogspot.com/2017/06/james-martin-sj-homosexual-sex-obsessed.html.0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 26383
aloyisious wrote: »The Irish Society for Christian Civilisation - Irish TPF has written a letter and is asking the public to sign a F/B petition to Archbishop Diarmuid Martin to dis-invite Fr James Martin SJ from the World Meeting of Families event here this August. They are upset by what they see as Fr Martin's opposition to the church's teaching on human sexuality. In 2017 Pope Francis appointed Fr Martin as a consultant to the Vatican's Secretariat for Communications. Fr Martin writes for, and is editor-at-large for, the Jesuit magazine America.
Fr John Zuhlsdorf thinks Fr Martin is homosexual and secretly hates himself and this explains why Fr Martin is "obsessed" with homosexuals. http://voxcantor.blogspot.com/2017/06/james-martin-sj-homosexual-sex-obsessed.html.
I've come across their Facebook sponsored advert (no idea why I'm targeted), the comments section doesn't appear to be going their way with many more people being fine with his none extreme views against gay people and how the church should be more accepting and welcome them0 -
aloyisious wrote: »Fr John Zuhlsdorf thinks Fr Martin is homosexual and secretly hates himself and this explains why Fr Martin is "obsessed" with homosexuals. http://voxcantor.blogspot.com/2017/06/james-martin-sj-homosexual-sex-obsessed.html.
Quite the neck on him making that argument given the content of his blog,if anyone is obsessed with the subject it isn't Fr Martin.0 -
Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 26383
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/mary-mcaleese-s-son-calls-for-one-kind-of-marriage-in-north-1.3583652Mary McAleese’s son calls for ‘one kind of marriage’ in North
Gay rights campaigner says ‘faith has no place in secular, registry office marriage’
To be fair he is right, nobody wants to force any church to perform marriages for gay couples. This is about the state, not religious groups recognising them0 -
I've gotten an invitation to like the page of and join the Irish Society for Christian Civilisation, the curse of temptation is upon me.0
-
This news report has certainly left me gobsmacked - only this week, a safe burial place for Matthew Shepherd 20 years after his murder.
https://nypost.com/2018/10/25/matthew-shepard-murdered-gay-student-finally-laid-to-rest/0 -
The US House of Representatives passed the Equality Act vote 236 - 173 on Friday last. Zero Democrats voted against it, all the nay votes were Republican.
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/05/18/house-of-representatives-approves-equality-act/
The USCBB [Catholic Board of Bishops] responded to the vote outcome and passing of the act with the statement in the link below. It seems they are worried about the effects they say it will have on women's rights in federal law, abortion, sex and marriage and that the act exempts itself from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.
https://www.indcatholicnews.com/news/371270 -
I dont know if the specific thread related to the Belfast Asher Bakery gay wedding cake court action is still active or if its been deleted. The case is now going to the ECHR on a point of law, that the UK Supreme Court failed to give enough weight to the human rights of the plaintiff Gareth Lee, who first took legal action, when it decided in favour of the bakery and against the N/I Human Rights commission ruling on the case. The latest action is against the UK as it is a member of the ECHR and not against the Asher family bakery as their right to privately hold religious or political views. I thought it was done and dusted.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/ashers-bakery-gay-cake-case-goes-to-european-court-944245.html0 -
Robindch noted this development over here.aloyisious wrote: »I dont know if the specific thread related to the Belfast Asher Bakery gay wedding cake court action is still active or if its been deleted. The case is now going to the ECHR on a point of law, that the UK Supreme Court failed to give enough weight to the human rights of the plaintiff Gareth Lee, who first took legal action, when it decided in favour of the bakery and against the N/I Human Rights commission ruling on the case. The latest action is against the UK as it is a member of the ECHR and not against the Asher family bakery as their right to privately hold religious or political views. I thought it was done and dusted.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/ashers-bakery-gay-cake-case-goes-to-european-court-944245.html
This will be a slow-burning one - the ECtHR is not really designed for rapid action. The first stage, if I recall correctly, will be arguments about whether the complaint is even admissible, before they get on to arguing the merits of the issue itself.
Might be wise, if and when there's more to be said about this, to open a new thread, specifically directed at the Asher case. Because of the slow pace of movement, posts about Asher in the more general threads may be swallowed up, and prove hard to find.0 -
Remembering the gay marriage debate leading up to the ref and the dire predictions that would occur if gay marriage was allowed. Have any of these predictions been realised yet or are there any signs of negative consequences from gay marriage, from a Christian perspective?0
-
Advertisement
-
I can imagine the credibility of those who were telling us that society was going to hell in a handcart has taken yet another dent.
Of course, whether you regard that as a bad thing or a good thing depends on your point of view...Life ain't always empty.
0
Advertisement